Alarmism at its Best

Last week, a meteor exploded over Russia, injuring some 1,200 people. In at unrelated event, a much larger asteroid passed close to the Earth the same day.

The article, We're on notice to plan for the next meteor, authors Rush Holt and Donna F. Edwards discuss these events and what they mean.

I think, given how they have discussed the events that occurred, their expected audience knows little about astronomy. This isn't surprising, as the majority of Americans these days don't know much about the subject. I'm glad that at least most of them know that the Earth is round and that we orbit the Sun, not the other way around. I'm even happier when most of those know that the Sun is a star.

My point is that they don't expect their audience to know much about the subject matter. They try to throw lots and lots of numbers at their audience - the size and speed of the meteor, comparisons to other meteors, budgets and years for projects looking at meteors - all without enough connection or explanation.

I believe that the authors are quite credible, and all of their information, as far as I can tell, is correct. However, both are politicians, and I think that they are out for money to fund their projects. Their goal becomes clear in the last paragraph of the article, which states, "When something explodes or falls from the atmosphere, the world needs to know what it is. Impacts like what occurred in Russia on Friday are certain to occur. We should make the investments necessary to track near-Earth objects and prepare for disasters of all kinds."

I think they do not, however, give a fair representation of all of the facts. For example, they do not state that, to date, there is not a single recorded death of a person due to a meteorite. According to this page, all we know is that a dog has been killed. I do not, therefore, think that we need to spend money in this area right now.

I also think that the wording is intended to be alarmist throughout. For example, in the first paragraph, it references the asteroid that was never in danger of striking the Earth, calling it, "a close shave in astronomical terms." Yes, the asteroid passed close to Earth. But it was never predicted to hit us. According to Merriam Webster, a close shave is "a narrow escape." This was not a narrow escape; we've know for months that the asteroid was coming and that it was not going to be dangerous.

They do mention the fact that this type of event only occurs every 100 years or so, the last one being the Tunguska event, but downplay this fact. I think it's vitally important. We've probably got another 100 years before anything like this happens again, and our technology is progressing very quickly. By the time the next event rolls around, we'll probably have all objects nearby of the size of the one that exploded over Russia mapped, as well as some smaller, if current telescope progressions are anything to judge by.

In summary, this article was written as an alarmist article. It uses all correct facts, but down-plays or misrepresents key pieces of information. I believe that, as an alarmist article, its goal is to get the people to support spending more money on a budget to keep a lookout for asteroids, and try to prevent future meteor impacts.