How to dispose of a dead body, legally

The conversation was sparked by a lecture on vultures and their role in the ecosystem. The speaker had mentioned a tradition called “Tibetan sky burial”, in which the dead are carried to a location in the mountains where their bodies can be devoured by birds of prey. (The ground in Tibet is apparently cold enough to make grave digging a difficult undertaking.) It was the first time I’d heard of the concept, and I was impressed.

ME: What a great idea! Why can’t we do that here? Why can’t we just throw dead bodies into the woods and let vultures handle it?

BOYFRIEND: Because you can’t just leave corpses lying around. It’s unsanitary. There are dangerous bacteria in rotting bodies, like anthrax or something.

ME: Really? Anthrax? Are you sure? That doesn’t sound right…

Normally at this point I would have consulted my trusted friend iPhone, but we were camping in an area with spotty reception and so the question went unanswered…until now.

Given the effort and expense that go into human post-mortem affairs, it seems reasonable to assume they serve some crucial hygienic benefit. And yet wild animals die and decompose all the time and nobody is running into the jungle to make sure their remains are properly buried or burned. Is there an legitimate reason why I can’t just leave a dead body in my backyard? The vultures would be thrilled.

Not-so-noxious vapors

A decade ago, the Tri-State Crematory in Noble, Georgia was at the center of a bewildering scandal. Rather than cremating bodies entrusted to him by grieving loved ones, proprietor Ray Brent Marsh – who had recently taken over operations for his ailing father – inexplicably left the dead to decompose in and around the facility. Over 300 bodies were discovered in various states of decay, piled into seemingly every inch of the crematory. The community and the nation were, naturally, horrified and then furious. Marsh pled guilty to multiple charges of theft by deception, fraud, making false statements, and abuse of a dead body. Once you finish reeling from the strangeness of Marsh’s crimes, however, you’ll notice that nowhere on the list of offenses is endangering public health.

Corpses also won’t do this. Image: AZAdam.

That’s because, surprise! Dead bodies aren’t the biohazards many assume them to be. Remember that human rituals for disposal of the dead far predate the germ theory of disease (in which certain microorganisms are responsible for illness and infection, rather than vaporous “miasmas” and other debunked beliefs of yore). The process of decay may look like disease, but the bacteria found in dead bodies are the same ones that exist in the living, there are just a lot more of them.^* You see, while dying may be undesirable/inconvenient for the individual, it’s a big party for our inner microbes. Once the body throws in the towel for good, enzymes begin breaking down our cells (a process called autolysis, or self-digestion). This floods the fresh corpse with food, allowing the microbes to multiply. By-products of the bacterial boom cause cadavers to bloat and stink and generally upset the senses of the living, but there’s nothing uniquely dangerous in there. Even the famously malodorous compounds Putrescine and Cadaverine – by-products of decay but sometimes also culprits in bad breath – are toxic only if ingested in large doses. And, really, why would you want to do that?

It’s not that corpses are completely clean and cuddly and should be stored on your kitchen countertop. But the main risk they pose is basically the same one posed by living bodies – they can pollute the water. It’s a bad idea to float a dead body down the Ganges River for the same reason it’s a bad idea to dump raw sewage into it – bacteria in the water supply can cause gastrointestinal illness. Possible groundwater contamination is the major health threat of improper disposal of bodies, particularly in areas that rely on untreated well water. However even burying bodies in cemeteries doesn’t always prevent this problem.

So negligible is the threat posed by corpses that the World Health Organization (WHO), in itsguidelines for dealing with dead bodies in emergencies, urges against rushing them into mass graves, especially if the emergency in question is a natural disaster rather than an epidemic. According to WHO, the benefits of clearing out corpses are mostly psychological (I’d imagine having to constantly sidestep dead bodies is pretty demoralizing), and hasty mass burials only make matters worse for survivors by thwarting the identification of the dead. When epidemics are involved, of course, disposal of the dead needs to be done with more protective clothing and disinfectant. (And watch out for ticks if the problematic illness is typhus or plague.) But despite the ghastly smell of cadavers, no harm will come to you from simply breathing the air around them.

But since the psychological impact of confronting death by confronting corpses is a valid concern, we’ve developed some ways to keep our dearly departed from littering the public streets. Let’s have a look at some options.

Land

Most corpse disposal methods involve getting the body either into or onto the ground, but whether by burial and cremation there’s a lot of diversity in the logistics.

