PLEASE NOTE:
*
2002 NT7: DON'T BE SURPRISED ABOUT FLUCTUATING IMPACT
PROBABILITIES SHOULD
THEY ARRIVE
>From Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>
While researchers, the global media and the interested public in
countries around the world are eagerly awaiting the next set of
observations of asteroid 2002 NT7 (and new impact probability
calculations based upon this data), some reports are already
sounding
the all-clear. Under the headline, "DOOMSDAY IS
POSTPONED", The Daily
Telegraph yesterday claimed that the latest impact risk
calculations
essential rule out any remaining concerns:
"The future was looking a little rosier last night after
astronomers
disclosed that the chances of an asteroid crashing into the Earth
in
February 2019, obliterating an entire continent, had lengthened
to one
in 250,000. The latest observations of the massive rock, named
2002 NT7,
now suggest that it will almost certainly miss the Earth"
( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/07/27/nbul27.xml#5
).
Already on Wednesday, my colleague Steve Chesley of NASA's NEO
program
office at JPL tried to re-assure concerned citizens in similar
mode. In
an interview with The Planetary Society, he said:
"We are still monitoring 2002 NT7, but it appears that the
impact
probability might have already started the typical, inexorable
decline
that we normally see in these cases. We picked up more
observations
yesterday and ran them through the impact probability and risk
scales and
all have declined"
( http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2002/Asteroid2002NT7-UnderWatch.html
).
In the same article, Dan Durda of the Southwest Research
Institute in
Boulder, Colorado was even hopeful that "we could get strong
enough
observations to eliminate any potential threat to the Earth
within three
to four days."
I'm afraid here are public expectations raised that may easily
miscarry
unless they are clarified early on:
First of all, it looks unlikely that NT7 will be eliminated from
the
list of virtual impactors within days. Instead, we should expect
a much
longer period of observations before NT7 will be eventually
dropped from
both the Torino and the Palermo Scales.
Secondly, and more importantly, the recent decrease in the impact
probabilities of NT7 tells us absolutely nothing about any
further
decline of the impact risk! This is a dangerous misconception in
urgent
need of clarification.
Of course, NT7 will almost certainly miss the Earth in 2019! That
statement is true regardless whether the odds are 1:60,000 or
1:250,000!
However, The Daily Telegraph and Steve Chesley give the
impression
that increasing odds somehow guarantee the "inexorable
decline" of the
impact probability. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In fact,
there
is a good chance that the next set of observations may lead to a
prolonged period of fluctuating impact probabilities, perhaps
even
raising NT7 temporarily back to a positive Palermo Scale NEA.
I believe it is absolutely crucial for the NEO community in
particular
and science writers in general to understand that this scenario
can
easily happen with additional observational data coming in. After
all,
that is what has actually happened with a number of "virtual
impactors"
in the past. It is thus essential not only to understand that
such
short-lived fluctuations in the impact probability may occur
again - but
also to prepare ourselves and the interested public for such a
latent
incident.
It is out of this concern that I have attached a lengthy paper
which I
presented at a recent NEO workshop. Although it mainly deals with
the disaster management of a hypothetical, future impact, it
focuses
also on the challenging problems we may face with positive
Palermo
Scale NEAs such as NT7. I hope that some of the deliberations and
explanations in my paper will help clarify the potential
uncertainties
we may one day be confronted with.
Benny Peiser
28 July 2002
==============
"PREPARING THE PUBLIC FOR AN
IMPENDING IMPACT"
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce072802.html
1. The low probability phase - takes effect with any object
detected
that has an impact probability below 0 on the Palermo Scale. Most
objects listed on the "impact risk pages" managed by
NEODyS and JPL fall
into this category. No specific public information is required
for such
an event.
2. The moderate probability phase - gets underway with the
detection of
an object that has an impact probability above 0 on the Palermo
Scale.
