logo
You're More Likely to Die From an Asteroid Than Rabies, Scientists Find

You're More Likely to Die From an Asteroid Than Rabies, Scientists Find

Yahoo3 days ago
If you ever lie awake at night wondering just how likely you are to die from an asteroid impact within your lifetime, a new paper has you covered.
A team led by physicist Carrie Nugent of the Olin College of Engineering in the US has calculated not just how likely it is that an asteroid will hit Earth during an average human lifespan, but how likely that impact is to cause human deaths when compared to a selection of other rare, preventable ways to die.
The bad news is that death by asteroid impact is more likely to happen to you than death by rabies. The worse news is that death from a car accident is more likely than death by asteroid impact.
The great news is that all of these likelihoods are pretty low, and you can probably live your life without too much worry (although you might want to wear a seat belt).
Related: Forget Your Troubles by Looking at These Weird But Totally Real Science Illustrations
There are good reasons to compare the risk of death by asteroid impact with the risk of death by other preventable mechanisms. Although it's difficult to calculate exactly what the risk is – there could be a lot more potentially hazardous asteroids out there than we've found to date – an asteroid impact could very well be preventable too.
NASA demonstrated this back in 2022, when the space agency deliberately crashed a spacecraft into an asteroid to try to knock it off course. The mission was more successful than expected, with the asteroid in question showing a much greater change in its orbit than anticipated.
Such missions are quite costly, and require a lot of planning. By placing the risk of an asteroid impact in context with other risks, scientists can compare the potential expenditure involved with the expenditure of, say, a rabies vaccine program, or car safety features.
So, Nugent and her colleagues collected available data on the population of near-Earth objects, as well as models of these populations and previous risk assessments for asteroids more than 140 meters (460 feet) in size. From this, they calculated the impact frequency for this kind of object.
The next step was to collect available data on different kinds of deaths and compare the probability of each event occurring during the average global human lifetime of 71 years.
"Chapman and Morrison (1994) previously placed an asteroid impact in context with other causes of death such as murder, fireworks accidents, and botulism. In that work, they considered the chance of death due to an impact alongside the chance of death due to other factors," the researchers write.
"This work addresses a slightly different question; we place the chance of an impact occurring anywhere on Earth relative to the chance of other events of concern happening to an individual. This work is therefore intended to provide context to those who wish to know the probability that a greater-than-140-meter impact will occur, anywhere on Earth, in their lifetime."
They collected data on nine other potentially fatal events: dry sand hole collapse (that's when a person digging a hole, on a beach for example, has the sand collapse on them); elephant attack; lightning strike; skydiving accidents; carbon monoxide poisoning; injury-causing car crash; rabies; and influenza illness.
They then calculated how likely a person would be to experience one of these events; and then how likely the person would be to die of the same (many people, for example, catch the flu without dying). This is obviously regionally variable; someone in Australia is far less likely than someone in the US to die of coyote attack or rabies.
You can see the results for yourself in the graph. Flu is similarly deadly to an asteroid impact, but far more likely to occur; the law of averages therefore suggests that it's going to kill more people than an asteroid does. Dry sand hole collapse is almost always fatal, but has almost a one in 1 million chance of occurring within a human lifetime.
Of course, translating risk assessments like these to the real world requires some context. After all, more than three people die per year of dry sand hole collapse, tragically with an average age of 12. As far as we know, no humans have ever died from an asteroid impact. As the dinosaurs might tell you, the toll from a single strike could more than make up for a history of misses.
So the question is, is Earth overdue for another asteroid? Is caution and prevention warranted, or are we worrying unnecessarily? Does the above information comfort you, or make things worse?
It's a bit hard to tell, really. But at least we know to stay away from sand holes.
The research will soon appear in the Planetary Science Journal. In the meantime, it's available on preprint server arXiv.
Related News
Scientists Have Brewed a 'Super Alcohol' Theorized to Exist in Deep Space
Earth Spun Faster Today. Here's How We Know.
Dark Mirror of Our Own Universe Could Explain Quirks in Gravity
Solve the daily Crossword
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Astronauts splash down in Pacific after completing ISS mission that relieved stranded crew members
Astronauts splash down in Pacific after completing ISS mission that relieved stranded crew members

Fox News

time3 hours ago

  • Fox News

Astronauts splash down in Pacific after completing ISS mission that relieved stranded crew members

