# Large Hadron Collider Safety Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 9, 2008, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/large-hadron-collider-safety-question/462836 "2008-09-09T20:13:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2008, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/large-hadron-collider-safety-question/462836/21 "2008-09-10T19:08:28Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Isn’t that a double negative type argument, though? > > “It’s ok to waste money on this, because we waste more money on other things.” > > My logic fault light trips when I hear that kind of line. _shrug_ Some people complain about the relatively paltry sums that fund these programs, suggesting instead that they should be applied to cancer research (already amply funded) or providing aid to Africa (badly mismanaged, and the more money thrown at NGOs the more wasteful they seem to get). Personally, I don’t regard the research into abstract scientific knowledge as a “waste” given how many “abstract” discoveries have turned into life-improving, paradigm-shattering technical innovations, not to mention the value and pleasure that comes from better understanding the workings of the natural world. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2008, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/large-hadron-collider-safety-question/462836/22 "2008-09-10T22:41:52Z")
I cannot believe that people who have invested George Bush with the button that can unleash world destruction can seriously worry about the infinitesimally remote chance that this machine could create a particle that would destroy the world. Several points to be made. There is no difference between two particles moving with respect to our frame from one stationary and one moving particle. Just choose a coordinate system based on one of the particles (after its acceleration is finished) and that particle is stationary and the other one moving. Another point is that a mini black hole will evaporate almost immediately by Hawking radiation. In fact that is one real possibility and they know what to look for. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2008, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/large-hadron-collider-safety-question/462836/23 "2008-09-10T23:43:47Z")
I’ve just realised that the people worried and panicking about the LHC are behaving like life is an episode of _Eureka_. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/large-hadron-collider-safety-question/462836/24 "2008-09-11T11:27:53Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > I’m not trying to question how this applies to the LHC, but isn’t that slightly hand-wavy? I mean, it takes exponentially more energy to accelerate a particle close to the speed of light, right, because its mass increases? So a particle going at 0.99995c has lots more energy than one travelling at 0.99c - in fact, if 0.99995c is the “equivalent” of a head-on collision between two 0.99c particles, is it the case that the kinetic energy is still quadrupled, just as you’d expect when doubling the velocity at everyday speeds, even though the velocity isn’t doubled? > > Or am I grossly oversimplifying? Yeah, I really fucked that post up. Half of it’s missing, the other half’s badly jumbled up. Perhaps I was just trying to justify my username. In my defence, it was half past eleven PM over here when I wrote it… So! Most of what’s to be said has already been said, so I’ll just clarify how my post was meant – you are of course right that a particle travelling at 0.99995c will have vastly more energy than one travelling at 0.99c, in fact the Lorentz factor (gamma: y) for the latter will be around 7, and for the former at about 100, and total relativistic energy is equal to ymc[sup]2[/sup]. Now, how does that fit with **Chronos** ’ argumentation? Well, as he said, the OMG!-particle had a gamma of about 3_10[sup]11[/sup], which is equal to a speed of far too close to c for me to type out all the nines, but, if I transform it back, the resulting gamma (for again a speed very close to c) is around 3.9_10[sup]5[/sup] in the CoM-system, which, given a mass-energy for a proton of 0.94 GeV equates to a total relativistic energy of 3.64_10[sup]5[/sup], thus, for two particles colliding head-on, 7.28_10[sup]5[/sup] GeV = 728 TeV. So yeah, what he said. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/large-hadron-collider-safety-question/462836/25 "2008-09-11T16:07:34Z")
🙂 > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > _shrug_ Some people complain about the relatively paltry sums that fund these programs, suggesting instead that they should be applied to cancer research (already amply funded) or providing aid to Africa (badly mismanaged, and the more money thrown at NGOs the more wasteful they seem to get). Personally, I don’t regard the research into abstract scientific knowledge as a “waste” given how many “abstract” discoveries have turned into life-improving, paradigm-shattering technical innovations, not to mention the value and pleasure that comes from better understanding the workings of the natural world. > > Stranger Right, I understand. I wasn’t complaining about the money spent on science. Just that specific type of counter-argument. It’s the type of counter-argument that gets used during different kinds of public spending debates, from education, defence, law enforcement (prison inmate amenities, for example), and so on. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/large-hadron-collider-safety-question/462836/26 "2008-09-11T17:14:30Z")
I forget the sums involved and can’t find the link, but one scientist quoted on the BBC made the comparison between the cost of the LHC to the UK and the amount Britons spend on peanuts every year. Ah yes, I can find the quote… > [@](#): > > After the minor controversy about David Kings remarks on Monday morning about the value of CERN, we note that CERN costs quite literally peanuts. UK taxpayers spend £80 million per year at CERN, whilst in 2006 (the last year for which we could find figures) we spent £120 million on peanuts. From Brian Cox (the man behind the “twat” quote 🙂 ) [here](http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/bigbang/updates.shtml). ---
**Author:** ![ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c77e96/32.png) [@ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ed)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/large-hadron-collider-safety-question/462836/27 "2008-09-11T18:54:45Z")
For anyone worried about safety, [here is a webcam](http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html) you can use to see what’s going on yourself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/large-hadron-collider-safety-question/462836.md?page=1)