It would be sensible to post clarifying information on the
various
internet "risk pages." However, at this stage it would
be important to
emphasise that the impact risk will be removed, in all
likelihood, as a
result of additional observational data. Accordingly, there is no
need
for any official press release during this phase.
"PREPARING THE PUBLIC FOR AN
IMPENDING IMPACT"
Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, Faculty of
Science,
Liverpool L3 2ET, United Kingdom, b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk
Paper presented at the International Workshop On Managing
Global-Scale
Disasters, 12 April 2002, Irvine, California
(http://www.westernpsych.org/wp/index.cfm?id=6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser < b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk
>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational
use only. The attached information may not be copied or
reproduced
forany other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders.
The fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on,
can be
found at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html.
DISCLAIMER: The
opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and
texts and
in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the
opinions,
beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this network.
*
CCNet 92/2002 - 28 July 2002
-----------------------------
(1) NEW OBSERVATIONS BY AUSTRIAN AMATEURS ELIMINATE 2019 IMPACT
RISK
Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>
(2) MORE ON THE EARLY EVOLUTION OF THE 2002 NT7 STORY
(3) "FIRST EVER POSITIVE PALERMO SCALE 'VIRTUAL IMPACTOR'
ANNOUNCED -
WITHOUT IAU REVIEW
CCNet, 23 July 2002
(4) "FURTHER OBSERVATIONS WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY ELIMINATE
ANY IMPACT
RISK": MODERATOR'S NOTE PUTS 2002 NT7
INTO PROPER CONTEXT
CCNet, 23 July 2002
(5) TUMBLING STONE'S BREAKING NEWS: "FIRST POSITIVE PALERMO
SCALE NEA"
TUMBLING STONE BREAKING NEWS, 24 July 2002
(6) MEDIA SUMMER: A WORM IN MANHATTEN OR THE END OF THE WORLD?
Tumbling Stone, 25(?) July 2002
(7) EXPERTS: 'LOW-PROBABILITY' OF ASTEROID IMPACT IN
2019
JPL/NASA, 25 July 2002
(8) ASTEROID 2002 NT7 UNDER WATCH, BUT PROBABLY NOT COMING OUR
WAY
The Planetary Society, 25 July 2002
(9) "IT'S ALL CCNET'S FAULT"
Richard A Kowalski <bitnik@bitnik.com>
============
(1) NEW OBSERVATIONS BY AUTRIAN AMATEURS ELIMINATE 2019 IMPACT
RISK
>From Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>
As all NEO experts generally expected, new observations today of
asteroid
2002 NT7 by amateurs from Austria have all but eliminated the
much
reported small impact risk for Feb 1 2019. Three new observations
of the
asteroid reported by the "Private Observatory
Meyer/Obermair" in
Davidschlag near Linz, Austria
(http://newton.dm.unipi.it/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?objects:2002NT7;obs;1;200)
have now removed the 2019 "virtual impact" from NEODyS'
"Risk Page'.
While the now world-famous virtual "Doomsday" impactor
has been removed for
2019, NT7 has not been entirely dropped from the list of virtual
impactors.
Six other "virtual impacts", all with largely negative
Palermo Scale
values remain on NEODyS' Impact Risk Page
(http://newton.dm.unipi.it/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?objects:2002NT7;risk)
2044/02/01.700
2053/01/31.952
2060/02/01.690
2060/02/01.689
2067/02/01.423
2067/02/01.420
As NEODyS's Risk Page makes clear, only the virtual impactors in
2060/02/01.690 and 2060/02/01.689 in the table above are rated as
Torino
Scale 1 (which merit careful professional monitoring, but warrant
no
public concern whatever).
Yet before celebrating too quickly, it would be pruded to caution
interested observers that further observations in the near future
may
result in new virtual impact dates, perhaps even ones with a
positive
Palermo rating. As the wise saying goes: It isn't over until the
fat lady
sings!
