Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Yeah, but even so, think about what's really in it for a particle physicist to come out against the LHC. It's a lose-lose situation for them any way you look at it. Remember, no one, not even JTankers, has suggested that the LHC will for sure destroy the planet. But say a particle physicist comes out against the LHC, and nothing happens. They're a cooked goose--they've angered the rest of the community and they've shredded their reputation.

And even if one did harbor serious reservations, they could easily conclude that the LHC is a done deal anyway--and it certainly looks like that's going to be the case, I must admit. In which case, what is practically to be gained by saying anything? The LHC will either prove to be harmless, in which case nothing was lost by opening his or her mouth, or else the earthquakes will happen, which he/she never believed had the power to stop anyway.

Alternatively, a particle physicist might actually believe that their voice could prove to be the tipping point that could turn the public tide against the LHC, putting an end to it forever. And let's say they were successful and put a stop to the LHC. The vast majority of other physicists will still remain stuck in their earlier conviction that there never was a significant risk to begin with, and so the whistleblower's will be finished, and nobody will ever know for sure that their whistleblowing actually saved the lives of everybody. That is, they'll never know whether their sacrifice was worth it.

I think to myself what I would do if I was an up and coming youngish particle physicist. Given my same politics and environmental ethics, I would still be against the project, as I am now, but I figure I would probably not say anything and just cross my fingers and hope for the best. Like I've said before, my opposition to the LHC isn't based on any weird beliefs in strange ATM physics theories. I accept the primary literature at it's face value, except for their final conclusion that the risk is of no significance.

So it's not surprising to my mind that the sole, technical objections to the LHC come from two old men who are not particle physicists. They've got their tenure, and they don't have to risk the ostracization that even a grand old man in particle physics would have to face (or least to not the same degree--and since they're mavericks anyway, they're kind of used to it). Rossler and Plaga may be kind of eccentric (aren't we all?), but they are not mental lightweights. Plaga at least has published substantive astrophysical research in Nature (and don't forget that a large part of the safety argument is astrophysical, so, really, Plaga is in the proper academic bailiwick to criticize the safety argument.)