Large Hadron Collider
There are two things I'm actively trying to make the world more aware of right now:
1. Bicyclists
2. The LHC
obviously the first is self explanatory but i'll tell you in 7 words:
My bike is better than your car.
the second will take more explanation because a lot of people haven't even been introduced to the subject. First go to this website and learn about what this whole thing is about: LHC and what ALICE will do in May 2008.
Here's the just of the LHC as explained by James Blodgett of the Lifeboat Foundation Advisory Board :
Me- "My name is Heather Harmon, and I have just recently been informed of the LHC and what their plans are and it really does concern me (I honestly have not had a full night's sleep since my friend Noah told me about it). I am unfortunately not very educated in the areas at hand (physics have never been clearly explained to me as I am quite early into my college career), but I understand enough to know that this is not alright and I really want to be of some assistance in raising awareness. Noah told me that writing to you would be my first step, being where I am in my quest to stop this.
Please help explain this to me in a way that I can raise awareness without sounding like a crazed fool. I will be doing my best to make sure the word gets out."
James- "Aporia is a valuable skill, exactly what we need right now.
Get some sleep. Hopefully the worst case won’t happen. I have not ceased planning for the future. The issue is not that earth will be destroyed. The issue is that there is a small but real and not insignificant probability that earth will be destroyed, and the human race is not handling risk management well. With luck we will survive despite our folly, but it would a good precedent and a good service to fix that folly.
In the case of black holes, for the earth to be destroyed, string theory has to be correct, parameters have to be in enabling ranges, Hawking radiation has to fail, and accretion scenarios have to work. The bad news is that all those things are plausible. The good news is that the enabling theories behind the joint probability of all those things happening together are a relatively small subset of the set of all theories, so the probability is fairly low. However, the probability is not zero as asserted by CERN, and it is not the 1 in 50,000,000 that was asserted some time ago before several safety factors eroded. I won’t try to specify the risk exactly, but a commercial airplane with that risk would not be allowed to fly, and the earth has more passengers than an airplane. The negative expected value (probability times loss) is enormous.
There are a bunch of global risks (also called existential risks), that is, risks to our existence, risks that could make the human race extinct. There are things that could be done about most. Some things are being done. However, in general, the human race does not handle these things well. A few of us are trying to improve that. Collider risk is important right now because there is a chance it might actually destroy the earth, because time is short, but also because this is a test case for risk management concepts like the precautionary principle, supposedly accepted by the European Union and touted by environmental and risk management organizations, and in this test implementation of those principles is failing rather badly. We want to encourage these folks to do risk management well.
We can use all the help we can get. However, the help we can use is not to prevent sure destruction, but rather to get organizations to drop spin control and handle these things honestly. Individual soldiers in WWII (now called the greatest generation) did not fight knowing that their individual contribution had 100% change of stopping Hitler. However, their collective contribution did exactly that. If you help us you may not save the world all by yourself, but if a bunch of us help to make it safer ...
As a tutorial in the physics of collider risk, I suggest you read material on www.lhcdefense.org, and www.risk-evaluation-forum.org including some of the references on the latter. Look up things you would like to know more about on Google and Wikipedia. Look things up first so you don’t waste our time, but I would be glad to spend a short time answering a serious question. Also ask random physicists, but be prepared for them to tell you that there is no problem. Usually they say that for questionable reasons. See below. If they have a good reason, let us know.
What can you do to help? We are all independent intellectuals, and so are you. Think of things to do. Post things on Internet forums. Write to scientists and editors. Talk to friends. Most things you try will not work, but some may. If you have time, volunteer to help us. (I could use help writing a newsletter.) If you are a student, you might try to work some of this into your studies. It will take an advanced physics class and an understanding physics professor to do real physics, although some aspects of the problem could use this type of work if you know physics students or professors. The issue might also be addressed in an ethics, public affairs, risk management, or sociology class.
- - - - - - -
I may use the following paragraphs elsewhere, but wrote them partly for you guys.
I have talked to a lot of physicists. Some of my best friends are physicists. They are generally reasonable nice guys. How then do they come to be risking earth in a way that can only be described as hubristic and immoral?
1) Collider advocates have published two papers that list multiple safety factors and say that there is no risk. Most physicists are aware of those papers or of the safety factors they assert. Fewer are aware of recent studies that erode many of the safety factors. Decisions to build colliders were made before safety factors eroded. Bureaucratic inertia and lots of spent money make it difficult to reverse those decisions.
