PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 116/2000 - 10 November 2000
---------------------------------
"What worries me is not the short term embarrassment of the
development of this latest alert and its misinterpretation by the
media, but that we have a long-term need to deal with NEOs as a
physical threat and with NEO news and prospects. If we fail with
the latter,
alienating the public or making the subject a matter for
automatic jocular
dismissal by the public and the politicians, we will destroy our
prospects for the former. The fact that it is extremely likely
that we
shall see no serious impact in our lifetimes is beside the point;
the
responsibility for inhibiting appropriate reaction to threats on
such a
scale is arguably unprecedented."
-- Jon Richfield, 10 November 2000
(1) THE LEONIDS ARE COMING: EXPECTATIONS FOR LEONIDS METEOR
ACTIVITY
Marc Gyssens <marc.gyssens@luc.ac.be>
(2) LEONID METEOR BALLOON RISES AGAIN
NASA Science News <snglist@lyris.msfc.nasa.gov>
(3) U.S. EAST COAST MAY OFFER BEST VIEW OF LEONIDS METEOR SHOWER
Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
(4) ASTEROID SCARES: YET ANOTHER MODEST PROPOSAL
Jon Richfield <jonr@iafrica.com>
(5) HOW TO WIN IN THE MEDIA GAME
Matthew Genge <M.Genge@nhm.ac.uk>
(6) BALONEY ON ANY WAITING PERIOD
A J Mims <A.MIMS-JR@West.Boeing.com>
(7) KEEP GOOD INTERDISCIPLINARY MIX
Joel Gunn <jdgunn@mindspring.com>
================
(1) THE LEONIDS ARE COMING: EXPECTATIONS FOR LEONIDS METEOR
ACTIVITY
From Marc Gyssens <marc.gyssens@luc.ac.be>
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M E T E O R O R
G A N I Z A T I O N
Press release
Night of November 17-18: expectations for Leonid meteor activity
================================================================
From, mainly western, Europe and Africa, as well as from large
parts of
North America, Central America and parts of South America, people
may see a
lot of meteors - "shooting stars" - between midnight
and dawn of the night
of November 17 to 18, provided skies are clear. These meteors
belong to the
so-called Leonid shower.
A first peak, visible from western Europe and Africa (including
central
Europe) and NE South America, is expected around 3:44 a.m.
Greenwich Mean
Time, which is 4:44 a.m. local time for most of the favored
continental
European and African locations, 3:44 a.m. for the British Isles,
mainland
Portugal, and the Canary Islands, and 1.44 a.m. for eastern
Brazil.
A second peak, visible from large parts of North America, Central
America,
and NW South America, is expected around 7:51 a.m. Greenwich Mean
Time,
which is 3:51 a.m. Atlantic Standard Time, 2:51 a.m. Eastern
Standard time,
1:51 Central Standard Time, and 0:51 a.m. Mountain Standard Time.
This peak
falls too early for Pacific Time Zone locations, unfortunately.
At the times mentioned above, an observer at the indicated
locations may
expect to see 50 to 100 meteors per hour. A veritable
meteor storm with
several tens of meteors per minute as last year is much less
likely this
year, but not ruled out. Therefore, vigilance is called for!
The International Meteor Organization, who collects meteor
observations
world-wide for the purpose of analysis, wishes to point the
attention of the
public to this spectacular natural phenomenon.
The Leonids are caused by a stream of predominantly very small
particles,
less than 1 mm in size, which orbit the Sun with a period of 33
years,
together with their parent comet, Tempel-Tuttle. The orbit of the
Leonid
particles happens to intersect the Earth's orbit. Each year
around November
17, when the Earth is at this intersection, Leonid particles may
enter the
Earth's atmosphere and cause meteors, popularly called
"shooting stars."
This year, around 3:44 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time, in the morning
hours of the
night of November 17 to 18, the Earth will pass through the outer
regions of
a reasonably dense dust trail of Leonid particles ejected by
Comet
Tempel-Tuttle 8 orbital revolutions (267 years) ago. Around 7:51
a.m.
