Talk:2002 Eastern Mediterranean event

Translated from

Translated from http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evento_del_Mediterr%C3%A1neo_Oriental -MaeseLeon 21:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

This article states that the Tungusta Event "was detected by satellites and seismographic stations"

Satellites in 1908? I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.50.154 (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't state that. It says that this 2002 object exploded in a way similar to that in the Tunguska event, and separately that this 2002 event was detected by satellites. Although the two statements are included within the same overall sentence structure, it would not ordinarily be construed to mean that the similarity included the means of detection.40.0.96.1 14:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for the claim, "Had it burst on a populated area, the consequences would have been catastrophic". According to Worden, who is cited as a primary source for this article, "Had you been situated on a vessel directly underneath the intensely bright flash would have been followed by a shock wave that would have rattled the entire ship and possibly caused minor damage."FurtherWestMan (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Minor damage" and other issues.

First of all, not only do none of the references state that the explosions was the equivalent of "26 kilotons", none of them even agree with each other. The Worden speech states the explosion is "comparable to the Hiroshima burst". The second reference gives a figure of "one-kiloton" while the BBC article claims "12 kilotonnes". Where did this 26 kiloton figure come from?

Second, while the Worden speech does say that the event would have only caused "minor damage" to anything directly below it, this doesn't make any sense. He must have meant due to the altitude of the burst but it's not explicitly stated in the speech nor is the altitude given in any of the references. In any case, to say that a 26 (or 12, or even 1) kiloton explosion would only cause "minor damage" seems ludicrous unless you quantify the altitude.

And lastly, the last paragraph about India and Pakistan and nuclear war seems irrelevant to the topic to me.ProgHead777 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If substantiated as an actual concern held by enough/suitably important commentators, it's obviously significant. If people's reaction to an event is "this could cause nuclear war", that's an important aspect of the history of the event. More problematic is that I don't think the article cited suggests that it might have caused a nuclear war, but that it could have, had the location been different. Well, that isn't very interesting. I'm going to change it for the time being, but if someone doesn't find a better source, it should be removed. JustinBlank (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember that date VERY well. Pakistan and India had mobilized their nuclear forces and were on high alert. This event occurred and CRITIC traffic was sent regarding it. We'll suffice it to say that India and Pakistan were informed of the detection of an exploding fireball that would resemble a nuclear detonation, were they to have detected it coarsely. I doubt you can call direct, personal experience OR, but... I DO know that a LOT of nations were holding their breath that day! Interestingly enough, that day, the stand down orders were sent by BOTH nations to their nuclear forces.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Date In Question

I wish some of those other references had been sited, because I had trouble bringing up anything about this which was not directly sited. I found reference to a (very) similar event on July 6, in the Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, and would be amazed if there were two different strikes so very close together. This one is described as a cometary fragment. spiderwing (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks 4 the above link; i also found this: P. Brown, et al.: The flux of small near-Earth objects colliding with the Earth. Nature 420, 294-296 (21 November 2002), doi:10.1038/nature01238; pdf online for an event on July 6. --Gravitophoton (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC) sorry my mistake, the above paper clearly states june 6th, not july... --Gravitophoton (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)