Four crew members who flew to the International Space Station (ISS) earlier this year to relieve two astronauts who were left stranded by a beleaguered space capsule returned to Earth on Saturday. NASA astronauts Anne McClain and Nichole Ayers, along with Japan's Takuya Onishi and Russia's Kirill Peskov, splashed down in the Pacific off the coast of Southern California on Saturday morning at 11:33 a.m. ET in a SpaceX capsule. It was the first Pacific splashdown for NASA in 50 years, and the third for SpaceX with people on board. NASA astronauts last splashed down in the Pacific in 1975, during the Apollo-Soyuz mission, the first crewed international space mission that involved Americans and Soviets. The crew launched in March, replacing Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore, who were left stuck at the space station for nine months on what was meant to be a week-long mission after the Boeing Starliner they arrived in suffered thruster problems and helium leaks. NASA concluded returning them to Earth in the capsule was too risky, so the Starliner flew back crewless, and Wilmore and Williams came home in a SpaceX capsule in March after their replacements arrived. Wilmore announced his retirement after 25 years with NASA this week. "We want this mission, our mission, to be a reminder of what people can do when we work together, when we explore together," McClain said before leaving the space station on Friday, mentioning "some tumultuous times on Earth." She said she was looking forward to "doing nothing for a couple of days" once back home, and her crewmates were excited about hot showers and burgers. Earlier this year, SpaceX decided to switch their splashdowns from Florida to California to reduce the risk of debris falling on populated areas. After exiting the spacecraft, the crew received medical checks before being flown via helicopter to meet up with a NASA aircraft bound for Houston. "Overall, the mission went great, glad to have the crew back," Steve Stich, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, said in a press conference after splashdown. "SpaceX did a great job of recovering the crew again on the West Coast." Dina Contella, deputy manager for NASA's International Space Station program, added that she was "pretty happy to see the Crew 10 team back on Earth. They looked great, and they are doing great." She noted the crew had orbited the Earth 2,368 times and traveled more than 63 million miles during their 146 days at the space station.

NASA Aims for U.S. to Be First to Put Nuclear Reactor on the Moon: ‘To Have a Base on the Moon, We Need Energy'
NASA Aims for U.S. to Be First to Put Nuclear Reactor on the Moon: ‘To Have a Base on the Moon, We Need Energy'

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

NASA Aims for U.S. to Be First to Put Nuclear Reactor on the Moon: ‘To Have a Base on the Moon, We Need Energy'

'This is about space exploration. This is about this next phase,' Duffy, interim NASA administrator and 'The Real World' alum, saidNEED TO KNOW Interim NASA administrator Sean Duffy shared plans to make the U.S. the first nation to put a nuclear reactor on the moon 'We're behind, right? … We have to marshal all of our resources, all of our focus on going to the moon, which is what we're going to do,' he said during a Department of Transportation press conference on Aug. 5 Duffy is aiming for NASA to accomplish this by 2030Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, the interim NASA administrator, proclaimed that the U.S. needs to 'get our act together' when it comes to the ongoing race to the moon and Mars against other nations. To do this, Duffy, 53, shared during a press conference NASA's plan to make the U.S. the first to put a nuclear reactor on the moon with an aim of by 2030. 'We're in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon, and to have a base on the moon, we need energy,' the politician and former The Real World: Boston reality TV personality told reporters on Aug. 5. 'This fission technology is critically important, and so we've spent hundreds of million dollars studying, 'Can we do it?' We are now going to move beyond studying, and we've given direction to go,' Duffy continued. 'Let's start to deploy our technology to move to actually make this a reality.' 'If we're going to be able to sustain life on the moon, to then go to Mars, this technology is critically important,' he added. NASA's ongoing fission surface power project, which expands on the space agency's Kilopower project, is striving to create 'relatively small and lightweight' fission systems that would operate on the moon and Mars. According to NASA, a previously discussed fission system would provide at least 40 kilowatts of power, which would 'continuously run 30 households for 10 years.' However, POLITICO reported just before Duffy's announcement, that NASA is now aiming to build a 100-kilowatt reactor. At the Department of Transportation press conference this week, Duffy noted the need for speed in getting a nuclear reactor on the moon. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. 'We're behind, right? … We have to marshal all of our resources, all of our focus on going to the moon, which is what we're going to do,' he said, adding, 'This is about space exploration. This is about this next phase.' Read the original article on People

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store