Talk:(143649) 2003 QQ47

message: The estimated probability of 2003 QQ47 impacting the Earth in 2014 is estimated at 1.1×10-6, and is considered highly likely to decline with further observation.
Umm, surely if the probability is considered likely to decline, then the expected probability should be lowered.  I don't see how the estimation can be considered more likely to deviate in one direction than the other.
----
Does anyone remember the guy who got the news media to but an asteroid on the front page, a few years back? It was the same year that -- what a coincidence! -- Hollwood was releasing two different movies about asteroids threatening earth.
It might have made an even bigger "splash" if a woman at the Jet Propulsion Lab hadn't dug up an observation from 9 years earlier which showed that the asteroid had 'absolutely no chance at all of hitting earth. 
Too bad Brian Madsen (sp?) didn't bother to talk to his colleagues in the field before going straight to the press. I wonder what motivates a man to do $omething like that? --Uncle Ed 14:07, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: likely to decline

message: :However, the odds of collision are considerably higher than those of winning many lotteries, or of dying in an air accident. 
The probability that someone will win the lottery is 100%. The odds that your worst enemy will win might be as low as one in 100 million.
People are more scared of dying in an air accident, even though (mile for mile) they are more likely to die in a car accident.
All of this will become moot in a few months, when the asteroid is downgraded to 0 (absolutely no chance of hitting earth).
Why is it so important to tell people that preliminary data show an asteroid might come somewhere near earth? Why not wait 3 months until the astronomers can track it well enough to be sure? (Do we need the extra 3 months preparation time to launch the rocket ship with Bruce Willis in it?) --Uncle Ed 21:47, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be 'possible but not truely proved'. By the way, I don't have a worst enemy, so the chances are 1 in 0 (or would that be infinite? :P) Ilyanep 21:49, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, heh. You mean "0 in 1", so the chance is 0%. I've taught SAT math prep classes (at rates 3 times higher than what Kaplan pays); if Kaplan pays $16/hr, how much did I make? [trick question, read the wording carefully and use a sharpened #2 pencil to mark your answer]. --Uncle Ed 21:55, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: I guess my point is that the "risk" is high enough to make it worth the bother of keeping track of the asteroid, until we can calculate the distance it will miss earth by. But that it's NOT high enough to put on the front page of a newspaper. It just scares people needlessly. Is someone going to give EQUAL ATTENTION to the re-evaluation of risk when astronomers lower the risk from the next-to-lowest level (1) to the lowest level (0 - absolutely no chance of hitting earth)? I bet the BBC won't consider that newsworthy. Scary stuff gets people's attention. Reassuring stuff is boring. We need to think about the purpose of the Current Events page, and also our standard of the "newsworthiness" of recently created articles. --Uncle Ed 15:07, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: I don't think the story "should" cause alarm. I think it "does" cause alarm. Not too many people are aware of (a) how risk is calculated: (product of probability * severity); or of (b) how astronomers predict the orbits of asteroids. The warning light on my dashboard flashes red when I'm about to run out of gas. This alarms me and makes me anxious enough to start looking for a gas station. What's the use of a front-page story (which is rescinded quietly a day or two later) about the possible ANNIHILATION OF ALL LIFE ON EARTH!!!? I don't see how it benefits the public. Next time let's say something like astronomers discovered another near earth object and play up NOT the HORRIBLE POSSIBILITY OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT DISAPPEARING FOREVER!!! but the more mundane and possibly curiosity-arousing process of how astronomers learn about asteroids. As another user often says, the Wikipedia should educate. --Uncle Ed 16:49, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Risk