When you’re caught in a catastrophe but not pressed by injury or urgency (me, Loma Prieta), the biggest problem is the lack of information.

Rumors fly. Cell networks fail. Even the emergency responders have trouble communicating. It’s dreadful.

But understandable. After all, it’s a catastrophe. What bothers me is the inability to get full information in non-catastrophic circumstances.

You know what I mean. We never get the real story about the BART delay or the flight cancellation. We all know that even if warning systems work, the powers-that-be might not tell us to evacuate, lest panic ensue.

It seems to me that the decision to withhold information from the public is based on reasoning like this: “Judging from the mob response when the news reports convey partial information, just imagine the chaos that would reign if we gave them the full story.”

Are they sure? I don’t think such an assumption has been tested. I’m starting to wonder if some of the panic/mob response is provoked by the mob members’ angry suspicion about information screening.

I think there’s abundant evidence that people, when allowed a full range of perception and a little maneuvering room, often perform admirably. I propose we give us a try.