Greenwich Mean Time, the Earth will pass through the outer
regions of
another dust trail, ejected 4 orbital revolutions (134 years)
ago.
Results on past encounters of the Earth with these particular
dust trails
are scarce, making it hard to predict the level of activity. The
tentative
frequency of around 100 meteors per hour is our best guess, but
the real
activity may be both higher or lower! Should Leonid meteor
activity not
rise above expectations in 2000, it is good to know that Leonid
meteor
storms are probable in 2001 and 2002, too!
Actually, Leonid meteors can be seen every year around November
17. Along
the larger part of Comet Tempel-Tuttle's orbit, however, Leonid
particles
are scattered sparsely, so that, in most years, we see only a few
Leonid
meteors per hour. Only in the vicinity of the Comet, the density
of Leonid
particles is much higher. Therefore, we observe much higher
Leonid activity
every 33 years during a couple of years, when Comet Tempel-Tuttle
revisits
our region of the Solar System. In some instances, we even see a
real meteor
storm!
Old chronicles contain references to past Leonid meteor storms
back to the
10th century A.D. The best-known Leonid meteor storms are those
of 1833 and
1966, when tens of meteors per second darted across the skies
during the
peak hour! The 1833 meteor storm was so spectacular that it in
fact launched
meteor research as a branch of astronomy. Since the 1966 meteor
storm, Comet
Tempel-Tuttle has completed another revolution around the Sun.
The passage
of the Comet through its closest point to the Sun on February 28,
1998
marked the beginning of a five-year period (1998-2002) during
which strongly
increased Leonid meteor activity is again possible.
Although 1998 gave us an unexpected (but meanwhile convincingly
explained)
fireball shower, the first storm in the present Leonid epoch
occurred last
year, with a peak activity around 60 meteors per minute (yielding
an
equivalent hourly rate of 3700). Both peak time and actual
activity matched
the predictions by astronomers David Asher and Robert McNaught
very well, so
that there is good hope that the predictions for the period
2000-2002 are
reliable, too.
In order to see meteors, the sky must be clear and the selected
observing
site should preferentially be free of light pollution; the less
light, the
more meteors will be seen! Notice that Leonid meteors cannot be
seen before
around midnight. Hence, there is no point in starting an
observation
earlier. Die-hards who do not want to miss anything of the show
should then
continue to watch until dawn. People who cannot afford to stay up
that long
should focus on a period of 1 to 2 hours centered around the
predicted peak
time for their region.
Mind that it can be very cold in mid-November: warm clothing
adapted to the
local climate is essential! For comfortable observing, use a
reclining
chair, and install yourself in a suitable sleeping bag or under
several
blankets. While observing, do not fix a particular star, but look
relaxedly
and patiently to a wide area of sky and wait for shooting stars
to appear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information on the Leonids can be found in the International
Meteor
Organization's bimonthly journal WGN and on the internet, at
http://www.imo.net and http://www.amsmeteors.org/imo-mirror.
For questions, contact Marc Gyssens at wgn@imo.net or +32-477-64 05 48.
Notice that the International Meteor Organization will send out a
new
release with first results on the Leonids during the European
early morning
hours of November 18, immediately after the event. All recipients
of the
present release will automatically receive the new release.
===============
(2) LEONID METEOR BALLOON RISES AGAIN
From NASA Science News <snglist@lyris.msfc.nasa.gov>
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast09nov_1.htm?list20392
NASA Science News for November 9, 2000
November 9, 2000: On Nov. 17 and 18, 2000, space forecasters
expect a series
of Leonid meteor outbursts with flurries possibly exceeding 100
shooting
stars per hour. Observers in Europe, Africa, and the eastern half
of the
United States and Canada are generally favored for best viewing,
but the
Leonids are notoriously unpredictable. Everyone, everywhere
should remain
alert for meteors during the hours before local dawn next Friday
and
Saturday. [Observing tips!]
