No, Daffy. The question is, who is best qualified to evaluate the risks of a scientific experiment? Would that be scientists? Why, I believe it would! We're not talking about giving anybody free rein, here. (A racing term, originally, and therefore not spelled with a "g.") We're saying that scientists are the best at evaluating science. It doesn't matter if it's the Manhattan Project, the LHC, or some future project. (I think it was known about the dangers of radiation, though I don't have a cite for it--hadn't people already died from it? Like Marie Curie?) The point is that letting non-scientists evaluate the validity of science leads to things like ID in the schools. Or these stupid lawsuits from people who think the scientists, all of them, will be willing to destroy the world.

Besides, if they had set the atmosphere on fire, who'd've survived to collect the bets?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"