From your response, it’s clear that you’re AWARE that the argument you put on the intro is bull, and that you put it on the front page makes it clear that you intend to use the controversy to make the article more ‘dramatic’.

A short blurb at the end about how ‘most’ ‘predict’ it won’t be a problem doesn’t make you innocent. It’s an incredibly weak statement, especially in the eyes of someone unfamiliar with the area. How hard would have been to mention that collisions as and more powerful than LHC’s happen in our atmosphere all the time and have been for billions of years, which anyone can understand nullifies the concerns without depending on what scientists say? And it’s still irresponsible to overstate the problem on the intro and retract it on the last page.

The disparity in language between lay use and science is a huge sticking point. We’re all aware that if you’re being pedantic, nothing’s 100% certain, ever. This doesn’t make it acceptable to skew facts just to hold the interest of people who come here for interesting and factual information. When ‘a few physicists’ means ‘a vanishingly small number of people who don’t work in the field’ and ‘most’ is ‘everyone who knows what they’re talking about’, then yes, you’re being intellectually irresponsible, even if those statements are technically true.

Sorry to go on at such length, I’m not angry or anything. I just want to make it clear that over-dramatized science reporting is a problem that leads to the kinds of stupid lawsuits and public misunderstanding that hurt the research that you report on. Really, it’s possible to hold people’s interest without having to stretch a scenario where the subject matter might kill them.

Cheers

Yeah, I’ll agree that calling it “intellectually irresponsible” was overly harsh. I apologize for that. Upon first reading it seemed a little sensational and I suppose that I am just overly sensitive to perceived misreporting.

The one lawsuit I remember hearing reported was the botanist from Hawaii who frankly seemed not to have the slightest idea what he was talking about, scientifically or legally.

While this entire LHC experiment is hugely novel it seems that every precaution is being taken to keep Earth safe. The science also seems to support the claim that the LHC is a safe machine. This quality analysis and relative consensus among the scientific community should be given weight over the claims of a few ‘fringe’ scientists, to say nothing of any ulterior motives for outspoken disapproval. I don’t mean to discount the possibility of a revolutionary discovery proving the consensus wrong, but such events are rare enough that the should not come to be expected.

My own fields (evolution and climatology) are extremely susceptible to reporting that portrays both sides of the “debate” as equal in scale and legitimacy and I was worried that a similar misrepresentation was occurring here.

I also did not mean to imply that you wouldn’t have read the necessary prerequisite literature on the subject, my intention posting the article with my summary quote was for the larger reading public, that in all likelihood wouldn’t bother reading such a dense and technical document.

To finish, I agree that we are also in agreement. Thanks for the thoughtful response. It’s nice to find that is it indeed possible to have a civil and open discussion online that is drowned out by noise and name calling.

Best,
Ryan

Re-read the last paragraph of this article.. slowly. “Minute black holes, such as those modeled for the LHC experiments, are predicted by many physicists to undergo runaway evaporation and disappear in a final burst of radiation.” That is, they are harmless. The tiniest of black holes end their short lives in a burst of minute radiation. I think we are both in agreement.

Thanks for checking in and commenting..

Bennett

Here is a link to the Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC (http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf). If you don’t care to read it allow me to sum it all up with a quote: “Thus we conclude that black-hole production does not present a conceivable risk at the LHC due to the rapid decay of the black hole through thermal processes.”

Hope this helps.