Meteor watching under a crisp November sky with twinkling stars
and bright
planets is an experience that's hard to beat -- even at 3 in the
morning!
But if clouds, rain, or city lights threaten to spoil your
pre-dawn
stargazing adventure, NASA scientists are prepared to help.
Before dawn on Saturday, Nov. 18th, a team of astronomers and ham
radio
amateurs at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) plan to
launch a
specially-equipped weather balloon to monitor the Leonid meteor
shower
100,000 feet above Earth's surface, far from obscuring clouds and
urban
light pollution. Video from the flight will be broadcast live on
the web at
LeonidsLive.com and replays will be available less than 24 hours
later.
This will be the third annual Science@NASA-sponsored
broadcast of the
Leonids from the stratosphere. In 1998 and 1999 more than two
million people
watched live webcasts during the meteor shower or saw replays the
morning
after.
This year's liftoff is scheduled for 0630 Greenwich Mean Time
(0030 CST) on
Saturday, Nov. 18th, from the Marshall Space Flight Center's
Atmospheric
Research Facility (ARF). The balloon will carry a sensitive
low-light CCD
video camera to monitor the shower from an altitude of about 32
km (100,000
ft).
"Earth is going to pass through the outskirts of three
meteoroid debris
streams from comet Tempel-Tuttle on Nov. 17th and 18th,"
says Marshall
astronomer Mitzi Adams. "The last of the three stream
encounters will take
place at approximately 0800 GMT on Nov. 18th, just as the meteor
balloon is
reaching its maximum altitude. The timing couldn't be
better."
"The balloon will carry a sensitive CCD camera to record the
meteors," added
Ed Myszka, an engineer and radio amateur who built the balloon
payload. "The
field of view will be about 20 degrees. That's about twice the
size of the
bowl of the Big Dipper.
"We plan to downlink the video to our ground station at the
ARF as an
amateur TV signal at 426.25 MHz -- that's Cable Ready TV Channel
58. The
transmission should be detectable for several hundred miles
around the
launch site. Hams in the vicinity of north Alabama and Tennessee
will be
able to monitor the flight themselves. And of course the video
stream will
be available for everyone on the web at LeonidsLive.com."
Sound effects during this year's flight will be provided by an
INSPIRE VLF
radio receiver, which is sensitive to radio emissions below 10
kHz. The very
low frequency (VLF) radio band is filled with exotic-sounding
signals called
spherics, tweeks and whistlers. All three are impulsive bursts
caused by
distant lighting. "Spherics," which are caused by
lightning strokes within a
couple of thousand kilometers of the receiver, sound like twigs
snapping or
bacon sizzling on a grill. Tweeks and whistlers are caused by
more distant
lightning, and sound like brief descending musical tones.
Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at the Marshall Space Flight
Center,
thinks that the VLF receiver might also pick up natural radio
emissions from
the Leonid meteors.
"Meteoroids produce an ionized trail as they plow through
the atmosphere,"
explained Gallagher. "There's a low density wake right
behind the meteoroid.
Because electrons are more mobile than protons, they move in to
fill the
void faster. That could set up plasma oscillations and trigger
radio
emissions."
The VLF receiver was donated to the Marshall Space Flight Center
for this
and future flights by the Goddard INSPIRE program. It's been
christened the
"Marina receiver" after the daughter of Flavio Gori, an
Italian scientist
who first suggested flying the receiver.
Gallagher and his colleagues also plan to operate another VLF
receiver at
the launch site to provide a ground reference for comparison with
data
collected from the stratosphere. During the flight, signals from
the
receiver will be converted to audio sounds and transmitted along
with images
from the CCD video camera. Web viewers at LeonidsLive.com will be
treated to
an unusual combination of meteoritic sights and sounds.
