Before I go any further, could someone enlighten me on how to change the email address to which mailings from the forum are sent? I can't seem to find anything in the emails themselves.
Anyway, no offence taken Terry - I actually agree with you about action, essentially as a matter of cost-effectiveness - and was simply responding to Ilan's questions.
There are two more general things that I think can be concluded from this experience.
a) I wonder how many people in the area were injured because they saw a bright light in the sky, rushed to the window to look - and, wham, were then hit a short time later by window glass shrapnel from the blast overpressure - something, as I said in my original email, that is a risk from any explosive event in an urban setting.
That may raise some questions about post-event emergency advice - e.g. "If you see a bright flash outside, DON'T rush to the window to take a look, get away from windows" And perhaps, for those outside, "Get away from being directly under high level glazing", because again, I wonder what proportion of victims were from such glass cascading onto them from above.
I can't see it as being cost-effective to cover every window in the world with anti-shatter film!
b) However, Roger has a good point - quite often one reads in the popular media somethng along the lines of "as likely as being struck by a meteor(ite)" - florid language for "very unlikely", or "an infinitesimal risk" - but that has no quantitative substance to it. Indeed, my thoughts are that it would be virtually impossible to calculate the odds - because any model would be so complex - and the historical record is so unreliable, as I said.
Perhaps it is better, in trying to convey to the general public the concept of a highly unlikely event, to refer to "as likely as being struck by lightning". The quantitative base to this is far better - >20,000 fatalities globally a year, and x10 that injured. I read that the lifetime odds of being struck (not necessarily of dying) in the USA are 1 in 10,000, so this might be an objective way of conveying a risk of that level - (and with use of multipliers, other levels of risk - e.g. "ten times more likely than being struck by lightning in your life")
However, lightning strikes are not uniformly distributed globally - perhaps no surprise that they are more prevalent in the tropics - and presumably, globally, those spending more time outside will have a higher risk (although risk inside buildings is not, of course, zero).
I think an additional reason to prefer the lightning analogy is because everyone knows what it is and has experienced it - apart from the denizens of Chelyabinsk Oblast - virtually no-one has experienced a meteor strike!
All the best
Professor David Cope
Clare Hall
University of Cambridge
________________________________________
From: Natural hazards and disasters [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Terry Cannon [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 16 February 2013 21:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Meteorite Disaster
Dear Ilan, Gary, Roger, David and anyone else that is interested...
No personal animosity was intended in my comments, and I hope that Ilan and David accept that. Extraterrestrial strikes on Earth are of course a type of natural hazard, and must not be ignored. My point was to suggest that we should have a sense of proportion - both about frequency and about whether or not any human factors are involved by which we could aim to reduce vulnerability to such risks. For ET risks, we cannot reduce vulnerability, all people are equally at risk, and the issue is whether we can (and should) mitigate the hazard (supposedly by towing or striking the objects out of collision path). in the meantime, much less money could be spent saving many more lives from things that happen much more frequently.
I was wary that the discussion was taking off into detailed concern about hit rates and whether anybody had ever been killed. If they have, the numbers are infinitesimal compared to the more frequent risks (leaving aside the main causes of premature deaths such as preventable diseases, bad water and traffic "accidents").
Roger has suggested that the issue is significant and useful to discuss in relation to problems of perceptions of risk and people's understanding of statistical likelihood. That is possibly valid, but was not the way the discussion began, and perhaps Roger would not have made this point if I had not raised raised a flag. But I do not consider that discussing this particular event or meteors really helps in a general discussion about perception of risk or public understanding of statistics. Roger's examples of driving to the airport etc are far more useful and likely to be more understood (I use exactly that example in teaching).
Part of my irritated response has a context. In 2005, Tony Blair responded to the Indian Ocean tsunami by setting up a task force to look at what could be done to prepare for future events of that type. It was hosted at the Department for Trade and Industry (!) and aimed to promote British science in the preparation for disasters. The panel included - I believe - three experts in extraterrestrial objects and there was a struggle to have someone included in the panel to cover drought... The panel was apparently not allowed to connect with DFID, which arguably has a great deal of scientific experience in relation to hazards, since there was a turf war involved.
This Russian event has a huge "gee whiz" factor, and we are all likely to be intrigued - but lets get a sense of proportion about it. I am also not against tracking such objects and seeking to divert objects that threaten Earth, given that a significant object could damage much or all life. But again lets get a sense of proportion in an e-list that is presumably interested in prioritizing things we can do to reduce human suffering.
good wishes
Terry
At 14:37 15/02/2013, Garry de la Pomerai wrote:
Terry, i fear on this occasion i must agree with others..... DRR is about assessing all risks.....addressing only everyday to day natural hazardous events is similar to 'not seeing the forest for the trees' and that is exactly when the unexpected creeps up from behind.
