Slashdot Mirror


Asteroid Impacts Bigger Risk Than Thought

Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "The B612 Foundation, a U.S.-based nuclear test monitoring group, has disclosed that their acoustic sensors show asteroid impacts to be much more common than previously thought. Between 2000 and 2013 their infrasound system detected 26 major explosions due to asteroid strikes. The impacts were gauged at energies of 1 to 600 kilotons, compared to 45 kilotons for 1945 Hiroshima bomb."

8 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. 1-600 kilotons by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Informative

    8/25/2000 (1-10 kilotons) NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN
    4/23/2001 (1-10 kilotons) NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN
    3/9/2002 (1-10 kilotons) NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN
    8/9/2006 (1-10 kilotons) INDIAN OCEAN
    9/2/2006 (1-10 kilotons) INDIAN OCEAN
    10/2/2006 (1-10 kilotons) ARABIAN SEA
    12/9/2006 (10-20 kilotons) EGYPT
    9/22/2007 (1-10 kilotons) INDIAN OCEAN
    12/26/2007 (1-10 kilotons) SOUTH PACIFIC OCEAN
    10/7/2008 (1-10 kilotons) SUDAN
    10/8/2009 (>20 kilotons) SOUTH SULAWESI, INDONESIA
    9/3/2010 (10-20 kilotons) SOUTH PACIFIC OCEAN
    12/25/2010 (1-10 kilotons) TASMAN SEA
    4/22/2012 (1-10 kilotons) CALIFORNIA, USA
    2/15/2013 (>20 kilotons) CHELYABINSK, OBLAST, RUSSIA
    4/21/2013 (1-10 kilotons) SANTIAGO DEL ESTERO, ARGENTINA
    4/30/2013 (10-20 kilotons) NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN

    yyeeeah, those are technically all between 1-600 kilotons.

    Also, between 1 kiloton and 600 gigatons.

    1. Re:1-600 kilotons by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nothing landed at 600 kilotons. That event would have been noticed, so I'm not sure about the purpose of the hyperbole.

      Between 1 and 7,000,000 people who read OP's post got the point.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:1-600 kilotons by darkshot117 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure why that data cuts off at ">20 kilotons", which seems to hide the fact that Chelyabinsk was measured to be 400-500 kilotons. >20 seems to be a bit of an understatement here.

  2. Re:Am I reading this right by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    70% of the time over the ocean, 99.99% of the time over somewhere that isn't populated. It's a 1 in 10,000 occurrence that this happens over a populated area. Given a rate of 2 a year, that means once every 5000 years on average, and many of these will not do any damage. So I'd say this is pretty much pure hype.

  3. Re:Am I reading this right by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Informative

    About 3% of the planets land area is considered "urban". Taking into account the oceans that makes for right around 1% of the total surface area of the planet. That means that any given year there's about a 2% chance of an asteroid explosion happening over a major population area. That means a 1/3 chance of a significant (greater than 1 kiloton) explosion over an urban area over a 50 year time span. That's not crazy high, and most of those will occur at high altitudes, but it's certainly not once in 5000 years.

  4. Wrong Number on Little Boy by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

    Little Boy clocked in at ~15 kilotons, not 45 kilotons per TFS. Fat Man was ~21kilotons, though it was dropped off target and ended up doing less damage than Little Boy.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  5. Re:risk by almitydave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right - if we find out that these are happening much MORE often than previously thought, and yet damage is rare, then it seems like they're LESS of a risk than previously thought. Sort of like finding out that when you swim at the beach, sharks are close by more often than you realized - meaning the risk of them attacking you is lower. If anything this indicates that the Earth's natural asteroid defenses are more robust than previously realized.

    Besides, I remember reading that kiloton-scale atmospheric asteroid detonations happened once every month or two, but this indicates it's less often than that, so they're actually LESS common than I thought. I could have misremembered that stat, though.

    --
    my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
    I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  6. Re:Am I reading this right by ThreeKelvin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your math is off. If your numbers are correct, the risk of having at least one meteor over an urban area during those 50 years is:

    P(N>1) = 1-P(N=0) = 1-(1-0.3*0.03)^100 = 60%