The question of radio emissions from meteors is an intriguing
one, says
Gallagher, and you don't need to send your receiver to the
stratosphere to
listen in. Anyone with a VLF receiver can monitor the Leonids on
November 18
and Gallagher hopes that INSPIRE participants across the USA will
join in
the effort. The best way to collect data is to record the output
of the
receiver on a two-track audio recorder. Record the VLF signal on
one track
and a WWV time signal on the other. This way VLF pulses can be
correlated
with the times of bright meteors seen from your observing site.
It's also a
good idea to conduct at least one observing session a few days
before or a
few days after the Leonids for comparison.
For more information about the Leonids 2000, including
predictions and
observing tips, please visit LeonidsLive.com. Daily meteor counts
and
information about other meteor showers are available at
SpaceWeather.com.
===========
(3) U.S. EAST COAST MAY OFFER BEST VIEW OF LEONIDS METEOR SHOWER
From Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
Steve Roy
Media Relations Department
Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, AL
(256) 544-0034
steve.roy@msfc.nasa.gov
For Release: November 8, 2000
Release: 00-311
North America's East Coast may offer best view of Leonids meteor
shower, say
NASA scientists
Six teams of scientists led by NASA's Marshall Space Flight
Center in
Huntsville, Ala., will monitor the annual Leonids meteor shower
this month
when the phenomenon is brightest over the North American
continent.
Part of the monitoring activities will include the launch of a
weather
balloon carrying video and audio equipment which will allow
scientists and
the public to actually hear what a meteor sounds like as it
crashes into
Earth's atmosphere.
The public, particularly along the East Coast, also will be able
to look up
and, depending on weather conditions, see perhaps 700 or more
shooting stars
per hour.
Three peak times for the showers are forecast for the East Coast
-- Nov. 17
at about 3 a.m. EST and again at 11 p.m. EST, and Nov. 18 at
about 3 a.m.
EST -- according to Bill Cooke, senior computer scientist at the
Marshall
Center.
A Leonids shower happens every year when Earth passes close to
the orbit of
the comet Tempel-Tuttle and the debris left in the comet's path.
As Earth
travels through the comet dust, the debris burns up in the
Earth's
atmosphere resulting in shooting stars or meteors. Some of these
dust
streams actually broke away from the comet long ago. Meteors
visible this
year date to 1932, 1866 and 1733.
"This year, the Moon will be in the constellation Leo --
practically on top
of the Leonids radiant," said Mitzi Adams, a Marshall Center
astronomer.
"Moonlight will make fainter meteors hard to spot, but if
there's a strong
outburst, stargazers could see plenty of Leonids in spite of the
bright
Moon."
Because this year's peak meteor activity is not projected to
reach storm
level -- at least 1,000 meteors per hour -- Marshall scientists
will use the
opportunity to test their accuracy at predicting Leonids
intensity.
In 1999, a true "storm" occurred when up to 3,700
meteors per hour were
recorded over Israel.
"We can predict within minutes the time the meteors will
peak," said
Marshall Space Environment Team researcher Dr. Rob Suggs.
"What we have
trouble with is predicting the intensity."
If the intensity of a Leonids shower can be accurately predicted,
scientists
will know which way orbiting satellites should be turned to keep
them
operating smoothly during meteor activity.
"Satellites are an integral part of our lives now, so
anything that affects
these satellites directly affects our lives," Suggs said,
citing as examples
communications and television satellites.
To help protect these satellites from the fast-travelling
meteors, Marshall
scientists will analyze information from the various monitoring
teams and
pass it along to satellite operators.
Although a typical meteor is smaller than a grain of sand, it
travels 12
miles (20 kilometers) per second. Leonids are the fastest of all
meteors --
traveling at about 44 miles (71 kilometers) per second. At that
speed, a
Leonids meteor could travel from New York to Los Angeles in about
one
minute.
Heavy Leonids meteor storms are predicted for 2001 and 2002.
"We are getting predictions from models for next year in
excess of 10,000
meteors per hour over East Asia and Mongolia," Suggs said.