Benny Peiser
28 July 2002
20.30 GMT
=================================================
(2) MORE ON THE EARLY EVOLUTION OF THE 2002 NT7 STORY
=================================================
(3) "FIRST EVER POSITIVE PALERMO SCALE 'VIRTUAL IMPACTOR'
ANNOUNCED -
WITHOUT IAU REVIEW
>From CCNet, 23 July 2002
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc072302.html
>From Asteroid/Comet Connection, 23 July 2002
http://www.hohmanntransfer.com/news.htm
It took until early evening Monday at NEODyS in Italy to update
their
impactor table for 2002 NT7
(http://newton.dm.unipi.it/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?objects:2002NT7;risk)
with 13 new observations from Sunday night. And no wonder. With
this
they have placed NT7's February 1st, 2019 "virtual
impactor" at a
first-ever positive Palermo Scale
(http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/doc/palermo.html)
rating of 0.18, up from
yesterday's -0.11, which had been an easing from Saturday's
-0.04. They
and JPL, however, still have the 2019 impactor Torino Scale
rating at
1.0.
JPL's NEO Program site this morning posted a new risk assessment
for NT7
(http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2002nt7.html),
giving it a Palermo Scale
rating of -0.05 cumulatively, while specifically rating the 2019
event
at -0.10. Later in the day these ratings were revised to -0.15
for the
2019 event (better), although the cumulative rating that
incorporates
other later possible events, especially one in 2035, is now -0.02
(worse).
Sunday night's work includes nine observations from Siding Spring
in
Australia, which figured prominently in NEO searches until the
government there cut funding.
Since 18 July, NEODyS and JPL have had NT7 at Torino Scale 1
("merits
special monitoring"). This is a large object with a diameter
estimated
at more than 2 km. (1.4 miles). It has a 42°-inclined orbit that
crosses
the orbit of Mars and barely crosses the orbit of Earth. It
approaches
Earth most closely from south of the ecliptic, where there is
little PHO
surveillance, and that, along with NT7's inclination, may be part
of why
it hasn't been spotted until now.
============
(4) "FURTHER OBSERVATIONS WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY ELIMINATE
ANY IMPACT
RISK": MODERATOR'S NOTE PUTS 2002 NT7
INTO PROPER CONTEXT
>From CCNet, 23 July 2002
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc072302.html
MODERATOR'S NOTE: It is interesting to note that NEODyS appear to
have
announced this first-ever positive Palermo Scale 'virtual
impactor'
without any formal IAU technical review. The IAU encourages such
a
review for any impact prediction that is at a level equal to or
greater
than zero on the Palermo Technical Scale
(http://web.mit.edu/rpb/wgneo/TechComm.html).
According to the IAU
guidelines,
"information leading to an impact prediction, consisting of
an
evaluation of the case and all data and computational details
necessary
to understand and reproduce the studies carried out by the
authors,
should be transmitted for confidential review to the chair of the
IAU
Working Group for Near Earth Objects (WGNEO), the President of
IAU
Division III, the General Secretary of the IAU, and the members
of the
NEO Technical Review Team, before any announcement and/or written
document on the subject be made public via any potentially
nonprivate
communication medium, including the World Wide Web. The
individual
members of the NEO Technical Review Committee shall review the
work for
technical accuracy and shall communicate under most circumstances
within
72 hours the results of their reviews to the chair of the WGNEO
and
directly to the authors of the report or manuscript."
It seems obvious to me and other critics that it is far too
impractical
to submit every positive Palermo Scale object for review. After
all,
neither the computers at NEODyS nor those used by JPL have ever
experienced a problem with the calculation of impact
probabilities. The
pragmatic approach of turning a blind eye to the IAU procedures
(if
that's what happened over the weekend) seems sensible in the case
of
2002 NT7 given that it is almost certain that further
observations of
this 2km asteroid will eliminate any remaining impact threats
currently
listed. Benny Peiser
=============
(5) TUMBLING STONE'S BREAKING NEWS: "FIRST POSITIVE PALERMO
SCALE NEA"
>From TUMBLING STONE BREAKING NEWS, 24 July 2002
http://spaceguard.ias.rm.cnr.it/tumblingstone/issues/current/eng/main.htm
Asteroid 2002 NT7, a relatively large (H=16) Apollo with a still
rather
poorly determined orbit, has been on the Risk Pages of both
NEODyS and
JPL since July 15, as it is associated to a number of Virtual
Impactors.
