Here are some risk statistics from the USA
Necati Dedeoglu
Economist
How you are unlikely to die
ON FEBRUARY 15th DA14, an asteroid 45 metres across, will sail past the
Earth at 7.8km a second (4.9 miles a second). At just 27,700km away, it is
well within the range of communication satellites. It will be the closest
encounter on record with an asteroid this big. In 1908 an asteroid estimated
to be around 100 metres in diameter destroyed 2,000 kmē of forest in
Siberia. Thankfully, such events are rare. NASA has identified 9,600
"near-Earth objects" since 1995, but just 861 with a diameter of 1km or
more. The greatest threat to Earth is the 140-metre wide AG5; but it has
just a 1-in-625 chance of hitting Earth, and not until February 5th 2040.
More prosaic things are far more dangerous. According to data from America's
National Safety Council, 27 people died in 2008 in America from contact with
dogs (a one in 11m chance of death). The chart below compares the odds of
dying in any given year from choking, cycling, being struck by lightning or
stung by a bee.
----- Original Message -----
From: "COPE, David" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: Meteorite Disaster - relative risks, etc.
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.
|