"In 2002,
predictions are in excess of 25,000 meteors per hour over the
East Coast of
the United States."
The Marshall Center is NASA's lead center for monitoring and
forecasting
meteor showers. Huntsville scientists will begin monitoring Nov.
16, using
two image-intensified camera systems and recording the meteors
onto
videotape.
"This year we also have a forward-scatter radar that will
allow us to 'hear'
the meteors," Suggs said, explaining that the noises are
caused by the
meteors interacting with ionized gas or plasma in the Earth's
atmosphere.
Besides monitoring the Leonids from Huntsville, Marshall
scientists also
will coordinate monitoring teams at the following locations:
* Mount Allison Observatory in New Brunswick, Canada.
* Elginfield Observatory at the University of Western Ontario, in
London,
Ontario.
* The University of Regina in Saskatchewan, Canada.
* U.S. Air Force LINEAR (Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research)
Observatory
in Socorro, N.M.
* Calar Alto Observatory near Almeria, Spain.
In addition to the observing teams, Marshall scientists, weather
permitting,
will launch a 10-foot (3-meter) diameter weather balloon from
Marshall's
Atmospheric Research Facility at 12:30 a.m. CST on Nov. 18. The
balloon will
ascend approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers), carrying a
sensitive camera
for capturing high-resolution television pictures of the meteors.
During the
three-to- four-hour flight, the television pictures can be viewed
online at
the Marshall Center's Science Directorate Web site at:
http://www.leonidslive.com
The balloon also will carry a very low frequency radio receiver
that will
allow visitors to the Web site to hear the "whistlers"
and other bizarre
noises that meteors might make as they enter the Earth's
atmosphere.
On-board transmitters will allow local amateur radio operators,
or "hams,"
to track and retrieve the balloon.
Note to Editors/News Directors: Media are invited to schedule a
visit with
the Marshall Center's Leonids monitoring team during operations,
including
the balloon launch on Nov. 18. To attend the balloon launch or
talk with the
Leonids monitoring team, news media representatives should
contact Steve Roy
of the Marshall Media Relations Department at (256) 544-0034, or
beeper
1-800-821-9641. A cellular phone number will be made available to
interested
media for 24-hour, up-to-date, information during the Leonids
monitoring.
Interviews, photos and video supporting this release are
available to news
media representatives by contacting Roy. For an electronic
version of this
release, digital images or more information, visit Marshall's
News Center on
the Web at:
http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news
Print quality photos of the balloon launch preparations will be
available
for downloading from the Marshall Center Web site at a future
date.
[NOTE: An image supporting this release is available at
http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/photos/2000/photos00-311.htm]
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(4) ASTEROID SCARES: YET ANOTHER MODEST PROPOSAL
From Jon Richfield <jonr@iafrica.com>
Benny,
There has been a lot of disagreement and recrimination about
Object 2000
SG344, but I reckon that nothing I have read so far has been
calculated to
avoid similar problems in future. We have in effect a lack of any
adequate
mechanism to inform the media or public and to rebuke the
irresponsible
reporter.
With unusually well-justified modesty (for me!) I confess that I
do not have
any definitive answer to that problem, but how about the
following for a
hopeful gesture in the direction of preventing more of the same
every few
months in future?
What worries me is not the short term embarrassment of the
development of
this latest alert and its misinterpretation by the media, but
that we have a
long-term need to deal with NEOs as a physical threat and with
NEO news and
prospects. If we fail with the latter, alienating the
public or making the subject a matter for automatic jocular
dismissal by the
public and the politicians, we will destroy our prospects for the
former.
The fact that it is extremely likely that we shall see no serious
impact in
our lifetimes is beside the point; the responsibility
for inhibiting appropriate reaction to threats on such a scale is
arguably
unprecedented.
Now:
1) There is NO way we can police everybody's press releases and
even if
we could, it would be a wasteful and doubtfully ethical thing to
try to
do.
