Well, it’s new and as yet unknown so nobody can fully describe it yet. Maybe it came from one of those higher dimensions we hear about. Before radiation was well understood, many scientists didn’t think there was any danger by being exposed to certain radioactive rocks.
So how risky is your imaginary particle? Does it interact with matter strongly or weakly?
OH NO! What if the evacuated tube is such an abnormal environment devoid of regular proton/proton collisions that you imaginary biological entity mutates into grey-goo without the imaginary particles!
Quick turn it on!
Why do you assume that biological entities don’t exist in the region where cosmic rays interact with Earth’s atmosphere?
You’re essentially proposing magic. There’s a limited number of ways via which particles can interact with each other (and do recall that, on the appropriate scale, that’s all that happens – particles interacting with each other), and the worst thing that can happen is a full energy deposition – i.e. a particle comes along and deposits all its energy on something, to keep it as open as possible.
But that’s exactly what ionizing radiation does – in other words, all we’re gonna get is a minute amount of radioactivity.
Of course, that could hit some virus in the right way to cause it to mutate into some world killer pandemic, but, compared to natural background radioactivity, this possibility is, well, non existent (I’m saying it this way because the correct ‘very very small’ just elicits responses of ‘So, it is possible! Those crazy scientists are gonna kill us all!’ – yes, it is possible, but it’d take several universal lifetimes to even happen once).
Yes, such fanciful things are “magic” and can’t happen according to our current scope of knowledge. But when dealing with new and unknown particles, isn’t it possible you might be wrong? Are you willing to risk other people’s lives because you believe you are right?
I’m not. Maybe such interactions don’t currently pose a danger to the life on Earth.
Maybe, but if so, then they would not pose a danger for exactly the same reason that such interactions in the LHC would not pose such a risk. Any such interaction up in the atmosphere, after all, would have a much greater ability to propagate in the huge expanse of the atmosphere than anything deep down under the ground.
I’m willing to risk the unknown. Fearing the unknown, and allowing it to paralyze scientific progress is a 100% certain way to destroy the human race.
I’d rather the human race die trying to learn about the universe, than die because they were too scared to try.
Let’s take the LHC out of this, because it’s really unrelated to your argument here. Scientists and engineers do things in labs all the time on earth that do not naturally occur terrestrially. We create new synthetic materials and drugs all the time, hoping for some benefit, but not knowing what will happen. If we’re going to fantasize some sort of Bruce Banner mutant bacterium scenario, it seems to me to be much more likely to come from some form of biological research, where people are messing with living organisms directly.
So let’s just call a spade a spade here. If people really believe that there should be “absolutely zero risk” then it should apply to all similarly risky endeavors: chemistry, engineering, medical research and testing, to name a few of the more likely offenders.
And driving cars. Driving cars is much more risky than most experiments. And what’s worse is that so many cars today have catalytic converters, which have not been proved unable to mutate viruses into sneaky pandemic causers. Someone seriously dropped the ball there.
Yeah, but most catalytic converters don’t cost billions of dollars to construct.
Is your issue with the LHC that it is wasteful or that it is unsafe? Its cost doesn’t impinge on the latter.
Yeah, cause this isn’t a false dichotomy at all. Cause it’s always human race dies versus completely paralyze scientific progress. Maybe we wait a few years and perform the experiment more safely, or perhaps away from humans. Or figure out a different way to get the same answers.
See thread title.
So you’re in favor of halting any type of research that could cause things to occur physically here on earth that don’t naturally?
The thread title indicates a worry with safety. So, then, why do you attack the analogy with catalytic converters by pointing out the LHC’s cost? This is irrelevant to similarities in terms of safety issues.
To date, the total cost of creating every catalytic converter far surpasses the total cost of creating every LHC.
That kind of thinking would pretty much preclude anyone from ever doing anything. According to our best understanding, rocks fall down when released from your hand. Doesn’t mean we know that if you release a rock, it won’t randomly etch an existentialist poem into the sand, before giving you the finger and re-setting the fine structure constant to a value that makes the existence of atoms impossible. That’s “magic”, of course, and can’t happen according to our current scope of knowledge, but what if we’re wrong? I’d say the dropping of stones should be prohibited from now on, because existentialist poetry has really run its course since the 70s.
And I’m not entirely being facetious. Unexpected things can always happen with an unknown likelihood, but the truth of that statement doesn’t depend on a couple of particle collisions in Geneva; it’s true for every given action (and a non-action is an action in itself, so theoretically, every second of your existence carries a risk of destroying the universe, and so does every second of your non-existence).
Well, for one thing, the fundies would have been right… sort of. Except for no heavenly rescue mission for “true believers” (whoever they might be) at T minus seven (or three and one half) years. I love the irony of fundies actually being correct about something for a change-- and then not even being around to brag and gloat about it. And there wouldn’t be any “non-believers” around either. So no one to go :smack: and say, “Omigosh! I should have listened!!!” or “They weren’t crazy or idiots! I was the fool!!!” or “Please tell me! Is it too late to repent?!”
- “Jack”
I suspect that the cost and importance of the collider is acting as a lure, drawing people into being upset and concerned in order to show their own importance. Not that anyone is planning that out, just that it’s a temptation that’s hard to leave alone.
There are many other things that are riskier, but there are few things that most people hear about that are as costly, complicated, and important as the collider. Not to mention the largeness of the words “destroying the entire world.”
Yes, the catalytic converter has as much of a chance of mutating a humanity-killing virus. But the fact is that worrying about catalytic converters just isn’t sexy. They’re not in the news. They didn’t require a multi-national team of physicists. They’re not as attractive. Fretting over them will not make anyone seem important. I’ve got one in my garage, for gods’ sake.
No amount of pointing out the safety of the collider, or discussion of the relative safety of more mundane things, is going to overcome the attractiveness of fretting over this orgasmically big, costly, esoteric, important thing. The physicists and others did the work. They created this important thing. But if I can say they shouldn’t be allowed to do it, then I’m more important than they are.