Let’s start with so-called “traditional funerals” (in quotes because many of the conventions aren’t especially ancient). This is what most people conjure up when they hear the word “burial”. It’s a big production with elaborate caskets and carved headstones, and a service for which the body of the deceased is typically embalmed, groomed and dressed, even if it is to be a closed casket funeral. The problem with traditional burial is that it’s kind of, sort of, just a little bit, um, horrifically wasteful. All those materials going into the making of the casket, all that embalming fluid^† pumped into the corpse (typically containing formaldehyde, which the poor mortician is thus exposed to), and all this just to get buried.

And it’s not only the casket going into the ground, there’s also the concrete burial vault, a requirement for interment in some traditional cemeteries. The burial vault is essentially a casket for your casket. It prevents your actual body-containing casket from collapsing under the weight of dirt and cemetery-maintaining vehicles and whatnot. After all, nobody wants to go through all the trouble of a traditional funeral only to end up with an unsightly sunken grave.

Traditional cemetery. Cat not included in price of burial. Image: Baby’s In Black.

With the copious resources going into it, traditional burial isn’t cheap. A consumer guide on the U.S. Federal Trade Commission website acknowledges that, “Funerals rank among the most expensive purchases many consumers will ever make.” (Anywhere from $6000 to over $10,000, by their estimates.) Sound like too much money for too much packaging? Then queue the alternatives…

Cremation tends to be the go-to choice for those wishing to avoid the excesses and expense of traditional burial. It’s definitely a space saver. While you’re still welcome to have your “cremains” (shop talk for ashes) buried in a cemetery, many people opt to store the ashes in an urn or to scatter them somewhere suitably symbolic (outdoors ideally, I’d recommend against scattering ashes in a shopping mall or the floor of Congress). It also circumvents the whole decomposition issue for those upset by the thought of their bodies putrefying in the ground (even an airtight casket can’t stop the inevitable decay of a corpse, as Caitlin Doughty will cheerfully explain to you in her Ask a Mortician video series).

Yet cremation too is not without problems. Incinerating bodies requires energy (modern crematories have stopped using coal, but they still burn fossil fuels such as natural gas and propane) and releases carbon emissions. Burning corpses with metal amalgam dental fillings can also produces a small amount of vaporized mercury, which is generally considered bad news.^‡

But fear not, your body can now be reduced to ashes without flames through a process called alkaline hydrolysis (aka resomation, aka liquid cremation). It’s been used for decades on dead animals and has recently also become available (though only in a handful of U.S. states) to dead humans. Here’s how it works: your corpse + the strong base potassium hydroxide (KOH, or lye if your prefer a gentler sounding name) + low heat (about 350F, compared to the over 1500F temperature of a crematory furnace) + water + pressure = ash-like solid remains + disposable liquid by-product. For those concerned about that liquid and its disposal, we’re assured that the stuff going down the drain is both sterile and pH neutral. And if you’re aesthetically or theologically outraged by the whole idea of what I’ve just described, this may not be the best option for you. Perhaps we should revisit burial…

Deer not included in price of burial. Image: Nicholas_T.

Natural burial, or green burial, is an alternative designed to minimize the environmental impact of cadaver disposal. Rather than attempting to delay the inevitability of decay with formaldehyde and über-caskets, it embraces it as a way of returning the body to the earth (ashes to ashes and all that). The dead are buried in simple, non-toxic, biodegradable caskets (wood, wicker, or even cardboard are options) or just shrouds (what better way to prevent casket collapse than by not using one in the first place). Embalming fluid is generally eschewed, and when it is used, a formaldehyde-free version is employed. The cemeteries themselves are decorated with trees instead of headstones. It’s all very pastoral.

Of course, as with many things labeled “natural”, the ambiguity of that word opens the door for charlatans hoping to cash in on the growing popularity of eco-friendly death. In the U.S., the Green Burial Counsel is attempting to establish some standards to combat the potential green-washing (they have a three leaf rating system even). Still, in the absence of government regulation, it’s pretty much buyer beware at this stage. If your “green” burial provider insists on an airtight metal casket and cement vault, you might want to shop elsewhere.

