--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > Apocalypse narrowly averted, yet again. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7921279.stm > > I love it when these flyby's occur, it makes my policy > > of living for the day seem very wise indeed. Because one of > > these days something like this is going to hit, and possibly > > even hit a major population centre. And it'll put a few human > > problems nicely into perspective I should think. > > > Apocalypse? It takes a much bigger rock hitting us for an extinction level > event.
I didn't say extinction level event. If you're anywhere near something that explodes with the force of 1000 atom bombs it's an apocalypse. Trust me. > This rock was spotted way too late for anything to be done, yet there will be > no funding to set up a better "watch the skies for rocks" program than the > modest one we have now which spots, say, about 80% of the near Earth objects > out there. > If things happen in threes, urp, eh? > > I think you were just tossing off your post so I won't hold your feet to the > fire about it Gee thanks! > but, frankly, I don't need another disaster to get me clear about > priorities. 30,000 children die every day from shit flavored > water -- no headlines. But have a tiny space rock hit a small school and > kill 30 kids, and ya gets headlines for days, all the parents interviewed, > etc. I guess because it's out of the ordinary whereas people starving etc is old news, which doesn't sell. Doesn't mean we ignore it mind you, billions is spent on overseas aid y'know. Never enough.