2) There is no, NO, *!NO!* way we can educate, persuade or coerce
the
media into anything resembling collective, competent, responsible
reporting of threats and discussion of appropriate planning or
reactions.
Again, to try to do so would be doubtfully ethical.
(Ironic isn't it? Any attempt to control the media is a heinous
crime, while
the only serious crime a member of the media can commit is to
fail to please
the sponsors. You doubt me? I am over-cynical? You will have to
look long
and hard for so much as a collective professional "Tsk
Tsk!" over cynical,
malicious or incompetent reporting. Major news executives have
been
arrogantly outspoken about their total lack of interest in
accuracy, good
faith or corrections to material reported in ignorance,
negligence or bad
faith. And how often is the correction of
even the most disastrous blunder displayed prominently on the
front page?)
3) Even if we could police releases with technical content, the
subject
matter often lends itself to uncertainty and disagreement in the
early
stages. For instance in the current case some reckon that in fact
the
guidelines were appropriate and complied with, while others point
to the
flap and derision that could have been avoided by delaying
another day or
two.
4) Even if the other factors were nullified we still have no
really
useful scale of threat. Personally I have proposed and
supported the
two- or three-digit scales (such as magnitude, probability and
ETA) but my
proposals were seen as either frivolous (which they were not) or
too
difficult for the public. (I question this, but...) The Torino
Scale has the
advantage of being simple because of having only one dimension
and no
logical coherency to worry about.
As for our attitude in attempting to construct a system to
obviate such
problems in future, I commend your attention to John Gall's
grossly
neglected book: Systemantics. (Check "systemantics" on
Amazon). Two of his
many valuable aphorisms are: "Systems run best when designed
to run
downhill" and: "Loose systems last longer and function
better." Trust
me, he knew what he was talking about! Our best bet is to make
sure that
what needs to be known is easily accessible both to the media and
to members
of the public who have the nous to look it up for themselves.
Updates should
be informal in the interests of speed, subject only to
verification of the
good faith and source of the material.
There is no hope of making everyone happy, but we have several
examples of
just how valuable a resource can be without being grossly
expensive.
Www.quackwatch.com, www.badastronomy.com,
various "Skeptic" sites and
www.urbanlegends.com
are examples of quite priceless services
economically maintained largely by volunteers. (It seems that
another one
called CCNet has earned a good level of respect, but its format
is not
currently suited to the proposal that follows.)
For want of a better name (I don't know that this is a
particularly good
one, but we can choose something better at leisure) let's imagine
a site
called www.threatsource.com.
It should not be hard to get a little
sponsorship. Possibly it could be piggybacked onto some other
service,
such as Yahoo or Netscape.
The format could include:
1) Prominently accessible introductory material on the nature and
intention of the site, the nature of the threats considered, the
recommended use of the facilities offered and links to sites
whose
functions might easily be confused with this one or which
supplement this
site, such as CCNet. (In principle there is no need to restrict
discussion
to NEO threats and in fact it would probably be beneficial to
accommodate
as many categories as practical.) As for sponsors' banners, I do
not feel
strongly about anything that does not detract from the usefulness
of the
site as long as it will support the service.
2) Some sort of index facility for seeking items on any
particular
theme or event. I notice that there is a site (I think
www.disasters.com) that
maintains a collection of references to past
disasters, but as far as I can make out, it is primarily
retrospective and
non- analytical. (This is not intended derogatorily, but to
observe that
it does not fulfil the need that I am addressing.)
3) What would amount to a data base of items under discussion.
Items
would be strictly moderated; this is not a freedom-of-the-press
facility, but the equivalent of an informal learned journal,
updated as
appropriate and supported by those recognised as skilled in the
subject matter. Anyone who objects to establishment strictures is
free to
set up his own site where he may be as shrill as he pleases. Note
also the
item on the informal part of the site, described below. We
may be wrong
at times (well, just once, anyway!) in excluding the
"END-IS-NIGH"
sandwichboarders, but then we are not claiming infallibility,
just
responsibility in handling respected sources. The site
would concentrate on
threats of real concern to at least large sections of the
planetary
public and which should at least be notionally addressable; we
might
not be able to do much about say, a really large, wandering
Kuiper
object, but would at least be able to discuss the options.