And if you feel natural burial isn’t green enough, you might look into having yourself composted. While you can’t just have your corpse hauled directly out to the garden – most states require either refrigeration or burial of the body within 24 hours of death (there goes my dream of vulture-mediated burial) – you can be made into nutrient-rich fertilizer with the aid of technology. The Swedish company Promessa has created a method of removing water from the body by freeze-drying it in liquid nitrogen. This makes the body brittle enough to break into a powder (and much lighter, recall that water makes up well over half of the body). The powder is buried shallowly (Promessa contends that whole bodies are buried too deep into the ground to allow sufficient oxygen for the natural, plant-nurturing variety of decomposition). And, if you like, a tree can be planted on top. That part sounds especially appealing to me, as it would allow me to do in death what I’ve consistently failed to do in life – keep a plant alive.

I first heard of human composting in Mary Roach’s book Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers. The book was published almost a decade ago (2003) and today Promessa’s concept remains far from being a readily available option (you might need to die in Sweden for this to work out for you). But it could still catch on. After all, turn of the century (19^th to 20^th, that is) Brits were largely adverse to the idea of cremation (too reminiscent of Pagan funeral pyres), but by the 2000s, over 70 percent the country’s corpses were bound for flames. You never know.

Sea

Image: MoToMo.

Guess which recently deceased famous astronaut is going to be buried at sea this week? That’s right, Neil Armstrong! Armstrong, who served as a pilot in the U.S. Navy prior to his more memorable role as first man on the moon, will presumably have a military sea burial. But underwater interment is available to civilians as well.

As with land graves, sea burial can be more or less environmentally intrusive, depending on the materials involved. Regulations vary. Even though we’re both using the same ocean, EPA-controlled U.S. burials will let you throw an embalmed body overboard, while Britain forbids it (along with non-biodegradable caskets).

Sea burial comes with one additional consideration that isn’t an issue on land – how to keep bodies from washing up on the shores and spooking beachcombers. EPA requires that cadavers be ferried a minimum of 3 miles from shore to a depth of at least 600 feet. And there’s various paperwork to be filed as well (though that’s also the case on land). Weights are used to discourage corpses from wandering too far. A casketed body needs more weighing down than a shrouded one, btw. Another reason you might want to keep it simple.

What’s it like under the sea? Your body will still decompose, though more slowly in colder waters. Luckily the ocean is filled with hungry fishes and crustaceans ready to help move the process along. And this is one of those rare instances in which you’re allowed to feed the animals.

Space

Space burial sounds pretty cool until you realize it’s not your whole body being launched into the cosmos, but rather a small capsule of your ashes (a few paltry grams worth). So you’ll still have to arrange some sort of earthly cremation process before the final journey, and figure out what to do with the remaining majority of the ashes.

Additionally, the space ashes won’t exactly float through the heavens for all eternity. For now, an ash capsules boldly goes only as far as Earth orbit, where it will circle the planet until – like any other piece of space junk we put there – it eventually falls back to Earth and burns up in the atmosphere (not really as issue for the ashes, I suppose). Essentially, it’s just a very elaborate method of scattering ashes. Still, the cremains of Gene Roddenberry and Timothy Leary rode into space in 1997. Yours can to, for a price ($1,295 for a gram of ashes, according to a 2006 article in Wired, prices may have gone up since). I think I’ll pass. If Neil Armstrong’s ashes aren’t traveling into space, I see no reason why mine should.

DIY or die

Okay, so you can’t let corpses decompose on your lawn thanks to that rule about refrigeration, but (depending on where you live) you may be able to bury them on your property. That’s right. Home burial is an option in some locations, particularly rural ones. You’ll have to check with the local authorities to find out if your property qualifies (remember, buried bodies need to be a safe distance from water sources) and get all the necessary approvals. Make sure you don’t skip that last part. Alabama resident James Davis is currently in a legal battle to decide whether he can keep the remains of his wife buried in his yard. Interestingly, the county health department found no issues with the burial site, but the City Counsel rejected Davis’ request due to concerns about property values and disturbing neighbors (it’s a residential, not rural, area). In any event, it sounds like a colossal drag. Don’t let this happen to you.

Even if you prefer to have the body taken elsewhere afterward, you can still try for a home funeral. This means you pick up the body and do all the ceremonial parts at home and then deliver it to a cemetery or crematory only for the final step. It’s potentially far less expensive than going through a funeral home and, by some accounts, being actively involved in preparing the body of a loved one for burial or cremation can provide a better sense of connection and closure. Displaying a corpse in your living room may sound weird and morbid to modern sensibilities, but not so long ago home funerals were how everyone did it.