With the shrinking of the uncertainty region due to the
accumulation of
astrometric observations, many of the VIs found associated with
the
initial, very uncertain, orbit have disappeared, as is normal in
such
cases. Of those that have survived until today, the one related
to an
Earth collision on 1 February 2019 has gone up in the Palermo
Technical
Scale, reaching the value of +0.23, according to the computations
made
by NEODyS in Pisa. This means that, for the first time, the
probability
of a specific impact of a Near-Earth Asteroid turns out to be
larger
than that of the "background". It is still low though,
just one chance
in 100.000.
Copyright 2002, Tumbling Stone
==============
(6) MEDIA SUMMER: A WORM IN MANHATTEN OR THE END OF THE WORLD?
>From Tumbling Stone, 25(?) July 2002
http://spaceguard.ias.rm.cnr.it/tumblingstone/issues/current/eng/main.ht
m
Media summer. A worm in Manhattan or the end of the world?
By Nanni Riccobono -copyright Tumbling Stone
It is summer. Not only regular people get to go on vacation but
also
politicians, businessmen, chief of state, secretaries of the many
departments all over the world. There is very little worthwhile
to be
published front page in these days. Still there is hope that
something
really weird, true or false, could happen. It can be a worm, an
entire
new species, found in Central Park in Manhattan (La Repubblica).
Or it
can be an asteroid bound to the Earth in less than 20 years (La
Stampa).
Well, we deal with asteroids. And of course this particular NEA,
2002
NT7 is not unknown to us. NEODyS - together with Sentry- computed
the
orbits and the VI (virtual impactors) that hit the Media all over
the
world yesterday. But we didn't panic. Strange. It must be because
there
is very little to panic about: it's early to cry an hazard, even
if this
particular object is a Palermo Scale 0,23, the first over the
background, chances it really smash us are 1/100000 and
observations are
still on a short period of time: which means things could change
in a
few weeks. This is reality. But Media don't go with reality, they
go
with fiction, especially in the summer. So much they like
dramatic
situations that a very important in Italy, quoted on Andrea
Milani that
eventually, we must shoot nuclear weapons to 2002 NT7! Better do
not
list all the nonsense that have been published. Do we say so in
name of
an impossible purity of the information published by papers or TV
channels? No. It is because all false alarms have harmed somehow
the
search in the field of NEOs and the try to understand the best
mitigation techniques in case a crash would really happen.
=============
(7) EXPERTS: 'LOW-PROBABILITY' OF ASTEROID IMPACT IN
2019
>From JPL/NASA, 25 July 2002
http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/whatsnew/pr/020725A.html
July 25, 2002
Asteroid 2002 NT7
Asteroid 2002 NT7 currently heads the list on our IMPACT RISKS
Page
because of a low-probability Earth impact prediction for February
1,
2019. While this prediction is of scientific interest, the
probability
of impact is not large enough to warrant public concern.
Discovered on July 9, 2002 by the LINEAR team, asteroid 2002 NT7
is in
an orbit, which is highly inclined with respect to the Earth's
orbit
about the sun and in fact nearly intersects the orbit of the
Earth.
