Well now the chances are 1 to 45. Chances of what? Chances of a asteroid hitting earth in 2029. Oddly enough CNN and BBC have not picked up on this but it is from NASA’s own website.
Now people always complain about news links.If you are a gamer or a techie then you know slashdot.org like the back of your hand. Its our news source. It is reliable and very sound.
So any idea by our brainiacs about the possible situation and untimley destruction of the human race? (That is just me messing. The impact will only be something like 1000 kilotons (Do not remember the exact figure but pretty large). Hiroshima was only 1 kiloton.)
In 1961, the Soviet Union detonated a 100 megaton bomb (that's 100 times more powerful than this predicted asteroid impact) at 4,000 feet and there were no significant problems.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
That asteroid impact would just be a blip.
In 1961, the Soviet Union detonated a 100 megaton bomb (that's 100 times more powerful than this predicted asteroid impact) at 4,000 feet and there were no significant problems.
To quote George Bush: Bring it on!!!
[/QUOTE]
It was a 100MT with yield reduced to 50MT... Its called mother of all bombs.
I wouldnt call it a blip. Its only 29 years away and if anyone of us remains alive we will witness it. This thread will remain alive till the eve of destuction. Apocalypse.
Ok back to reality, if 1400 MT explodes on earth we are seriously looking at major destruction here. If hiroshima was 1 MT, this is 1400% more powerful & destructive than any bomb, including all the gases that would boil from the sea, & the fault lines that would be disturbed.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mal1k: *
I wouldnt call it a blip. Its only 29 years away and if anyone of us remains alive we will witness it. This thread will remain alive till the eve of destuction. Apocalypse.
Ok back to reality, if 1400 MT explodes on earth we are seriously looking at major destruction here. If hiroshima was 1 MT, this is 1400% more powerful & destructive than any bomb, including all the gases that would boil from the sea, & the fault lines that would be disturbed.
Armageddon
[/QUOTE]
heroshima was a fraction of MT it was in the order of 20KT
The thing is, people have been so brainwashed by anti-nuclear propaganda that they overlook the fact that several large nuclear warheads can be set off in a nuclear exhange with little impact other than to the target sites.
Nukes are not big bad planet destroying weapons, they are just big bombs that can, if used improperly (ie at ground level) sometimes cause major problems.
As long as you blast your nukes several thousand feet in the air (the optimum height for city busting) you can really minimise the long-term effects.
After all, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even at the ground-zero region below where the bombs went off, were perfectly habitable after a couple of years.
Medic do not even start with your pro-nukes bull*. Regardless the damage this asteriod could cause to the atmosphere would easily * globa warming and could take out a country of two if it was positioned correctly.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sir Galahad: *
Medic do not even start with your pro-nukes bull. Regardless the damage this asteriod could cause to the atmosphere would easily * globa warming and could take out a country of two if it was positioned correctly.
[/QUOTE]
well at least we have 25 more years....so lets party for next 25 years.....
on a serious note, the key to this whole issue is the position or the angle at which the possible collision will take place and who knows what it would be...even an astronomist at University of Chicago cannot predict it accurately.......
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
After all, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even at the ground-zero region below where the bombs went off, were perfectly habitable after a couple of years.
[/QUOTE]
r u sure? i thought the half life of some of those isotopes was like millions of years.. how could that place be 'clean' in about 50 years?
It's less about half-life and more about exposure; insoluble ceramic particles from depleted Uranium weapons can deliver damaging doses to local tissue more readily than the soluble form of uranium. Watch out future generations of Iraq!
However, I disagree that Hiroshima after nearly 60 years is ‘clean’ the back ground levels of radiation may be ‘normal’ though genetic disorders in the gene pool exist, leukaemia, and various other forms of cancer are above ‘normal’ levels as there may be a genetic transfer of the risk of the leukaemia illness from parent to child.
Today Hiroshima is a thriving Japanese city with quite a tourist trade from home and abroad.
On the atseroid, if it's big enough it could do a lot of damage, also depends on where it hits, land less damage than the sea.......see the asian earthquake for example. Tsunami!