user-pic

Poll: Sharks versus asteroids

Which is more dangerous: A shark or an asteroid? If the magical Risk Fairy fluttered over with her sparkly wand and offered you a chance to cancel out one of these two risks, which would you choose?

Let's run the numbers. In any given year, sharks kill about half a dozen people. Last year, the tally of asteroid-related deaths was zero. The year before that, it was also zero, as it was the year before that, and the one before that--and so on. In fact, the total number of human beings who have definitively fallen victim to asteroid strikes in all of recorded history is, you guessed it, zero.

But before you sic the Risk Fairy on those bloodthirsty sharks, consider this: If a killer asteroid were to strike the Earth, it wouldn't just pick off a couple of luckless surfers. An asteroid with a diameter of 5 km could kill a billion people. Not to get all 2012, but it could mean the end of civilization as we know it.

Freaky? Sure. But on the other hand, asteroids that big don't come along very often--only once every 10 million years or so. Ten million years is a lot of human lifetimes, especially when you consider that Homo sapiens has only been around for about 200,000 years. But if we're going to compare asteroids to sharks, we need an annual fatality rate, and that's the what Alan Harris was talking about at this morning's "Cosmic Disasters" session of the Division of Dynamical Astronomy. By combining what we know about the number, size, and trajectory of our neighborhood asteroids (and comets) with what we know about more familiar catastrophes (like nuclear bombs and tsunamis), scientists can project the number of fatalities expected each year from asteroids. And that number is 91.

Ninety-one! That's sky-high compared to the half-dozen shark fatalities. Just one more thing before you call in the Risk Fairy with your choice: Let's look at some other annual fatality rates. Take firearm accidents: 2,500 deaths per year. Malaria: 1 million deaths per year. Tobacco: 5 million deaths per year.

So, what would you do? Questions poured in from the scientists in Harris' audience: Is it even fair to rate the risk of low-probability, high-fatality events on the same numerical scale as, say, traffic accidents? Are these risks of a fundamentally different quality? And if they are, how can we begin to make informed policy decisions about investing in asteroid tracking and mitigation?

Facts and figures from Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, a National Research Council report. Download the full report here.

User Comments:

I would have to still go with wishing for the magical asteroid protection.

All of the other things are horrible, and have a higher annual death toll, but the asteroid has the potential to wipe out all (or nearly all) life on the planet, which has been shown to have likely happened at least once in the planet's history. Even the most catastrophic car crash ever imagined does not have this capability.

Stupid comparison. You can avoid sharks by staying out of the ocean. You can't avoid an asteroid

Asteroid protection hands down. All other methods can be prevented through applied action; an asteroid with enough mass to end life on earth could not be stopped if the entire planet united in a desperate move for survival.

blog comments powered by Disqus