Rethinking "Near-Earth" Asteroids: A Call for Clarity in Science
Written on
Understanding the Term "Near"
In recent times, I find myself increasingly frustrated with the scientific community's constant chatter about "near-earth" asteroids. Many people have no idea what this really signifies, and it seems rather pointless to keep repeating it.
I have a great appreciation for science; however, it often feels like it’s overselling the threat of various issues. We are bombarded with so many dire predictions that many simply shrug and think, "As long as I can binge-watch my shows on Netflix, everything’s fine."
Take the term "near-earth" asteroids, for example. Some of these objects are situated millions of miles away. Let’s break this down. Definitions are crucial, so let’s start by looking at the word "near."
Section 1.1 Defining "Near"
"Near" is a straightforward term that we use daily, yet few take the time to explore its precise meaning. It reminds me of a lesson I learned in fifth grade regarding the word "quiet." My teacher, Mr. Bunnel, had me and several classmates write the definition 11 times as a punishment for talking too much in class.
"Quiet" can function as a noun, verb, and adjective. When my father discovered I had to write it down repeatedly as punishment, he was visibly upset—one of the rare moments he expressed strong feelings about my school behavior. Typically, he was indifferent or relied on guilt, neither of which improved my grades. But I digress.
In today's digital age, we can easily copy and paste definitions. So, here’s the full definition of "near" from Google:
The various meanings of "near" include being at a short distance, being almost something, or occurring soon. However, none of these definitions mention "a million miles away."
Section 1.2 The Scale of Distance
A million miles is an abstract concept for most people. It equates to around 40 circumferences of the Earth or nearly two round trips to the moon.
You might argue, "But the perception of distance is relative." Fair point. Let’s consider the Earth itself. The average diameter is approximately 7,917.5 miles, while the average human diameter is about 18 inches. So, what does "near" mean for a human?
Recent studies suggest that most people feel comfortable with a personal boundary of about four feet. Let’s do some quick math:
- 48 inches for a personal boundary (PB)
- Average human diameter: 18 inches
- 48/18 = 2.666
This means that, to feel comfortable, someone should be about 2.666 times the average human diameter away.
Now, if we apply this ratio to the Earth:
7,917.5 x 2.666 = 21,108.055 miles
This distance is significantly less than a million miles. If an asteroid isn't within this range, can it truly be considered "near"?
Chapter 2 The Reality of Asteroids
To further illustrate this point, consider the size comparison between asteroids and the Earth. If asteroids were comparable in size to our planet, we would refer to them as "planetoids" or "minor planets." Instead, they are more like tiny projectiles zipping through space.
Speaking of projectiles, let's think about what it means to be "near" in a more immediate context, such as the concern of gunfire in a public space. If I hear shots fired at a store, I would certainly want to know how far those bullets are from me.
If we set a new comfort zone at 100 feet for the sake of argument, that would give us:
1200 inches (100 feet) / 18 inches (human PB) = 66.666
Using this new ratio, we can calculate:
7,917.5 x 66.666 = 527,828.055 miles
Once again, this is still not a million miles. For reference, the moon is about 238,900 miles away, which is vastly closer than any asteroid we’re discussing.
Section 2.1 The Importance of Effective Communication
The crux of the issue is that people often only react when they are directly affected. History shows that civilizations tend to wait until they are in dire straits before taking action. If scientists want the public to care about impending threats, they must communicate in a way that resonates with everyday experiences.
The current scientific dialogue can be overly complex, leaving many feeling disconnected from the issues at hand. To engage the public more effectively, scientists should simplify their messaging.
In conclusion, if you want to make a real impact, science must shift its approach. The focus should be on communicating in a way that is digestible for everyone, not just the elite few.
If the world is to survive the coming years, scientists need to abandon their elitist attitudes and engage with the public in a more relatable manner. It's time to stop speaking like scientists and start communicating like influencers—because until people understand the implications of these issues, they will remain apathetic.
Remember, it’s crucial to make the complex simple, so we can all understand what’s really at stake.