As with home burial, this needs to be run by your local government before getting started. Certain states require the involvement of a funeral director at some stage of the process.

Final resting place

So what’s the best way to dispose of a dead body? In researching this article I came to the conclusion that there isn’t one perfect solution to that question. (I used to think cremation was the way to go, now I’m not so sure). I’ve focused a lot on environmental factors because that’s my greatest concern in the matter, but even with that in mind there isn’t a clear best choice. The point is you have options. Boy, do you have options. And there are even more out there that I didn’t have time to cover. So choose carefully. Unless you believe in reincarnation, you only live once. From which it stands to reason that you only die once.

^* FYI, typing word combinations like “bacteria specific to corpses” into Google will route you to a wealth of icky urban legends regarding necrophilia. Consider yourself warned.

^† Embalming fluid gained popularity during the civil war as it facilitated shipping bodies of dead soldiers home. For corpses just travelling from the mortuary to the graveyard, embalming is not necessary. Refrigeration is sufficient to slow decay prior to burial.

^‡ There was some speculation that mercury poisoning led to Ray Marsh’s pathologically passive method of cadaver disposal at the Tri-State Crematory.

from http://earthsky.org/human-world/how-to-dispose-of-a-dead-body-legally

Moon near Jupiter, above Venus, before dawn September 9

The planet Jupiter blazes near the moon from late night tonight until dawn Sunday. They rise in the east around or after midnight, though the precise time depends on where you live in your time zone. In North America, Jupiter rises first, then the waning crescent moon follows Jupiter into the sky. Venus, the most brilliant of planets, rises in the east in the wee hours before dawn. As seen from mid-northern latitudes, Jupiter and the moon will have climbed high in the southern sky by tomorrow’s dawn, and Venus will be pretty much on line with the moon and Jupiter in the eastern sky.

Rising times of the moon and Jupiter into your sky

Tonight’s moon is a bit past its half-lit last quarter phase. The last quarter moon fell on Saturday, September 8, at precisely 13:15 (1:15 p.m.) Universal Time. In the central part of the U.S., that was 8:15 a.m. on September 8 Central Daylight Time.

Observers in the Southern Hemisphere will see Jupiter and the moon rather low down in theirnorthern sky at morning dawn, and Venus rather close to the northeast horizon. In contrast, we in the Northern Hemisphere will see Jupiter and the moon high in the southern sky or high overhead, and Venus fairly close to due east.

Stephen J. O’Meara on exploring the solar system with binoculars

Jupiter will be an obvious bright object in the sky, from the time it rises until dawn tomorrow. If you have keen eyesight and a steady hand, you might even see one or more of Jupiter’s moons through binoculars. Look for the Jupiter by the waning moon after midnight and before dawn on September 9. And draw an imaginary line from Jupiter and past the moon to find the even brighter planet Venus in the eastern predawn and dawn sky.

If you’re a practiced sky watcher, you can try your luck at catching the lunar occultation of the dwarf planet Ceres with the telescope. Click here for more information.

from http://earthsky.org/tonight/watch-for-the-moon-near-jupiter-before-dawn-september

Orion’s Belt to star Sirius, plus moon, Jupiter, Venus

Sure, we’ve said it before. But we’ll say it again, because it’s one of the neatest tricks in all the heavens. That is … Orion’s Belt points to Sirius. Sirius is the brightest star in the sky. It’s up before dawn now but will be shifting into the evening sky as the months pass. And if you’re out before dawn tomorrow morning – September 10, 2012 – you can’t fail to see a spectacular sight in the predawn sky. The moon will be in between the sky’s brightest planets, Venus and Jupiter.

Jupiter shines to the north of Orion in September 2012

Orion is found in the predawn morning sky every September, but the planet Jupiter’s presence to the north of the Hunter is special to September of 2012. Also, the presence of the waning crescent moon to the north of Orion also happens tomorrow on September 10, 2012. Venus is brighter than Jupiter – and closer to the eastern horizon before dawn.

The phases of the moon recur on or near the same calendar dates in cycles of 19 years, so look for a similarly-sized waning crescent moon to return to this place in the starry sky on September 10, 2031. Mark your calendars! :-)

If you draw an imaginary line from Jupiter and past the moon, you’ll see the brightest planet of all – Venus – in the eastern sky. Orion and Sirius are located to the right of this line made by the planets and moon, as you stand facing east before dawn. Sirius beams as third-brightest star-like object in the heavens, after the planets Venus and Jupiter.