2) The theories that enable trouble are a small (but plausible) subset of all possible theories. The normal reaction of a scientist to a contention of many theories is to wait for experimental evidence that will determine the correct theory. A scientist who touts one of many theories for questionable reasons can be seen as unscientific. People who are concerned about colliders can be seen as touting the theories that make colliders dangerous, and therefore as being unscientific. Many physicists come to this conclusion about us. However, this is a wrong way of thinking. Waiting for the evidence from an experiment that might destroy earth is neither prudent nor good science. It is not a real test because it has only one usable outcome. If the experiment goes wrong there will be no scientists left to analyze the results (and incidently those folks who are not scientists may have some problems as well.) Because of this, risk managers and some scientists have developed what they call the precautionary principle. This reverses the burden of proof in the case of risky experiments. Instead of waiting for proof before accepting contentious theories, the precautionary principle requires that those who propose risky experiments first prove that they are safe. The precautionary principle is widely accepted and has been formally adopted by the European Union, which is home to CERN and the LHC collider. One would think that this would settle the issue. However, many scientists dislike the precautionary principle, and others say they support it but apply it reluctantly. CERN's Chief Scientific Officer, Jos Engelen, was quoted as instructing CERN scientists to say that the risk is zero. (So presumably the precautionary principle is not applicable.) EU functionaries we have contacted are busy passing the buck.
3) The danger is unlikely enough so it is easy to expect that it will not happen, especially if one wants to see things that way. Many physicists have told me "I am not worried about that" as if the state of their worries settled the issue. If physicists were hot test pilots we might applaud their confidence in their aircraft and their willingness to put their life on the line. However, this attitude toward risk is not appropriate for commercial pilots, because they are responsible for passengers. A commercial airplane with questionable landing gear would not be allowed to fly, even though the pilot thinks it unlikely to cause trouble. Safety is more important when there are passengers involved. Safety is even more important for the earth, which has 6.5 billion passengers."
So please. With all of this information now at your disposal, please help me out. At least give me your thoughts but try to discuss it with your peers just so I know people are aware this is going on. Whether or not they are concerned with it will depend on the people receiving the information but knowing its out there will help the situation greatly.
1. Bicyclists
2. The LHC
obviously the first is self explanatory but i'll tell you in 7 words:
My bike is better than your car.
the second will take more explanation because a lot of people haven't even been introduced to the subject. First go to this website and learn about what this whole thing is about: LHC and what ALICE will do in May 2008.
Here's the just of the LHC as explained by James Blodgett of the Lifeboat Foundation Advisory Board :
Me- "My name is Heather Harmon, and I have just recently been informed of the LHC and what their plans are and it really does concern me (I honestly have not had a full night's sleep since my friend Noah told me about it). I am unfortunately not very educated in the areas at hand (physics have never been clearly explained to me as I am quite early into my college career), but I understand enough to know that this is not alright and I really want to be of some assistance in raising awareness. Noah told me that writing to you would be my first step, being where I am in my quest to stop this.
Please help explain this to me in a way that I can raise awareness without sounding like a crazed fool. I will be doing my best to make sure the word gets out."
James- "Aporia is a valuable skill, exactly what we need right now.
Get some sleep. Hopefully the worst case won’t happen. I have not ceased planning for the future. The issue is not that earth will be destroyed. The issue is that there is a small but real and not insignificant probability that earth will be destroyed, and the human race is not handling risk management well. With luck we will survive despite our folly, but it would a good precedent and a good service to fix that folly.
In the case of black holes, for the earth to be destroyed, string theory has to be correct, parameters have to be in enabling ranges, Hawking radiation has to fail, and accretion scenarios have to work. The bad news is that all those things are plausible. The good news is that the enabling theories behind the joint probability of all those things happening together are a relatively small subset of the set of all theories, so the probability is fairly low. However, the probability is not zero as asserted by CERN, and it is not the 1 in 50,000,000 that was asserted some time ago before several safety factors eroded. I won’t try to specify the risk exactly, but a commercial airplane with that risk would not be allowed to fly, and the earth has more passengers than an airplane. The negative expected value (probability times loss) is enormous.
