angryman -

I can't offer a coherent opinion of the pdf, sorry. I work at the periphery of the astrophysics community, but I am an electrical engineer. I can't claim to know anything much about general relativity or high-energy physics.

That said, I can offer this coherent opinion: all the money spent on high energy physics, bigger particle colliders, and manned space flight is an immoral waste. And I LIKE science. But we should be spending money on energy conversion, materials science, ecology, conservation, nanoscience, etc.

There're people sleeping on the streets, fer Chrissake's! Call Nan and tell her that.

Aaron Datesman: There's a war going on. Believe me, YOUR paycheck IS NOT starving childern or putting the homeless on the street. Science has ALWAYS benefitted mankind. Its CHURCH AND STATE where the problem lies.

There's an excellent article in this month's Harper's, by th inestimable Wendell Berry which addresses, and rebukes, if not wholly rebuts, the idolatry of Science.

angryman, i have had precisely the same discussion, about the morality of science with several dozen rabid gnossophiles who claim it tantamount to censorship to require of science to at least to anticipate and take streps to ameliorate the consequences that anyone with two neurons to rub together could reasonably predict--especially since the 'telos' (if you'll forgive that anachronism) is after all prediction...it's NOT to much to ask that the least harm principle inform such efforts...

@Aaron -- thanks for taking a look. It's too bad you couldn't dismiss it out of hand, (it would make me feel better), but I understood that the guy that wrote it is a pretty good mathematician. He's looking for someone to publish it before it's moot.

@Woody and others -- The problem with this is (to me) similar to the issue of the Iraq war in two senses:

1. there is an element of arcanum involved, where only special knowledge gives credibility in decisions relative to public policy. Then it was, "We know secrets, and if you, the general public knew them as well, you'd understand why we know there are WMDs."

Now it's a matter of, "We know the science, and if you knew it as well, you'd need no further justification. Trust us because we know better. We have hypothesis."

But in both cases, we, the people, get to live with the repercussions. In the case of the Iraq war, the cost is a million or so dead. In the case of LHC, it could be all traces of humanity -- everything we built, everything we knew, everyone's labor -- poof after a fairly messy demise.

2. Just like in the lead up to the Iraq war, it's hard to find a news/media outlet to present both sides of the story, or even have an intelligent debate on the risks. Then the media was a cheerleader, as it is now.

We discuss media power, and media choices here constantly -- why were there no dissenting voices allowed on the tube prior to the war? Why did Donahue depart? Etc. It's a similar effect here folks.

I'm writing the following to my congressfolk, and hope that some of you might join me. I'm not a luddite, but I have worked with physicists before (as a remote tool), and am very weary because they tend to be a bit myopic in their outlook to their own detriment and those working around them.

===
Dear _____ :

I am writing to you today in regards to the effort of raising awareness on the operational safety concerns of the Large Hadron Collider located along the French-Swiss Border. Questions regarding its operational safety have been raised regarding the possibility that during its operation it may create a Miniature Black Hole (MBH). Although CERN has addressed such issues prior, they have relied on a theory of Hawking Radiation to model the dissipation of a MBH.

Hawking Radiation is however an unproven theory, also since the project was first commissioned new discoveries and theories have been made that question the verity of Hawking Radiation and the requirements for the creation of a MBH.

Unfortunately, without Hawking Radiation being verified we believe that the precautionary principle should take precedent until these concerns can be addressed, the danger of a Black Hole being created and it's accretion of mass pose a danger to everyone. In theory if a Black Hole did not dissipate it would continue to grow at an exponential rate. There is no accurate model that would actually predict the rate of accretion of a Black Hole, so in this scenario there are far too many unknowns to be certain.

I thank you for your time, and ask that you please look into this matter; I would appreciate any future correspondence on this issue as well.

We have about 45 days until the Large Hadron Collider comes on line at CERN in Switzerland. After that point it may be too late.

Sincerely,

angryman: See if YOU can talk YOUR friend into dumping it into the Net, that way WE ALL can take a look and figure out what's going on. ( WE all gots computers---WE'll clear the math)
woody: I hear what YOU are saying, but YOU may see what I see---YOU are telling me this on, not one, but many computers in the birthpains of becoming sofisticated system worldwide. If angryman is worried about this project, and well WE all should take a hard look at the USE of science by governments, then WE should help. AS always, by all means call Nan @1-202-225-0100.

angryman: Damnit, missed that PDF first time around, I'm going to print it to read it. Have YOU thought about a lawsuit against the financial structure of the project?

Just as a personal observation, I guess the SWISS BANKING SYSTEM will be the first to go.

angryman: I did indeed address this matter to Nan's voicemail, about an hour ago.