I, too, am deeply offended by physmoon's attitude, but as (s)he, by his/her own admission, doesn't actually know what (s)he's talking about, I guess I should just ignore it, like I would the whining of a little child.

Did he? Didn't he? I don't know, but obviously you don't either (you phrased it as a question.)

The people who forced the removal of asbestos and launched the campaign against smoking were not random "chicken-littles" that decided to not accept "there"(sic) opinions. They were scientists and doctors who did actual research, and proved that there were health implications.

If given their way, the chicken-littles of this world would try to ban every new alloy, mineral or plastic, because it might be the next asbestos. That despite real scientific studies that showed no health implications.

"Better safe than sorry", the C-Ls would say, as humanity sits shivering in caves, because they never learned to make fire. "It might burn the whole world up! Who are we to risk the lives of the Uggs in the valley, by playing with fire?"

These are not legitimate safety concerns. If you know nothing at all about the situation, you can't criticise it reasonably, all you can do is make a lot of noise.

And scientists may very well not be more intelligent than you, but they are less ignorant.

Your logic has a lot of holes in it. "The less we know, the more appropriate it is for us to make the decision!"

And you no longer have any excuse for "not understanding". This issue has been discussed to death in this very thread, yet you didn't even bother reading it. You'd rather feel frightened and offended. (If you had read it, you would have been able to raise specific objections to the explanations. Instead, you gas off in vague generalities about "trust".)

And what's this nonsense about "trusting" scientists? Do you really think that everyone who gets a BSc or better has to sell their souls for it?

And remember, we're not talking about a handful of physicists, all working for the same company, and all paid off. We're talking about every single particle physicist in the world! No-one with any actual knowledge of the science has raised any questions.

You act as if past performance is all that is required to judge future results. But then you cherry-pick your data. For every Thalidomide, there are tens of thousands of drugs that have improved the quality and quantity of human life. For every health-hazard like asbestos, there have been thousands of new metals, alloys, minerals and plastics that have been safe, cheap and useful.

And what the hell does this have to do with "business"? CERN is a non-profit organisation. They have to beg for grants, like any other lab. They're just very good at it. There is no profit-motive here that will pressure people into taking chances.

And anyway, I must reiterate: Hundreds of thousands of scientists not associated with CERN in any way, all agree that the risks of the LHC destroying all life on earth, are less than the odds of 6.5 billion meteorites crashing into earth at the same time, end each one hitting one human, thus wiping out the species anyway.

OK, you got me. I, and every other person with a science degree, sacrificed our conscience and humanity at the altar of learning. We no longer appreciate what ordinary (read: ignorant) people feel. We have no emotions, no fears, no empathy, and no concept of "consequences".

Or maybe you have no idea what you're talking about.

So true. Not one physicist on the planet has children, friends or neighbours of his own.

Yeah, like every physicist in the world works directly for CERN, and will lose his job if it gets closed down.

NOT!

Sorry if I keep coming back to the "every physicist in the world" argument. But you keep repeating the "we can't trust anyone who isn't as ignorant as we are" red herring. As well as its variation "scientists are inhuman monsters with no empathy for their fellow man"

See? You did it again!

Perhaps you're wondering why I am so angry at you. Most likely, though, you're just writing me off as another "mad scientist" who's plan to destroy the world has been thwarted.

This is the real reason: You don't know me from Adam, yet you have waltzed in here and, metaphorically, spat in my face and kicked my dog. How can I not be angry?

Under the guise of being a "concerned citizen" you have actually displayed staggering arrogance and self-righteousness.