Except in rare circumstances, such as extinction-level events in which the magnitude of danger is large enough to affect all populations in an area with destruction total, whatever the preparation, vulnerability is a socially constructed condition (Wisner, et al. 1976; Wisner, et al. 1994; Oliver-Smith 1996; Oliver-Smith & Hoffmann 2002; Bankoff 2003) which exposes individuals to risk, often unevenly (Bankoff 2003). Where once, theorists After proposing that humans placed themselves in vulnerable positions, returning to rebuild themselves in the same places at risk through “limited rationality” (Wisner et al. 1994), or through ignorance of the dangers (Oliver- Smith 1996), researchers now recognize that many vulnerable people are aware of potential dangers, but are often unable to implement changes to protect themselves (Wisner et al. 1976). The social construction of vulnerability is primarily rooted in existing social patterns “evidenced in a society's location, infrastructure, socio-political organizations, production and distribution systems, and ideology (Oliver-Smith & Hoffmann 2002: 3). These patterns are often linked to power relations and economic forces (Wisner et al. 1994; Bankoff 2003). A top priority among the United Nations' eight Millennium Development Goals, eradicating extreme poverty in the world would significantly improve the ability of billions to protect themselves from natural hazards. Although poverty is not the only cause of vulnerability, nor does it fully explain the complex social relationships at play, economic imbalance remains one of the main factors in identifying vulnerable populations. Throughout the 1990s, developing countries accounted for 94% of the world's largest paper area......ll in Goiania, Brazil, highlights the danger to public opinion when perceived risk exceeds largely the real risk. . After two men, searching an abandoned medical facility, discovered and opened a sealed canister of cesium-137, they exposed their family and neighbors to radiation poisoning. Public fears have led to stigmatization and economic losses far beyond the relatively isolated contamination of a few city blocks. Although the cleanup was very expensive, the community suffered a massive economic hit from the loss of tourism capital, compounded by funding testing for thousands of residents who also feared contamination (Petterson 1988). The stigma itself was used by neighboring communities to gain economic advantage over Goiania through a competitive industry, while many uncontaminated citizens were denied travel and accommodation throughout the country (Petterson 1988).