what does she mean by "re-entered"? does it mean "burned in the atmosphere"? if so, i don't really see the problem.
Astronomy
As I understand it, and that understanding could be flawed, burning up a lot of satellites containing a lot of substances not usually found in our upper atmosphere may have consequences. No-one has done the due diligence to know whether this is the case or not. Or if these consequences would be significant for us.
Also, "re-entered" might not mean burning up fully.
No-one has done the due diligence to know whether this is the case or not.
so lets maybe not raise the god of apocalypse. these satellites are really small objects, their volume is absolutely insignificant to the bullshit we create down here on the sea level...
Agreed. This would be in line with the many meteor showers we have... which arguably could contain more "unknown" substances than what we mined out of our own crust.
This feels a bit more like a bit of fear mongering than actual reporting / science.
There are many reasons to be concerned with what we have in orbit... this isn't one of them.
Would they have the Mass to do any damage?
Starlink sats are tiny - only ~260kg each. Even thousands re-entering would be comparable to what Earth naturally experiences from meteoroids (about 48 tons daily). The aluminium/composite materials aren't particularly exotic or harmful when they vaporize in the upper atmopshere. It's a non-issue compared to actual space debris concerns.
Night sky is gonna be lit then.