While the orbits of Earth and 2002 NT7 are close to one another
at one
point in their respective orbits, that does not mean that the
asteroid
and Earth themselves will get close to one another. Just after an
asteroid like 2002 NT7 is discovered, the limited number of
observations
available do not allow its trajectory to be tightly constrained
and the
object's very uncertain future motion often allows a very low
probability of an Earth impact at some future date. Just such a
low
probability impact has been identified for February 1, 2019 and a
few
subsequent dates. As additional observations of the asteroid are
made in
the coming months, and perhaps pre-discovery archival
observations of
this object are identified, the asteroid's orbit will become more
tightly constrained and the future motion of the asteroid will
become
better defined. By far the most likely scenario is that, with
additional
data, the possibility of an Earth impact will be eliminated.
This is an example of the type of scenario that we can expect as
some
types of near-Earth objects are discovered. For some objects,
their
uncertain initial orbits cannot be used to immediately rule out
future
very low-probability Earth impacts, but when additional
observations are
used to refine the initial orbit, these low-probability Earth
impact
possibilities will go away. Other recently discovered near-Earth
asteroids will be added to the Risk page until their orbits are
refined
and they are then dropped off the list of closely watched
objects. This
is how the system is expected to work and any initial indication
of a
low-probability Earth impact followed by a removal of that event
from
our IMPACT RISKS tables should not be considered a mistake. It is
a
natural result of the on-going process of monitoring the motions
of
near-Earth objects.
For more information on asteroids, visit NASA's Near Earth Object
Program homepage.
NASA Headquarters
NASA Office of Space Science
=============
(8) ASTEROID 2002 NT7 UNDER WATCH, BUT PROBABLY NOT COMING OUR
WAY
>From The Planetary Society, 25 July 2002
http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2002/Asteroid2002NT7-UnderWatch.html
By A.J.S. Rayl
Asteroid experts are continuing to observe asteroid 2002 NT7,
which was
under watch because preliminary calculations indicated it could
be on a
collision course with Earth. But today the experts are reporting
that
the probability that it will impact Earth on February 1, 2019 is
even
lower today than it was yesterday, despite some sensational news
headlines to the contrary.
"We are still monitoring 2002 NT7, but it appears that the
impact
probability might have already started the typical, inexorable
decline
that we normally see in these cases," says senior engineer,
Steve
Chesley, of NASA's NEO program office at JPL. "We picked up
more
observations yesterday and ran them through the impact
probability and
risk scales and all have declined."
So why was there so much ado about in the media about this
hurtling hunk
of rock? The news about 2002 NT7 was everywhere yesterday and
from some
of the accounts it seemed almost as if 'the sky might falling' -
rather
that the asteroid was on its way, edges ablazing.
"It was picked up from our pages (http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov) and
disseminated and some of the news organizations apparently
decided to
get a little sensational headline out of the deal," suggests
Chesley,
"which is really quite inappropriate in this case."
Asteroid 2002 NT7 still tops the list of NASA/JPL NEO Impact
Risks
because of the low-probability Earth impact prediction for 2019.
But
Chesley and other asteroid experts assure that the sky is not
falling,
and the rock will, in all probability, at this stage, orbit
safely on by
come 2019. "While this prediction is of scientific interest,
the
probability of impact is just not large enough to warrant public
concern," reassures Chesley. "It is unusual, but it's
not anything that
would deserve as much attention as it's gotten."
In fact, Chesley adds: "We've seen much higher
probabilities, but since
this asteroid is quite large, its moderately high probability
combined
with its great size raises it to a higher level on our risk
scales. In
other words, this one went over the threshold on one of the risk
scales
we use, someone noticed and said, 'Hey that's never happened
before.'
There's your story."
NASA's Near Earth Object program gives the asteroid a rating of
"1" on
the Torino impact hazard scale one of two such scales for
determining
the potential risk of asteroids and other objects. That ranking
means it
is within the range of "events meriting careful
monitoring" but not of
great concern.
Indeed, 2002 NT7's crossing the "threshold" was
probably the cause of
the media alarm yesterday, says another asteroid expert, Dan
Durda of
the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado. "This
is the
first time an asteroid has ranked at something above the 'don't
even
think about it' level on the Torino or Palermo scale, the two
measurements that calibrate these objects," points out
Durda. "It means
simply that 2002 NT7 has hit the green level (Level 1 on the
Torino
scale} where it warrants close attention."
