Since it burned up in the atmosphere, then there was no damage on the Earth. Obviously, it was not large enough to remain intact and burned up prior to hitting the ground.
Since it did not hit the ground and create a new crater, how can the nonexplosive force be compared to an atomic bomb?
As NormsRevenge made me realize, these guys are probably talking about the *potential* destructive force of the meteorite, which ends up dissipating in the atmosphere.
They are after all scientists talking to journalists so we should not be surprised if the result is a meteoritic hyperbole...
We exploded several atomic bombs in LEO- Argus and Starfish Prime were two. They obviously had a very energetic yield but left no crater and no sign except for glows in the sky and fallout.
Tunguska was (maybe) a comet fragment that exploded fairly close to Earth and flattened trees, but no crater.
Meteor Crater in Az, now, IS a meteor crater.
There have been several big atmospheric ice explosions, many detected by our nuclear bomb watch devices. They happen.
If a chunk of ice or rock detonates in the atmosphere the energy of that blast can be compared to the energy release of a nuke. It explodes, but it's not a nuclear explosion, more like a huge blast of steam.
What makes you think it has to hit the ground to explode? Most meteors don't hit the ground, and many of those still explode from atmospheric heating. All that kinetic energy has to go somewhere.