Its size -- three-quarters of a mile wide (1.2 kilometers) -- explains some of the attention 2003 QQ47 received. Were a rock that big to hit Earth, the climatic consequences would be global and it would cause, at the least, widespread regional devastation.
But only a zero rating is lower on the Torino scale, which goes as high as 10.
Astronomers agree that a rating of 1 is not cause for public concern.
Most experts do not believe the mainstream press should waste time reporting on such an object. Several other newfound asteroids receiving similar designation in recent years have fallen off the list within days, as more observations allowed for refined orbital projections.
Nonetheless, a press release issued early Tuesday by the British government's Near Earth Object Information Center fueled widespread media coverage, including a wire story by Reuters that many asteroid experts saw as inflammatory.
Headlines were over-the-top, most researchers felt. They included "Armageddon set for March 21, 2014" and "Earth is Doomed."
By late yesterday, however, more observations allowed astronomers to conclude there was no chance for impact in 2014.
Old news
The incident was just one in a long series miscues involving astronomers, their public relations efforts, and a media eager to report potential doom.
"It would appear that all the lessons learned from five years of our PR blunders, media gaffes and errors of judgement have been forgotten," said Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist and asteroid analyst at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK.
A handful of similar scares -- about one per year -- have evaporated in similar fashion as professional astronomers go about their business of finding and tracking potentially dangerous asteroids.
The NEO information Center, whose press release ignited the latest fiery press coverage, issued a follow-up statement early this morning.
"The NEO Information Center aims to keep the public and media informed of these kinds of issues, as they unfold rather than after the fact," today's statement said. "This approach ensures we can promote understanding of the process of asteroid detection, tracking and risk assessment."
Kevin Yates, project manager for the center, had said in the original press release that additional observations would likely reveal a reduced risk.
Today, Yates said, "Openly sharing this sort of information, in a non-sensationalist way, should help to dispel the popular myth that governments and astronomers would keep the discovery of a dangerous asteroid secret. I hope the coverage of this story will give the general public more of a feel for how the assessment of risk evolves over time as more observations are made."
The NEO Information Center's statement today concluded with a bizarre note of praise for the media that sounded defensive to others in the NEO community.
"The NEO Information Center would like to thank the media for what, on the whole, has been responsible coverage of this story. Almost all of the press and broadcast coverage has included reference to our original statements that the probability of impact was very low at just 1-in-909 000, and that the Torino rating was likely to drop following further observations."
"Undermining our integrity"
Peiser did not share the center's rosy view for how the whole thing unfolded. He runs an electronic newsletter called CCNet, a forum for discussing the research and risks associated with NEOs, as well as the impact of media coverage on the public view of asteroid research and the credibility of the researchers.
"I'm afraid that any attempt to justify an ill-timed and unnecessary media campaign doesn't bode well for the NEO community's efforts to avoid false asteroid alarms that only risk undermining our integrity," Peiser wrote in the latest edition of CCNet today.
Peiser leveled this accusation at the center: "Crying wolf becomes official policy."
advertisement
