Placing the Near-Earth Object Impact Probability in Context
2025/08/01 by C. Nugent, C. R. Nugent, KE Andersen +20 · 5 voices
Physics and Astronomy · #astro-ph.EP
paper · pdf · doi:10.3847/psj/adf0e3
Abstract
Near-Earth objects (NEOs) have the potential to cause extensive damage and loss of life on Earth. Advancements in NEO discovery, trajectory prediction, and deflection technology indicate that an impact could be prevented, with sufficient warning time. We derive an impact frequency of NEOs 140m and larger, using the NEOMOD2 NEO population model and JPL Horizons. We then place that frequency in context with other preventable causes of death; allowing for comparison between a planet-wide event and individual events that cause fatalities such as car crashes and carbon monoxide poisoning. We find that the chance of a >140 m asteroid hitting the Earth is more likely than the chance of an individual being struck by lightning.
Citations
Discussions
- The chance of a >140 m asteroid hitting the Earth (hello 🦕) is more likely than you being trampled by an elephant, but much less likely than you being struck by a car. doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/... [bsky, 127 points, 14 comments]
- Hahaha! This preprint! 🔭🧪 Chance of event happening to you or the planet, and if so, chance it will be lethal? Turns out .... we are more likely to be hit by an impactor 140m and greater than: - bei [bsky, 59 points, 14 comments]
- We already have a winner for scientific figure of the month! Thanks to Rogerio Deienno for pointing out this paper. Carrie Nugent et al., Placing the Near-Earth Object Impact Probability in Context ar [bsky, 7 points, 1 comments]
- A study found that an asteroid impact is statistically more likely than a person being struck by lightning. arxiv.org/abs/2508.02418 [bsky, 0 points, 0 comments]
- What are the chances of your dying from an asteroid impact? Nifty graphic on p. 6 compares that to getting killed by an elephant, or a skydiving accident, or rabies, etc. arxiv.org/pdf/2508.02418 [bsky, 0 points, 0 comments]
Related