Asteroid 2002 NT7, which was first detected earlier this month by
the
Lincoln Near Earth Asteroid Research Project in New Mexico,
orbits the
Sun every 837 days, traveling in a tilted orbit from about the
distance
of Mars to just within the Earth's orbit. The recent detailed
calculations of 2002 NT7's orbit suggest numerous potentialities
for its
projected path through space to intersect the Earth's orbit.
More observations in coming weeks will help scientists to more
precisely
plot the course of the 1.2-mile-wide asteroid and determine the
true
risk. "With every new observation you help tie down the
orbit a little
better," Durda explains. "There's an error ellipse - a
'line' that
passes through somewhere in space which is our projection of
where the
orbit goes for this particular asteroid. More often than not,
that
'line,' which represents our best guess as to where the asteroid
is
going to go, is outside the actual sphere of the Earth
itself." That
error-ellipse is what astronomers will be watching.
Although the latest observations indicate the asteroid is
becoming less
and less of a threat, if that error ellipse shifts to include the
Earth,
"then the bells and whistles go off and we would need to
look at this
object even more carefully," says Durda. "We would then
need to get more
position observations of the asteroid, not only through optical
telescopes, but radar if possible, which is a good way to very
tightly
constrain the orbit. More than likely," he reiterates,
"we're going to
find out that with more observations this object is going to make
a
clean miss and it won't be a problem."
Even so, there is always at this stage some uncertainty, Durda
admits.
While the Torino scale placed 2002 NT7 within the range of
"events
meriting careful monitoring" but not of great concern, there
is always a
remote possibility it could be determined later to be on track
and
heading toward Earth. "More than likely it's not going to be
problem,
but we can't say that yet with absolute certainty," he says.
"There's an
error cloud around the 'line,' if you will, which represents
where
there's a certain probability it may go. The point is, yes, the
Earth is
in that error ellipse and it could potentially hit us."
Still, by all accounts, observations and appearances now, it is
highly
unlikely that asteroid 2002 NT7 will ruin our day come February
1, 2019.
"Imagine a chart, and think about a tiny fraction of area
where a tiny
dot that represents the Earth lies and then compare it to a much
larger
area of the error ellipse," Durda expounds. "With more
observations, the
odds are in our favor that the error ellipse will shrink to the
point
where it doesn't include the Earth and this object is not going
to hit.
That's where we're at. In terms of odds, colloquially, this is a
one-in-a-million kind of odds, that's speaking figuratively, not
statistically. But at this point, people should just not worry
about
it."
Astronomers will be in a mode of observation, says Durda, for the
next
several months. "But we could get strong enough observations
to
eliminate any potential threat to the Earth within three to four
days."
If by some bizarre chance, 2002 NT7 were found with further
observations
to be on a collision course, what then?
"Asteroid 2002 NT7 would rise progressively from green to
yellow to
orange to red priorities on the Torino scale," says Durda.
"Then we're
in a position of where we have to actually start worrying and
thinking
and planning as to what we do. We'd have to kick into high gear
at that
point and figure it out technically. The first thing we'd
probably have
to do is better characterize this object. How large is it? What
is it
made out of - is it a rubble pile or big solid rock? What shape
is it?
And so on. That characterization would determine what we might
do." Some
of the conceived options include nuking it, or pushing it out of
the way
with a rocket.
Currently, there is no master response plan for impending
asteroid
impacts. "A lot of hypothetical plans and ideas and
viewgraphs and
thoughts have been put out there, but nobody's put anything down
into
hardware and actually prepared a real honest-to-gosh operational
plan to
do anything," says Durda. That however, appears to be
changing.