I believe that this short and topical discussion of this days events are essential from a risk assessment perspective. Today's events demonstrate 1. coincidence of two 'et' events happening simultaneously but unrelated.... being warned of one, yet another totally unexpected 2. that with all of our abilities to prepare for the known, the unknown will always remain a threat 3. that global organisations and Governments/NDMAs must build into their risk management and continuity strategies the 'unknown', the coincidence, the complex event scenario.
I wonder if the Factory who's roof collapsed, is insured for such an incident? indeed, is the risk worth insuring?
[[]]
Garry
de la Pomerai
"There is no competition, only the need for urgency and commitment to the long haul"
member of:
COGSS-DPE Coalition for Global School Safety-Disaster Prevention Education
http://cogssdpe.ning.com/
UN-ISDR TPK&E Thematic Platform for Knowledge & Education
UNESCO GTFBC Global Task Force for Building Codes
UNICEF MENA Consultancy Pool
AGNDR UK
Tel: +44(0) 7845529211
Skype: delapom44
Personal Presentations & DRR Schools Mapping Links : http://www.scribd.com/gpomerai
this email content does not necessarily reflect the views of all of the above groups
-----Original Message-----
From: Musson, Roger M.W. <[log in to unmask]>
To: NATURAL-HAZARDS-DISASTERS <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:00
Subject: Re: Meteorite Disaster
Actually, I disagree. In discussing more terrestrial hazards, it is not uncommon to compare different hazards with a view to correcting misapprehension of different risk factors, e.g. a UK tourist is more likely to die driving to the airport in Britain than be killed by an earthquake while on holiday. One yardstick sometimes mentioned is the risk of being struck by a meteorite (as something highly improbable), but if one is asked for quantification, it can be hard to get good statistics.
So I rather appreciate this discussion.
Roger Musson
________________________________
From: Natural hazards and disasters [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Terry Cannon [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 15 February 2013 12:17
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Meteorite Disaster
It seems to me that reports of people being actually hit by extra-terrestrial material, as the ones above claim, have, in many cases, to be treated rather sceptically.
apart from Superman... Can we move on to something more relevant to everyday life and death? This is interesting but not about core business of what we need to deal with in Nat Haz. Lets focus on issues where vulnerability is in the realm of political economy and something can/ should be done about it.
cheers
Terry
At 11:31 15/02/2013, COPE, David wrote:
Ilan
A quick google scan confirms what I had understood - that it's NOT the first such claimed incident - there was apparently one in the USA in 1954, for example, and even a claim in the UK in 2004 - both alleged to have caused injuries to single individuals by an actual encounter with extraterrestrial material but it is perhaps the first authenticated example to cause injuries on such a wide scale.
It seems to me, from the videos shown, that the damage has primarily been caused by blast wave overpressure, rather than from actual impact of extraterrestrial material. In general, of course, these effects are no different from the lethal combination of extensive glazing and any explosive event. Also, the report of a collapsed factory roof would fit with overpressure impact.
It seems to me that reports of people being actually hit by extra-terrestrial material, as the ones above claim, have, in many cases, to be treated rather sceptically.
Near Earth Object specialists, whose competence I respect, are saying that the orbital trajectories of the Siberian meteor/meteorite and that of asteroid 2012 DA14 are totally different, and that this is a total coincidence.
POST's Web Site: www.parliament.uk/post<http://www.parliament.uk/post>
________________________________________
From: Natural hazards and disasters [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Ilan Kelman [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 15 February 2013 09:37
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Meteorite Disaster
The events today (once verified) would be the first fully confirmed report that I have been able to find of human casualties from meteorites--in all of human history. See http://www.ilankelman.org/disasterdeaths.html<http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilankelman.org%2Fdisasterdeaths.html&h=CAQEZJ13eAQEtGYkUi6B-aReJzQ60ejV6IHpZwcrMj5kUcw&s=1> and click on "Astronomical Phenomena" for details. My work, though, is far from comprehensive, so if anyone can identify previous examples, then please let me know, because I will update this page over the weekend.
Given the nuclear power plant and nuclear waste storage facility in the impact vicinity, we have yet more evidence that "negligible probability events" must to be taken seriously. And remember that a minuscule time difference in the impact could have hit many other locations--or bypassed the planet entirely.
Which leads to a random question: could the shower be linked to today's asteroid near-miss or not at all?
Ilan
________________________________
UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________
UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
|