If the end
really IS nigh, it is not clear *what* to do about it!
4) Each item would have a more or less formal portion
describing:
· The substance of the event, including news,
updated as information
becomes available or as situations develop, together with
authoritative discussions of prospects, implications, urgency and
so on.
· The source(s) of the information, including
contact information if
available and relevant.
· The nature of the threat (NEO, Tectonic,
Climatic, Epidemic etc)
· Scale, scope and probability. Including as many
different scores on
as many different scales as may have found favour
somewhere. Anyone
rejecting complicated three- or five- digit codes or graphic
symbols could
use the Torino scale or whatever other indicators become
fashionable.
It would not be in anyone's interest for us waste our efforts on
partisanship towards one indicator or another, even if the site
did include
a critical assessment of the usefulness and meaning of each
scale.
· Estimated time and location of the threat.
· Proposals for dealing with the threat if
applicable.
· Assessments of the quality and perceived
reliability of the items or
other relevant disagreements or discussions from authorities,
such as
recommended action on the part of the authorities, public and
media.
5) There should be a less formal, but preferably also monitored,
threaded discussion forum in which participants could make
enquiries,
offer information, express views, offer informal information or
proposals etc.
6) For each class of threat there could be a reference text
discussing
the subject in general and an FAQ.
7) A special category of report for debunked reports or
retractions
etc. Well-established hardy-perennial categories of
misinformation could
have their own standing items.
What is the point, you ask?
Suppose we achieve a loose but wide agreement that whatever
authorities may
release to the general media, they also (first?) make the
definitive
background available to threatsource. Anyone who wants the
kudos of making
the FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT could do so in threatsource as early as he
liked,
risking the egg on his face, as long as the monitors accept that
his report
is permissible, even if premature. In the posting the monitors
would then
include their assessment of prematurity or unreliability or
relevance. In
particular their remarks should prominently and right in front,
state the
appropriate status for journalists. (Some sort of ascending
or
multidimensional scale like: Nonsense, retraction, rumour,
speculation,
early and imprecise observations, reasonable confidence about
matter under
investigation, verified, precise prediction and proposed reaction
and so on)
so that if any journalist fabricates an inappropriate doomsaying
certainty,
anyone following up the item will immediately see the associated
warning,
together with any subsequent developments.
Journalists will then be in a far poorer position to snigger or
fulminate
about comic scientists with their fanciful and ephemeral doomsday
scenarios.
There would no longer be a basis for criticising announcements as
either
premature panic mongering or as paternalistically leaving the
public
unnecessarily in the dark.
If things develop well, such a site could become the de facto
first place to
look for information concerning large-scale threats. Only someone
looking
for a paid exclusive would have any incentive to post elsewhere
because this
would be the spot that all the journalists would be keeping an
eye on for
early warning and expert assessment.
Such a threatsource site would be cheap, simple and valuable as a
resource.
It would be imperfect, certainly, but better than anything at
present in
place and would be flexible and self-tuning as people became more
used to
having such a facility available.
I am uncertain how to deal with the status of such postings
relative to
subsequent publication of full report in professional journals. I
suspect
that each journal would have its own policy concerning
pre-publication.
However, a good case could be made for permitting threatsource
releases
where a threat was involved, as long as the threatsource release
referred
adequately tothe prospects for forthcoming publication in the
journal in
question.
OK, that should do for a first pass. Any comments?
Go well all,
Jon
--
Before you can do something, you must first do something else.
===============
(5) HOW TO WIN IN THE MEDIA GAME
From Matthew Genge <M.Genge@nhm.ac.uk>
The SG344 affair has illustrated quite clearly that of all the
things
scientists (including myself) are good at communicating a story
to the media
is not one of them. Leave a scientist in a room for five minutes
with a
journalist and one of them will probably live to regret talking
so much.
