I saw this earlier and have been meaning to respond to it: Actually, there is no point where big science can just decide to go forward. Substitute the word "oil" for "science" and you'll see what I mean. No doubt Exxon had "addressed concerns" before the Valdez oil spill. Just as big oil must undergo strict review by governental agencies, including the courts, if need be, similarly, big science must also be subject to formal governmental review. This has not happened for the LHC, beyond environmental impact statements (EIS's) associated with the construction of the tunnels themselves. That is, the concerns regarding the destruction of the entire Home Planet have not been scrutinized by a governmental agency with the power to shut down the LHC if deemed necessary. And the two or three times the LHC has made it to court, the cases were argued on procedural technicalities, rather than the science itself.

The reason the LHC safety has not been reviewed is not because the LHC is safe, but because the threat it potentially poses is wholly unprecedented.

Well, there was the worry that the first atom bomb would ignite the atmosphere (and the atmosphere can ignite--it happened during the K-T mass extinction event). And like their atomic forbears, the CERN people are seeking to make the LHC a fait accompli.

A real review, like we have to undergo out here if we want to develop a new oil field, would critically examine the claims of safety themselves, and would also force CERN to do an alternative analysis. At least Giddings has worn out his fingertips trying to justify the LHC's safety. But not one CERN scientist has offered an alternatives analysis. This is what Michael Noonan was trying to get at with cosmic ray studies. Is it possible to discover the God particle from cosmic ray experiments??? I don't know because none of the physicists involved have answered that question. Also, could a single beam collider produce identical results expected from the LHC. We don't know because the physicists haven't addressed that issue.

And there is also the alternative of going slow versus going fast.

The fact that the CERN people insist on going fast reveals them to be the irresponsible, gloryhound cowboys that they are better than the media-spinning, the name-calling, and all the Philip Glass operas put together.

ETA: And yes Jim, this here is an ad hominem argument--but not for its own sake. It's a serious point. The technical term for what the CERN scientists suffer from is a severe case of "confirmation bias". That's why we need independent governmental review over this project. The CERN people remind of that kid on that Christmas movie with Darren McGavin, where all the kid wants for X-mas is a BB-gun. Do you think that kid would ever write an essay that concluded that a BB-gun is too dangerous for him to play around with??? And after all, how many BB's do you suppose get shot out of a BB-gun before one pokes somebody's eye out? 1 in 50,000,000? Sounds safe to me as well, except for the fact that we are talking about ending all eyesight for all time.

ETA2: And if calling someone a "cowboy" is insulting, keep in mind that the B.A.'s pal Brian Cox called anybody who disagreed with him--so I guess that includes me--a bloody "twit". Except he didn't say "twit", like that kid in the movie who didn't say "fudge".