Sirius is Dog Star and brightest star

Here’s an image of the east before dawn today (September 9, 2012). EarthSky Facebook friend Migizi Gichigumi captured this scene. Thank you, Migizi! You can see the line made by the moon (center), Jupiter (upper right) and Venus (lower right). The three stars of Orion’s Belt are clearly visible to the right of this line. On Monday morning, September 10, the scene will be much the same – but the moon will be closer to Venus. Click here to expand this image.

Yes, you can find Orion. Trust me. If you go outside and look south to southeast before dawn now, you’ll notice Orion’s Belt, which consists of a short, straight row of medium-bright stars. Just draw a line through Orion’s Belt and extend that line toward the horizon. You’ll easily spot Sirius, the sky’s brightest star.

Sirius is in the constellation Canis Major the Greater Dog. It’s often called the Dog Star.

Bottom line: On Monday, September 10, 2012, you’ll find the moon in between the sky’s two brightest planets, Venus and Jupiter, in the east before dawn. To the right of this line-up, you’ll find the constellation Orion, who three Belt stars make a short, straight row in the southeast before dawn. Orion’s Belt always points to Sirius, the sky’s brightest star. Enjoy these bright and beautiful objects before dawn!

from http://earthsky.org/tonight/good-sky-trick-orions-belt-points-to-starsirius

Did comets bring water to Earth?

Astronomers have been arguing for some years about comets brought Earth its water. Then in 2011, an international team of astronomers using the Herschel Space Observatory to study Comet Hartley 2 (103P/Hartley) published their results on the first comet confirmed to contain ocean-like water.

Besides life, the biggest thing that distinguishes the Earth from other planets in the solar system is the presence of copious amounts of liquid water. Water molecules have been found in nebulae in distant reaches of the galaxy, so water itself isn’t uncommon in the universe. So it might be surprising to learn that no one really knows how all the water on Earth got here!

Comet Hartley 2. Image Credit: NASA

Over the years, four prominent theories explaining the origin of water on Earth have gained favor. In one, water-rich asteroids and meteorites impacted the infant Earth, distributing water across the planet by brute force. In another more serene process, the oceans formed when hydrogen and oxygen in the materials that made up the Earth (e.g., hydrocarbons and oxygen in iron oxides) combined chemically below the Earth’s crust and emerged as volcanic steam that condensed and rained down on the surface. A more recent theory suggests that water molecules actually adhered to the surfaces of the interstellar dust grains that accreted to form the solar system. In that case, water accumulated simultaneously with the rest of the planet. And last, but not least, there are the comets.

Comet Hyakutake. Image Credit: E. Kolmhofer, H. Raab; Johannes-Kepler-Observatory

For decades, the accepted wisdom has been that comets brought a large proportion of water to the primordial Earth. In spite of the seemingly logical connection between comets and oceans, there has been one serious problem with that theory: the composition of water thus far detected in comets has differed fundamentally from that of the Earth’s oceans, so they couldn’t possible be a primary source. This problem was serious enough to threaten the comet source model altogether. Or at least it was until now.

Not all water is created equal

The composition problem that has dogged the comet model is rooted in the atomic structure of ocean water. It turns out that not all ocean water is made up of “regular” water (i.e., H2O). About one out of every 3,200 water molecules in the ocean is a heavy watermolecule made with deuterium — a hydrogen atom with an extra neutron. When this hydrogen isotope combines with oxygen to make water, it’s actually about 10 percent heavier than the much more common form of water found everywhere around us on Earth.

Any theory of water transport to the Earth from space must account for this specific ratio of regular to heavy water molecules. This is why many researchers favor, for example, the asteroid impact model; scientists have verified that asteroids and some meteorites do contain the right ratio of heavy to regular water.

For comets to be a source of the Earth’s ocean water, they too must contain just the right ratio of heavy to regular water. But until Comet Hartley 2, no comet had been found to meet this vital criterion.

In fact, the specific chemistry of comets was unknown until the 1980s, when the first direct measurements of comet ice were made on Halley’s Comet and — years later — Comet Hyakutake. Unfortunately, these two comets contained twice as much heavy water than is found in water on Earth. That meant they, and comets like them, couldn’t possibly be a source of ocean water. The comet model was sinking, fast.

