CERN facility- worth a risk?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

londo_mollari

Guest
"However, Cox also admitted there was a tiny, tiny risk the device could create conditions that would obliterate the planet and all human life."<br /><br />This excerpt is from the article in australian newspaper, and it talks about tests that are to be conducted in Geneva at Large Hadron Collider - at the CERN experimental faciltiy. It could help us understand the universe and how it became to be, but there is a chance that it could destroy us! <br /><br />So is it worth it? Do benefits outweight the risks? Do we need to know everything?<br /><br /><br />Here is the article: <br /><br />http://blogs.smh.com.au/science/archives/2006/09/the_experiment.html
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
Simple scare tactic journalists like to use to draw in readers. The odds are better that a cataclysmic asteroid will destroy the earth tomorrow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

dlee0708

Guest
I am not an expert on the subject, but I bet the odds of creating a vaccine that somehow goes wrong and obliterates the planet or the odds of the military creating a weapon in a black project end up obliterating the planet have much greater odds than 10 to the minus 40. <br /><br />And I have a feeling the military has created
 
S

search

Guest
"The discovery of nuclear chain reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind any more than did the discovery of matches. We only must do everything in our power to safeguard against its abuse."<br /><br />Albert Einstein<br /><br />Same goes for the work being done by CERN. It is a remarkable scientific project.
 
D

dlee0708

Guest
<i>Frankly, who'd want to create a black hole with even a 99.9% probability of safety,</i><br /><br />Where did 99.9% come from. Try 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999%.<br /><br />I bet the chances of the earth being destroyed by a virus brought back by the Apollo Astronauts was FAR greater than that. Maybe we shouldn't have gone to the moon and also shouldn't have done that mission that brought back samples from the comet.<br /><br />
 
R

robnissen

Guest
"Where did 99.9% come from. Try 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999%. <br /><br />I bet the chances of the earth being destroyed by a virus brought back by the Apollo Astronauts was FAR greater than that." <br /><br />Although I'm not sure I agree with Steve, I think he raises an interesting question. If the odds truly are 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999%, it is probably worth the risk. But what is the basis for that number. With the Apollo mission, we had lots of experience with viruses and bacteria and could therefore do a probability analysis. But we have NO experience with micro-blackholes. Without any experience, I think its very difficult to do a good scientific probability analysis. If there is a good scientific basis for your probability estimate, the research should continue. But if that is just a wild-ass-guess, we need to step back and think about this before sending all known existance potentially plunging off of a cliff.
 
S

search

Guest
I believe this is the most objective source on the subject:<br />STUDY OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS EVENTS <br />DURING HEAVY-ION COLLISIONS AT THE LHC: <br />REPORT OF THE LHC SAFETY STUDY GROUP<br /><br />http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf<br /><br />Abstract:<br />"We review the possibility of producing dangerous objects during heavy-ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. We consider all such objects that have been theoretically envisaged, such as negatively charged strangelets,<br />gravitational black holes, and magnetic monopoles. We find no basis <br />for any conceivable threat." <br /><br /><br />The CERN so called black holes are not the size we are used to (that is assuming we are used to them...). In cosmological size Black holes are made of remained compressed matter of superzised stars.<br /><br />The black hole conditions may be similar but in a smaller than atom scale (proton) and for just time enough for it to appear and decay.<br /><br />The objective at CERN is to accelerate particles and observe if the results coincide with the theoretical models and some of the models consider the existence of black holes. <br /><br />Read<br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14923900/ <br /><br />The main problem and I believe I said this before is that journalist like sensational news and for CERN is always good to be on the news. Black Holes eating earth are sensational and the they create a momentum even if it is a scary one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts