Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift
Sure, every time an oil company, for example (at least in the US) builds a new refinery, they have to go to the appropriate agencies (more often state and local than federal) and get the appropriate air and water and other permits. And there are even mechanisms for others to appeal those permits and ask them to be reviewed, all the way up to the courts.
But my point was that there was some end to that process. Once you've asked the EPA to review, then asked the courts to review, you can't keep doing a never ending "questioning" of the permits, so as to hold them up forever.
So, what I said was: "At what point do the questions turn from a critical analysis to just questioning for the sake for questioning and holding up progress (I'm not saying that has happened, I'm just asking)? Is there a point where big science can go "We have addressed your concerns, let's move forward"?
So, I'm asking you Warren, what would be the endpoint (if any) for you? Is there a possible point where you would be satisfied that the LHC is safe? Or have you concluded it is not, no matter what else is presented.
|
I have researched this enough to convince myself that there is a recalicitrant risk that cannot be argued away, until the experiment is actually carried out. Moreover, this risk is not of the burrito in the microwave variety of risk. There are regions--albeit small regions--that have yet to be empirically ruled out within the theoretically allowable parameter space that are, shall we say, potentially problematic. Considering what's at stake, I don't think the risk is worth it personally. Whether there's a "God" particle is a nice-to-know, not a need-to-have. Mother Earth, on the other hand, is a need-to-have.
But that's only half of what bugs me about this episode: the other half is the total lack of accountability and governmental oversight.
If the project were scrutinized by the European equivalent of the EPA, the Corps of Engineers, the USFWS, NMFS, USFS, BLM, etc.--along with a
formal public comment period--with the actual power to put a stop to the project and to force CERN to consider
alternatives (e.g., do nothing, single-beam versus double beam, the possibility of using cosmic rays to do the same thing, as well as the power to force CERN to perform
mitigation by going slowly and cautiously
if it is also determined that the societal risks are minimal (at least to common radiation standards--no more than a 1 in a million chance of causing 5 deaths per year on average) and
if none of the alternatives are deemed practicable (i.e., there is no other way to learn about the "God" particle),
then I would at least have the satisfaction that the LHC had been properly and fairly
permitted by society.
As things stand now, the foxes are in charge of the hen house. Or to put it another way, it's like being taken for a cab ride by a driver with no regard for traffic law. If you were to arrive at your destination without a scratch, and the driver crowed "See--I told you so--nothing happened you Fear Monger, you Doomsayer!" you would be justified in thinking that the mere fact that you are unscathed is rather beside the point.
That's
my point.
Quote:
|
But the LHC has been reviewed.
|
See above.
Quote:
I assume the indented bit is a quote - could you give the source?
And the bit about the first atom bomb igniting the atmosphere has been discussed multiple times, it never was a serious concern, and it was in fact reviewed very carefully.
|
That wasn't a quote, it was an aside; I should have enclosed it in parentheses.
As for the igniting the atmosphere, if it wasn't a serious concern, then there would have been no need for careful review; also, nonphysicist governmental agents were responsible for reviewing the project and had the power to stop it if deemed unsafe; also, in marked contrast to the LHC, there was an overriding societal benefit to be realized from the bomb--namely bringing about the world's worst war to a swift and favorable conclusion.