But scientists weren’t willing to give up. In 2000, scientists seized a rare opportunity to make another measurement of comet water when Comet LINEAR broke up as it approached the sun. While the right proportion of deuterium to hydrogen was not directly measured, other chemical tracers strongly suggested that deuterium was present in just the right amount required to explain ocean water composition.

For the next 10 years, the jury was still out on whether or not comets could contain the right amount of deuterium. Nowadays, thanks to Comet Hartley 2, it appears that comets are back in the game!

It is believed that comets like Hartley 2 and LINEAR, both of which originated in the Kuiper Belt near Jupiter’s orbit, possess the appropriate amount of heavy water. Finding such comets is challenging since, over time, gravitational perturbations have depleted that source of comets. Comets Halley and Hyukatake did not originate in the same region, which explains their completely different chemical compositions.

NASA image of the nucleus of Hartley 2 with overlaid spectra of the normal and heavy water, as observed by a far-infrared instrument aboard the Herschel Space Observatory. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt

Ted Bergin of the University of Michigan – a member of the team that discovered ocean-like water in Comet Hartley 2 in 2011 – acknowledged that the result is based on a sample of one. He told EarthSky last fall:

We really need to know if this comet is a representative member of the Kuiper Belt. It is one very important measurement but we need more to begin to put the pieces of this puzzle together.

The results show that the amount of material out there that could have contributed to Earth’s oceans is perhaps larger than we thought. What this adds to the story is that the reservoir of material that can potentially be brought to the Earth with the right “kind” of water is much larger. This does not say that comets did bring water to the Earth but rather that they might.

While it is most likely that water came to Earth through a variety of processes, this latest finding reinvigorates the theory that comets may have contributed a lot more water to the Earth than was recently thought.

Now, as for the origin of comets themselves? That’s a question for another rainy day.

Bottom line: Astronomers have been arguing for decades about how Earth got its water. In 2011, using the Herschel Space Observatory to study comet Hartley 2 (103P/Hartley), an international team of astronomers including Ted Bergin of the University of Michigan found the first comet confirmed to contain ocean-like water. The comet is Comet Hartley 2. These results appeared online October 5, 2011, in the journal Nature.

from http://earthsky.org/space/did-comets-bring-water-to-earth

What happened in Tunguska in 1908?

On June 30, 1908, in a remote part of Russia, a fireball was seen streaking across the daytime sky. Within moments, something exploded in the atmosphere above Siberia’s Podkamennaya Tunguska River in what is now Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia.

This event – now widely known as theTunguska event – is believed to have been caused by an incoming meteor or comet, which never actually struck Earth but instead exploded in the atmosphere, causing what is known as an air burst, three to six miles (5–10 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.

The explosion released enough energy to kill reindeer and flatten trees for many kilometers around the blast site. But no crater was ever found.

At the time, it was difficult to reach this remote part of Siberia. It wasn’t until 1927 that Leonid Kulik led the first Soviet research expedition to investigate the Tunguska event. He made a initial trip to the region, interviewed local witnesses and explored the region where the trees had been felled. He became convinced that they were all turned with their roots to the center. He did not find any meteorite fragments, and he did not find a meteorite crater.

Over the years, scientists and others concocted fabulous explanations for the Tunguska explosion. Some were pretty wild – such as the encounter of Earth with an alien spacecraft, or a mini-black-hole, or a particle of antimatter.

The truth is much more ordinary. In all likelihood, a small icy comet or stony asteroid collided with Earth’s atmosphere on June 30, 1908. If it were an asteroid, it might have been about a third as big as a football field – moving at about 15 kilometers (10 miles) per second.

Because the explosion took place so long ago, we might never know for certain whether it was an asteroid or comet. But in recent decades astronomers have come to take the possibility of comet and asteroid impacts more seriously. They now have regular observing programs to watch for Near-Earth Objects, as they’re called. They also meet regularly to discuss what might happen if we did find an object on a collision course with Earth.

Map showing the approximate location of the Tunguska event of 1908.

Bottom line: On June 30, 1908, an object from space apparently exploded in the atmosphere above Siberia. The explosion killed reindeer and flattened trees, in what has become known as the Tunguska event.

from http://earthsky.org/space/what-is-the-tunguska-explosion