Chesley and Durda are members of an unofficial group that has
taken it
upon itself to think about the asteroid issue, The group - which
has
dubbed itself the B612 group after The Little Prince's asteroid,
and
which includes astronauts Rusty Schwiekart and Ed Lu, and
Princeton's
Piet Hutt, among others - met last October in Houston, Texas, to
discuss
what could be done in the event an asteroid is coming Earth's
way,
including the options, possible technical fixes, and how to
develop a
master plan just in case of any worst case scenario.
It is always advisable, Chesley and Durda note, to be prepared.
If 2002
NT7 did collide with Earth on February 1, 2019, it's impact
velocity
would be an estimated 28 kilometers a second. That, according to
many
scientists, is enough to wipe out a good part of a major
continent and
cause global climate changes and/or giant, destructive tsunamis.
The closest known approach of a sizeable object occurred just
last month
when an asteroid the size of a soccer field missed the Earth by
75,000
miles. That may sound like a solid margin, but in planetary
distance
terms, it is fairly close, less than one-third of the distance to
the
Moon. If that asteroid had hit terra firma, scientists projected
that it
would have released as much energy as a large nuclear weapon.
The public is welcome to "put the sensational stories
aside" and observe
as astonomers observe 2002 NT7 and other near Earth objects at
NASA's
NEO website. "We in the community relish the opportunity for
the public
to understand and see better exactly how this process works, to
understand that nobody is hiding anything and that we don't
necessarily
know immediately whether or not something will hit with
certitude,"
Durda says. "Everybody out there has a stake in
understanding that this
is an issue and considering the options of how we deal with this
issue.
It's a decision for everybody to make."
"It is important that we track and observe Near Earth
Objects - not
enough is being done and that is why The Planetary Society has
launched
the Gene Shoemaker NEO Grants for observing these objects,"
says
executive director of the Society Louis D. Friedman. The
Planetary
Society NEO Shoemaker grants are awarded to amateur observers
primarily
to track objects near the planet, especially those that may pose
a
threat to Earth. The winner of this year's NEO Shoemaker Award
will be
announced Tuesday, July 30.
To follow the tracking of 2002 NT7 and other asteroids go to:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov
===========
(9) "IT'S ALL CCNET'S FAULT"
>From Richard A Kowalski <bitnik@bitnik.com>
Benny, you wrote:
(13) YOU SAY TORINO - I SAY PALERMO: WHY BLAMING THE MEDIA
WON'T WORK
From Benny Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>
Is the media to blame for "an orgy of misinformation
and confusion"
regarding the latest asteroid scare? According to David
Morrison's
analysis (NEO News 25/07/02) it would appear that this is
the case.
After all, impact risk assessors keep mum this time and
"no formal
announcement was made concerning 2002 NT7, since new
observations are
accumulating and the whole situation is likely to resolve
itself
within a few days." So why has asteroid 2002 NT7 been
attracting such
phenomenal interest from news outlets around the globe -
and why the
often inaccurate reporting?
I note that nowhere in your article here do you mention that the
first
wide scale mention of NT7s rating as non-zero was on CCNET.
Please
understand I am not inferring that NEODys or Sentry are blameless
in
posting this information. I would argue that those of us involved
in
this research directly checked these sources and found that they
are of
some interest and should be priorities in our follow up target
lists.
However, please note that this information was not "pointed
out" to the
general public specifically. They generally do not visit these
web
sites. I would suggest that it would be rather dubious to claim
that
science journalists visit these sites with any regularity as
there are
plenty of items of interest and press releases to keep them busy
most of the
time.
The "story" of NT7 broke on CCNET. Both you and I know
that CCNET and
MPML have large numbers of journalists and reporters lurking in
their
ranks and by announcing that NT7 currently has a none zero
rating, you
are in fact why there has once again been "an orgy of
misinformation and
confusion" as Dr. Morrison states.
I do not blame the media for this latest outbreak but firmly
place it in
your lap. I'm sure you will not agree with me, but once again you
are
blaming JPL and Pisa for this instead of looking in the mirror
for the
origin of this latest flap.