There are a bunch of global risks (also called existential risks), that is, risks to our existence, risks that could make the human race extinct. There are things that could be done about most. Some things are being done. However, in general, the human race does not handle these things well. A few of us are trying to improve that. Collider risk is important right now because there is a chance it might actually destroy the earth, because time is short, but also because this is a test case for risk management concepts like the precautionary principle, supposedly accepted by the European Union and touted by environmental and risk management organizations, and in this test implementation of those principles is failing rather badly. We want to encourage these folks to do risk management well.
We can use all the help we can get. However, the help we can use is not to prevent sure destruction, but rather to get organizations to drop spin control and handle these things honestly. Individual soldiers in WWII (now called the greatest generation) did not fight knowing that their individual contribution had 100% change of stopping Hitler. However, their collective contribution did exactly that. If you help us you may not save the world all by yourself, but if a bunch of us help to make it safer ...
As a tutorial in the physics of collider risk, I suggest you read material on www.lhcdefense.org, and www.risk-evaluation-forum.org including some of the references on the latter. Look up things you would like to know more about on Google and Wikipedia. Look things up first so you don’t waste our time, but I would be glad to spend a short time answering a serious question. Also ask random physicists, but be prepared for them to tell you that there is no problem. Usually they say that for questionable reasons. See below. If they have a good reason, let us know.
What can you do to help? We are all independent intellectuals, and so are you. Think of things to do. Post things on Internet forums. Write to scientists and editors. Talk to friends. Most things you try will not work, but some may. If you have time, volunteer to help us. (I could use help writing a newsletter.) If you are a student, you might try to work some of this into your studies. It will take an advanced physics class and an understanding physics professor to do real physics, although some aspects of the problem could use this type of work if you know physics students or professors. The issue might also be addressed in an ethics, public affairs, risk management, or sociology class.
- - - - - - -
I may use the following paragraphs elsewhere, but wrote them partly for you guys.
I have talked to a lot of physicists. Some of my best friends are physicists. They are generally reasonable nice guys. How then do they come to be risking earth in a way that can only be described as hubristic and immoral?
1) Collider advocates have published two papers that list multiple safety factors and say that there is no risk. Most physicists are aware of those papers or of the safety factors they assert. Fewer are aware of recent studies that erode many of the safety factors. Decisions to build colliders were made before safety factors eroded. Bureaucratic inertia and lots of spent money make it difficult to reverse those decisions.
2) The theories that enable trouble are a small (but plausible) subset of all possible theories. The normal reaction of a scientist to a contention of many theories is to wait for experimental evidence that will determine the correct theory. A scientist who touts one of many theories for questionable reasons can be seen as unscientific. People who are concerned about colliders can be seen as touting the theories that make colliders dangerous, and therefore as being unscientific. Many physicists come to this conclusion about us. However, this is a wrong way of thinking. Waiting for the evidence from an experiment that might destroy earth is neither prudent nor good science. It is not a real test because it has only one usable outcome. If the experiment goes wrong there will be no scientists left to analyze the results (and incidently those folks who are not scientists may have some problems as well.) Because of this, risk managers and some scientists have developed what they call the precautionary principle. This reverses the burden of proof in the case of risky experiments. Instead of waiting for proof before accepting contentious theories, the precautionary principle requires that those who propose risky experiments first prove that they are safe. The precautionary principle is widely accepted and has been formally adopted by the European Union, which is home to CERN and the LHC collider. One would think that this would settle the issue. However, many scientists dislike the precautionary principle, and others say they support it but apply it reluctantly. CERN's Chief Scientific Officer, Jos Engelen, was quoted as instructing CERN scientists to say that the risk is zero. (So presumably the precautionary principle is not applicable.) EU functionaries we have contacted are busy passing the buck.
3) The danger is unlikely enough so it is easy to expect that it will not happen, especially if one wants to see things that way. Many physicists have told me "I am not worried about that" as if the state of their worries settled the issue. If physicists were hot test pilots we might applaud their confidence in their aircraft and their willingness to put their life on the line. However, this attitude toward risk is not appropriate for commercial pilots, because they are responsible for passengers. A commercial airplane with questionable landing gear would not be allowed to fly, even though the pilot thinks it unlikely to cause trouble. Safety is more important when there are passengers involved. Safety is even more important for the earth, which has 6.5 billion passengers."
So please. With all of this information now at your disposal, please help me out. At least give me your thoughts but try to discuss it with your peers just so I know people are aware this is going on. Whether or not they are concerned with it will depend on the people receiving the information but knowing its out there will help the situation greatly.