Stephen Black writes on the upcoming space satellite spectacular: >How great is the risk? NASA is quoted in a slightly garbled >statement in _The Telegraph_ that there's a "1-in-3,200 chance >a part a satellite part could hit someone".
>I've been pondering what meaning to attach to that statement… >[…] >Alternatively, perhaps they only mean that for satellites in a >situation similar to that which NASA warns us about, in only 1 >out of 3,200 occasions of one falling down will it off even a single >unfortunate individual out of the entire world's population… >Unless I hear otherwise, that's the one I'm going with. And you're right to do so! The report from an NPR Science Correspondent clarifies this point: NASA has actually calculated the odds that someone might get hit by this satellite. Mark Matney, an orbital debris scientist at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, says the risk is 1 in 3,200. "That 1 in 3,200 is the probability that someone, somewhere on the Earth will be hit by a piece of debris of sufficient size to cause injury," says Matney. But Matney says your own personal risk of being hit by a piece of this satellite is far lower: "It's something like one in trillions, for any one person." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44462231/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/falling-satellite-poses-little-risk-public-nasa-says/#.TnmlOzD_l4Y Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [email protected] http://www.esterson.org -------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] Subject: Statistics question: Death from the skies? Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:21:05 -0400 Although this is not directly psychology-related, our investment in statistical analysis in psychology makes it so. Besides, who else am I gonna call? NASA warns us of lurking risk of death from above (http://tinyurl.com/3jygt52 ), "within weeks". How great is the risk? NASA is quoted in a slightly garbled statement in _The Telegraph_ that there's a "1-in-3,200 chance a part a satellite part could hit someone". I've been pondering what meaning to attach to that statement. When I checked just now, the world population was 7,147,958,331 and counting. Dividng this figure by the stated chance of death by satellite gives a figure of over 2 million expected deaths. Now either this is absurd, or we're loooking at a major looming tragedy. The article, after all, does say that "senior space agency officials admitted they were "concerned" about the risk to billions of people." Perhaps they mean that the risk only applies to those under the flight path of the satellite. But that's little comfort when we're told that the satellite "travels over a large band of Earth, avoiding only areas close to the poles". Alternatively, perhaps they only mean that for satellites in a situation similar to that which NASA warns us about, in only 1 out of 3,200 occasions of one falling down will it off even a single unfortunate individual out of the entire world's population. This is an almost unimaginably small risk for each of us. If that's the case, then all this NASA stuff is merely Chicken Little. Unless I hear otherwise, that's the one I'm going with. I'm coming out from under the bed now. Stephen -------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=12831 or send a blank email to leave-12831-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