As a former firefighter who still has friends that are police
officers
and firefighters as well as being a pilot, I often see and hear
of many
news reports about fires, crime and aviation that just don't even
come
close to what actually happened. These are all every day events
that are
easily grasped by the least of our society and yet after decades
of
practice, factual reporting of them continue to elude those in
the
fourth estate. The NEO threat is much more esoteric than the
everyday
events I mention and I have an even lower confidence in the
people
writing the news in getting the facts correct and placing them in
their
proper importance.
This isn't to excuse them in not getting the facts correct, but
its
obvious that they have little interest in finding the facts out
for
themselves. Instead they parrot the few sources they deem,
correctly or
incorrectly as appropriate. CCNET being one of them. I'm sure
that if
you are honest you will agree that by taking a few minutes to
research
this "story" they would correctly conclude that yet
another object has
popped up that requires additional study and isn't worth their
time to
write a "story" or the ink to publish it. I ask you
where are the
headlines that read "Over 800 NEOs Known - None of them
Threaten
Earth!"? Or how about this one; "NEO 2002 NT7
discovered - Will probably
miss the Earth by Millions of miles in 2019!" They would be
thrown out
of their editor's offices if they tried to write about the facts,
now
wouldn't they?
--
Richard Kowalski
MODERATOR'S NOTE: The first mention of NT7's rating as a positive
Palermo NEA was announceed on NEODyS's impact risk page on
Monday, 22
July. I should point out that the events and calculations leading
up to
this NEODyS announcement were carefully monitored by the
Asteroid/Comet
Connection (A/CC) website, as Bill Allen described in his essay
"How A/CC
broke the 2002 NT7 story" (http://www.hohmanntransfer.com/sas/nt7/).
It was the matter-of-fact report by A/CC, published in New Mexico
on
Monday evening (22 July), which announced the "first
ever" positive
Palermo Scale value this century to a wider public. It was this
web
announcement which I posted on CCNet in the morning of July 23.
Since CCNet is known for posting almost *anything* that may be of
interest to the wider NEO community and interested observers and
science writers, it was simply a matter of routine to post this
"first
ever" rating.
Given past experiences with asteroid scares it seems naive to me
to
protest that the impact risk websites and their impact risk
ratings
are "not 'pointed out' to the general public
specifically." It is
technically correct that the wider public do not visit these web
sites.
At the same time it is patently obvious that a significant number
of the
*interested* public, including a growing number of interested
amteurs, do
visit (and indeed monitor) these websites regularly.
Richard is rather shocked by the global wave of media interest
generated
by 2002 NT7. I guess everyone was utterly surprised just how fast
and
universal this story was tacken up by science reporters around
the globe
shortly after David Whitehouse had posted his initial report on
BBC
Online late in the night of July 23/24. Richard, however,
believes that
NT7 "wasn't worth their time to write a "story" or
the ink to publish
it." Yet even within the NEO community the fact that
"for the first time,
the probability of a specific impact of a Near-Earth Asteroid
turns out
to be larger than that of the "background", was
considered "Breaking
News", as the TUMBLING STONE BREAKING NEWS on 24 July
demonstrates (see
item further below).
Reviewing the way NT7 was published on CCNet, I wish to stress
that in my
note that accompanied the A/CC announcement, I took particular
care to
emphasise the almost certain elimination of NT7's temporary
impact risk
by further observations (a re-assurance that was lacking in
Tumbling Stones'
"breaking news" story). It would appear that this
"almost certain
eliminiation of NT7's temporary risk" has actual started
with today's new
observations. So let's not engage in a unneccessary blame game.
Benny Peiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser < b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk
>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational
use only. The attached information may not be copied or
reproduced
forany other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders.
The fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on,
can be
found at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html.
DISCLAIMER: The
opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and
texts and
in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the
opinions,
beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this network.