Rand Expert Says To Keep Mum About Killer Asteroids

crashnbur writes "NASA is conducting a survey of the sky to find asteroids large enough that a collision with earth could 'extinction-type impact', and none studied so far will threaten us in the next 200 years. Of course, if a doomsday asteroid is discovered, the current policy is not to say a word: 'If you can't do anything about a warning, then there is no point in issuing a warning at all', says Dr. Geoffery Sommer. The issue may be making its rounds because an asteroid was discovered orbiting the sun between Venus and Earth earlier this week. Space.com presents a lengthy, four-part 'Impact Debate' (next three parts coming next three Tuesdays). Apparently we are just as likely to die by asteroid impact as in a plane crash."

Putting risk of dying in perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

The chance of being dying as a result of an asteroid impact is statistically the same as dying in a plane crash, for the following reason: if the earth is hit by a large object, it would be an 'extinction event'; nobody would survive. Phrasing the statistic without that piece of information could lead one to imagine that people are hit and killed on a regular basis, which we know isn't true. Based on this logic, the chance of any of us being killed in our lifetime by an impact seems to be much lower than being in a fatal plane crash.
Not to say we shouldn't be concerned; perhaps we should look at the larger picture and remove the individual from the statistical claim. An impact is not something that would affect us on an individual level. Humanity would be wiped out by such an event, something that should trouble us on a much deeper level.

Re:ummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

The standard deviation of the number of victims of asteroid strikes over a single year is so large that a mere 100 years of recent history isn't enough to make a statistical comparison. You have to compare the theoretical means.

Re:ummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's weighted averages. The odds of a extinction-type impact are really really low, but if it happens billions of people will die. Multiply the low odds with the castatrophic consequences and the net risk comes out in the same ballpark as plane crashes.

Re:somebody else mixing up statistics vs. probabil

[LuxFX]

If, on average, a certain even over the course of a long time has some chance of happening, like, say, a plane crash or an asteroid hitting, then it's reasonable to compare them

except if the 'long time' in which the certainty needs to happen exceeds a person's lifespan. that is why I bring up statistics vs. probability. statistically, over this 'long time' there might be as many people die from planes as meteorites.

but, that 'long time' is almost definately much much longer than your lifespan or mine. therefore the probability of me dying from a plane crash is much greater than my probability of dying from a meteorite.

now I'm no math expert, this is just my opinion generated from my limited knowledge. But probability is what defines every instance, versus statistics which are used to find out general patterns. This is where my coin analogy came from.

To look at this with another example, take the Black Death. It was a significant event, with large variance. Lots of people died. So, the history of the last 1000 years might show that 1 in 400,000 people die of the black plague. So does that mean that my odds are 1/400,000 in dying of the black plague? No, the probability is much smaller than that because probability must look at my lifespan, and events happening in my lifespan. Things that happened 700 years ago are as unconsequential to my lifespace as things that will happen 700 years in the future.

though you do bring up good points :) especially the fact of variance

Re:The response I got from Dr. Sommer

[Stratoghost]

This is what I get for being a newbie. Please accept my apologies. It won't happen again.

You may be right. Or you may be wrong. Rest assured that I was quoted out of context. My attempt at correcting the record is included below. It may or may not be an improvement from your perspective. Thank you for not lacing your e-mail with personal attacks - yours was one of the more level-headed responses.

Regards, Geoffrey Sommer RAND

I'm afraid that the AAAS press office quoted me rather severely out of context. Their press release (which I didn't get to see until two minutes before the press conference) has me saying "if you can't do anything about a warning, there is no point in issuing a warning at all. If an extinction-type impact is inevitable, then ignorance for the populace is bliss". It prefaces that by saying that I "take the controversial stance of advocating silence and secrecy". I most certainly would not take such an absolute stand. Perhaps you will let me correct the record.

At the Western Psychological Association conference in Los Angeles last year, I wrote that "surveys confer social benefits only to the extent that mitigation is possible" but qualified certain exceptions in the disaggregate (not necessarily exhaustive): fatalists, religionists, criminals and the "yellow press". "Religionists" was meant to include the "make one's peace with one's God" case. By criminals I was thinking of looters and profiteers. My point, then and now, was that the primary purpose of a survey is to enable a response, and absent a mitigation capability that purpose is vitiated. The context of all this is an argument for mitigation.

The "ignorance may be bliss" argument is not trivial, however. Analytically, the question is whether the doom-warned population has a negative discount rate - a "dread" factor. Does the population as a whole have a "willingness to pay" to avoid bad news? It's hard to say. Certainly, in the micro sense, the effect is real. Do we prefer a quick (but ignorant) death for Columbia's crew, or do we wish for them more time to "make peace with their God" before their inevitable end? I would guess the former.

In the context of astro-doomsaying, is there an absolute right to information? Many passionately believe so. Yet, how many high-dread people are outvoted by one "tell me the worst" person? I don't know - hence, I don't advocate "silence and secrecy" as absolutely as the AAAS press release indicates. It all depends, as I have said many times, on valuations. What gives the government the right to decide? What gives the government the right to decide on any issue of social welfare?

I was able to clarify most of this during my AAAS talk, but unfortunately, the press release is now to the four winds.

Re:"Can't Do Anything About It"???

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be pretty hard not to discover an asteroid that large with an orbit that intersects Earth's at least a few years in advance

Last year, an asteroid 100 yards across, passed by the earth unnoticed until three days [space.com] later. Keep in mind that three year's notice is long enough for the earth to circle the sun three times.

Re:ummmm.

[Forgotten]

Your conclusion is roughly correct as far as the stats goes. But what I think you've really done is illustrate why statistical and probabilistic models are basically worthless in the real world, and especially at (and between) extremes. It's kind of like asking whether it's worth spending one dollar on a 6/49 lottery when the jackpot is worth 7 million versus 14 million - how much is the "dollar" worth. It's an intensely reductionist phrasing of the question that ignores the surrounding reality (in this case, that winning the lottery is winning the lottery, period).

Losing the asteroid lottery is completely unlike losing the airplane lottery. The comparison is useless; it's really a type of argument by analogy, which is a fallacy. I realise it's someone's attempt to make things understandable to the lay media (or push an agenda there), but it does nothing besides muddy the issue.

The truth is that people can't wrap their heads around probablistic assessments anyway, so trying to make persuasive arguments to the masses that way is folly. And making a probabalistic comparison between two such different things borders on dishonest.

2003-CD30 asteroid update AND annoucement delays

[chongo]

Current information on the asteroid (2003-CD30) referenced in the above article may be found in:

chongo's journal [slashdot.org] on Near-Earth Objects (NEOs)

As usual, I will update my journal as orbit model for 2003-CD30 changes.

There is a delay small in announcing significant potential impactors. The purpose of the delay is to allow for additional technical review of the data. This review period is designed to last about 72 hours. I recommend that you read FAQ #2 [slashdot.org] in my journal for more details.

And speaking personally:

While I am very willing to keep new asteroid information confidential during the ~72 hour review process, I would

never agree to permanently hide any asteroid orbit data. I believe that many of the technical reviewers feel the same way.

Some people share Geoffrey Sommer's (a US Gov scientific adviser, Rand Corp employee and adviser on terrorism: but NOT an asteroid orbit modeler) view point. However there are more than enough people who track and model hazardous NEO's to ensure that NEO data will released (after the 72 hour technical review) one way or another.