It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

fewer large NEA's than previously thought

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Hi all,
a new study on WISE has shown that there are actually less NEA's than previously thought. I include links to both the abstract and the full article so that you can read it at your own leisure.

abstract
full article

I add this extract from the original article, as it makes highly interesting reading, just showing that nobody is trying to hide anything

Asteroids and comets have impacted Earth throughout its history, profoundly altering the course of life on Earth (Alvarez et al. 1980; Hildebrand et al. 1991). Currently available estimates of the size distribution of potentially hazardous NEOs lead to the assessment that objects capable of causing global catastrophe (larger than 1 km in diameter) are thought to impact approximately every 700,000 years (National Research Council Report 2010). However, smaller objects can still cause considerable damage (NEO Science De nition Team 2003; Chapman 2004). Recent simulations suggest that the 1908 Tunguska impact could have been caused by an object as small as 30-50 m (National Research Council Report 2010), which would imply that the potential for damage caused by smaller objects has been underestimated. However, this increased risk from smaller impacts is o set by recent population estimates (Boslough & Harris 2008; Harris 2008) that indicate that the population of asteroids in the size range between several tens to hundreds of meters in diameter may be as much as a factor of three less than estimated using a straight-line power law of slope -2.354 as proposed by Bottke et al. (2002), or a slope of -1.87. Nevertheless, considerable uncertainty about the true NEO size distribution persists due to the lack of accurate diameters, albedos, and surveys that are not substantially biased against low albedo objects. Even less is known about the subset of NEOs that are considered potentially hazardous.




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


Sadly... it still only takes one to do its damage...



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonpoet
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


Sadly... it still only takes one to do its damage...


true, but millions of more get killed by cars, lightning, wars, earthquakes, and so on. But doesn't that make life more interesting too? Just imagine a world that is totally predictable, in which we can predict everything from day to day....

Heck, I would love it it a supernova exploded fairly close to us, even though I wouldn't survive it just for the chance to experience something really spectacular......

I don't know why people are so filled by fear when learning of the wonders of nature, Nature is something to admire, to respect, and to realize that we are just specs of dust to her ..... but now I am deviating from my own post



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I hear ya... it's either millions die day by day gradually or it happens in one sha-bang... either way, my worries are on knowing it could happen and trying to survive by being prepared while at the same time not looking like a whack job when nothing really does happen... lol... it's a mind twister!

Then again, I also try to look on the positive side of things... there isn't something bad happening, this is all spelled out for a reason. Who may be right, i could care less... I just feel something good this way comes...

Fingers crossed...



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join