To win in the media game scientists must remember what
journalists want. A
journalist has the very difficult job of coming up with one or
more articles
per day that their audience will actually want to read. They have
to plough
through enormous amounts of information and try to identify what
is new,
interesting and significant about a story, then they have to
summarise it,
and they have to do this by yesterday. Journalists want to be
right, its not
in their best interests to publish incorrect information, and if
what a
scientist tells them one day turns out to be different the next
then this is
also news and we shouldnt be surprised that its reported as such.
Giving the media what they need goes a long way to getting your
message
across correctly. The facts, in simplified form, and a few
irresistable
quotes to be used. If there's uncertainty in what you're
presenting then
make sure this is emphasised all the way through so it cant be
misunderstood or left out as an unnecessary complication. Better
still wait
till you're certain before you make definite predictions that
will be quoted
as fact. For SG344 we were right to report the discovery and
hazard, any
delay might appear suspicious, but should the date and impact
probability be
reported as a quantified fact when we knew that it would probably
change
with further observations? A simple statement such as
"A small asteroid SG344 has been discovered that has a
non-zero
chance of colliding with the Earth in the next 50 years.
Observations
over the next few days by astronomers from around the world will
confirm whether this asteroid poses a threat. A press release
will be
issued once the impact hazard has been evaluated."
could have been better. If the discovery was reported in such a
way it is
unlikely that it would have made front page news until its was
confirmed and
best of all we couldn't be accused of withholding information
because the
only things were not saying are the things we're not sure about.
Finally, the best way to win in the media game is not to play. If
you have
to make regular press releases on issues of global importance
then employ a
press officer to do it for you.
Matthew Genge
The Natural History Museum
____________________
Dr Matthew J. Genge
Researcher (Meteoritics)
Department of Mineralogy, The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK.
Tel: Int + 020 7 942 5581
Fax: Int.+ 020 7 942 5537
email: M.Genge@nhm.ac.uk
Staff internet page http://www.nhm.ac.uk/mineralogy/genge/genge.htm
----
"The best way to win an argument is to begin by being
right."
JILL RUCKELSHAUS
=============
(6) BALONEY ON ANY WAITING PERIOD
From A J Mims <A.MIMS-JR@West.Boeing.com>
Benny
I enjoy your work and the open discussion it creates. I must
disagree with
the ego of scientists who believe they know exactly what is good
for the
masses to know and not know. Remember the scientists on planet
Krypton in
the Superman movie? What if there were a high probability of a
huge disaster
in 5 years; and, what if there were a built-in six month period
of silence;
I fear that there would be great pressure during this time to
keep the news
secret altogether. Some greater than average heads might feel
that the
masses not knowing is better. Hogwash- !!
Also if science is a lot like making sausage then it is about
time that the
public found out. Those who can't stand the truth and start
ignoring the
media warnings will actually be part of the solution; as will
those who
overreact and prod the politicians for action.
Never try to keep the truth from the people- even for six
months.
Keep up the good work.
AJ
A J Mims
Senior Principal Engineer-Scientist
==============
(7) KEEP GOOD INTERDISCIPLINARY MIX
From Joel Gunn <jdgunn@mindspring.com>
Dear Benny,
Relative to the comment by Mike Barlow: I follow CCNET because it
has a good
interdisciplinary mix of astronomical and earth system related
information
on geophysics, biological consequences of impacts, social
consequences, etc.
An I generally recommend to others that they follow it for the
same reason.
The global change (warming if you want to take a one-sided
perspective) is
an important part of that mix. I think that departmentalizing
news based on
disciplinary orientation thwarts the underlying utility of the
list serve
rather than enhances it. Selection of global change
research news and
anything else that applies should be made as they relate the
overall
earth-astronomical system in the long and short term.
Joel Gunn
----------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
----------------------------------------
The 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 for any 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.