Take the 2-minute tour ×
Astronomy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for astronomers and astrophysicists. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In the National Geographic article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090403-gamma-ray-extinction_2.html it is suggested that a gamma ray burst likely caused a mass extinction in earth's history. How severe is the threat of a gamma ray burst to life on earth? It would be nice to see a chart that considers the threat within the next hundred years as follows (I have no idea what the actual numbers are, hence I am asking):

Severity - Likelihood in 100 years:

  • Global extinction - 0.0000001%
  • Major impact - 0.001%
  • Moderate impact - 0.1%
  • Minor impact (e.g. deplete ozone layer by 0.01%) - 10%
  • Observable - 100% ("minor" gamma ray bursts are frequently detected)

Follow up questions are:

Something else I found to be shocking is that the Bible appears to predict such an event. I would rate the predicted event on the major impact level. I asked about this in the Christian Stack Exchange here: http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/9324/interpretations-of-revelation-168-11/9335#9335

share|improve this question

This question has an open bounty worth +50 reputation from Sabre Tooth ending in 7 days.

This question has not received enough attention.

Full bounty will only be awarded to a non-Wikipedia based and purely scientific answer (non-religious)

4  
For all of those question I can answer to one of them: we may have some preview a few hours before receiving the gamma ray burst in form of a high increase of neutrino detection since neutrinos are always emitted first in theses cases. –  Joan.bdm May 30 at 11:43
2  
There's no evidence of any dangerous GRB in historic time. It can never have been described by any human account. The mere proportions of space and time explains this very obiously, for those who care to try to understand, anyway. There's no potentially dangerous GRB source in our neighborhood during the rest of human existance either. It'll take at least more than 10^7 years until the Sun has moved into a potential danger area. That's a thousand times all of historic age. –  LocalFluff May 30 at 15:45
    
@LocalFluff: The National Geographic article I quoted above, in the first page states: "Currently WR104, a massive star 8,000 light-years away in the constellation Sagittarius, is in position to be a potential threat, Thomas noted." –  Jonathan May 30 at 19:51
1  
you might find arxiv.org/abs/1211.3962 interesting –  samcarter Jun 30 at 17:22
1  
@Jonathan, I know you only made it a very minor point, but the Bible claim has no backing to it. And WR104 is considered a "potential threat" only because it is a Wolf-Rayet star with an axis pointed in the general vicinity of our solar system. The National Geographic article says that the star would have to be pointed pretty much exactly at Earth. WR-104 is off by 16 degrees - too much for it to be "threat". –  HDE 226868 Aug 9 at 19:54

1 Answer 1

I'll address WR104 first. The National Geographic article calls it a "potential threat." Yet that potential may be low. There are a slew of articles quoting astronomer Grant Hill on the subject. Hill studied the star and found that it looks like it isn't pointing straight at us. Its axis might be up to 45 degrees in another direction, meaning that we'd be fine if it underwent a burst.

From here:

It would appear the original Keck imagry may not have been as straight-forward as it seemed. Spectroscopic emission lines from the binary pair strongly suggest the system is in fact inclined 30°-40° (possibly as much as 45°) away from us.

So, Earth doesn’t appear to be in the firing line of WR 104 after all…

Here and here Hill is quoted as saying that the star looks like it could be pointed at us - which goes against the evidence he found! Finally, this is another example of Hill's cautious attitude: The evidence says we're good, but he's not making any assumptions.


At the moment, that's all the information I have. I'll get more tomorrow; this is so far a very incomplete answer.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.