So far, the international community's response to disasters has been mostly reactive, with only a limited budget invested in prevention. One reason might lie in the fact that disasters get much more attention and media coverage than preventive measures. Prevention programmes will never offer the striking images that disasters do. When tragic events do get decisionmakers' attention, they are just as easily replaced by the next headlines. Even if there were willingness to invest in prevention, the question would be, where? Obviously such decisions cannot be based on media coverage. The floods that hit India, Nepal and Bangladesh in August 2004 killed 2000 persons and were given a mere 9,000 words in British newspapers, whereas the same day, Hurricane Charley killed 16 persons in Florida and got 19,000 words (Adams 2004). Clearly, there is need for a more objective way of comparing countries at risk.