Something that I've been wanting to write, before getting on with NaNo.

This much debated LHC (Large Hadron Collider) in Cern....I think they should shut it down.

I don't disagree with the principle of research. I am in favour of scientists pushing back the borders of knowledge. What I don't agree with is that someone let these people build this machine without general public consent or approval (in the same way that people and property / real estate developers have to acquire planning permission before they even build a house). How was it that these scientists managed to build such a machine which is, as I see it anyway, tampering with the seals on the atomic box which might hold wholly unpredictable and potentially catastrophic results for us. Despite my tinfoil-hat wearing nature, I'm not supporting the doom merchants. The doom merchants do have a right to be heard. Their lack of understanding stands them in the same league as the scientists who are running the LHC. They also do not understand what they are doing - otherwise it would not qualify as research.

What gripes me is that these people have spent so much time and money on a facility in the middle of the famed "Euroz-zone", which isn't far enough from the UK for my liking. It's on the same planet, and that's far to close to home for all of us. I argue that if the scientist want to tamper and mess with the flames of existence and matter, that they move the fireplace to a research station on the moon (which hasn't yet been built).

I read the LHC's FAQ. Specifically, the bit about safety and left quite unassured as to their logic and conviction. I quote:


IS IT SAFE?

Hawking says,
" What happens when the mass of the black hole eventually becomes extremely small is not quite clear, but the most reasonable guess is that it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission, equivalent to the explosion of millions of H-bombs."

"there might be primordial black holes with a very much smaller mass that were made by the collapse of irregularities in the very early stages of the universe. Such black holes would have a much higher temperature and would be emitting radiation at a much greater rate."

Why does this not apply to the LHC?
How do you *know* it is safe?

Two main reasons:

1. Theory - Hawking himself recognized that black holes radiate. Given the energy available in the LHC, if a black hole was created it would necessarily be a very small one - a micro black hole - the energy available in the collision of two LHC protons is not a lot on a cosmological scale. The black hole would evaporate almost immediately into a shower of particles.

2. Cosmic rays - Extremely high energy particles (orders of magnitude above the LHC) coming from outer space are incident on upper atmosphere where they collide with the nuclei of gas molecules. We see the showers resulting from these collisions at sea level. This is appears to be safe, so we can be confident that the LHC will be.



Conclusion: They do not know that it is safe. I have a couple of specific points:


A) Statement: "If a black hole (aka a solid entity with immense gravitational pull) was created it would necessarily be a very small one".

Response: So creating a black hole is ok with you people in Cern? Surely small black holes and large black holes are both bad things?

B) Statement: "This appears to be safe, so we can be confident that the LHC will be".

Response: Hmm. "Appears". "Confident" - Nope, that's not good enough. How many times have you heard alleged experts in their fields tell you that they are "confident" - shortly before being disproven and summarily slapped in the face with a wet fish from fate, for being so cocky.


I think that if they want to do science, then go ahead, but not on my planet. Thank you. Take your particle toys somewhere else to play. HTF did you manage to build this device without so much as a single vote of consensus from the rest of the (normal by intelligence comparison) human race...those beings who stand to suffer from your insatiable curiosity with particles and energy. (Partomaniacs?)

Why are you spending so much money on advanced research and using up so much energy when there are much better worthy causes (I'm thinking food for the starving, health, medicines) all around you which are far more worthy?

My understanding of the amounts of energy involved is that they are trying to smash together two opposing particles beams - with the same equivalent energy to that of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, (steaming at 35 knots) and bringing all that energy to bear on the space of a human hair...and they don't know what will happen.

Like I said, I am all for research and science. I feel that as a quickly-developing race, which seems to be working with ever more volatile and theoretical realms of science, that it's time that the rest of the human race started to have a say and create a policy on where, what and how such research takes place. Assuming that humans survive the next few hundred years, isn't it about time that we started thinking and coordinating what's going on around us. I for one don't like the idea of some hair-brained scientist working for a government on a "harmless and safe" energy weapon that might, one day, torch not only it's Frankenstinian creator, but the surrounding people on the planet nearby.

Go get some real, conscious sponsorship. Go and set-up a research base on the moon. Then you can go and play to your heart's content. In short, to my CERNian friends, I say go play in the traffic (on the moon). I don't want some "smarter-than-I-ista" telling me how stupid I am and insisting that their calculations are safe. I don't believe them. I may now be as smart as they are. I do have the intelligence and humility to acknowledge that I don't know all (actually I know very few of) the answers to the world around us and I am happy, under the current constraints and circumstances, for us to stay where we are for a little while - unless my much-favoured Lunar Research Base gets built and the research takes place up there, out of the immediate proximity of the Earth.

For me, the risk versus reward is unjustifiable. I also know that scientists can be a bit too target-focussed. Take the first testing / detonation of the atom bomb for example. They weren't sure whether the chain reaction would ignite the entire atmosphere, but guess what? They went ahead and detonated anyway.

We like the Earth how it is. Green, blue, beautiful and in one piece.

I vote that LHC is turned off, dismantled and the scientists redeployed in finding cures for disease and in to capturing (with great efficiency) the vast amounts of sunlight and warmth that our Sun's already generating for us in every moment of every day. In so doing, we'd have no energy crisis, no greenhouse gas problem and unlimited, CLEAN energy for the next five billion years. How's about it?

Want to find out more for yourself? Here's the website: [link]