"z1" <z@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ... In 1999 Wagner warned that RHIC, the Relativistic Heavy Ion
> Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory, must be slain lest it create
> a black hole http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN99/wn072399.html
.
> The then BNL director, Jack Marburger, named a distinguished
> panel of physicists to investigate. Their report noted that nature
> has been conducting the relevant safety test for billions of years
> by colliding heavy-ion cosmic rays with the moon. It concluded
> that creation of a black hole is "effectively ruled out by the
> persistence of the Moon."
Cited from references previously posted. Though possibly
fallacious by its reasoning from analogy. The RHIC is being
constructed owing to the premise that we -lack- knowledge of
high-energy collisions. In most areas of physics research we
are afforded an opportunity to observe potential dangers before
they occur. Yet Marie Curie, John von Neumann, and others,
succumbed to radiation poisioning despite foreknowledge that
radiation might be generally hazardous to human health.
Human beings are notoriously disrespectful of the various
environmental "tipping points" such as human-caused species
extinctions, tragedy of the commons, overpopulation and over-
consumption of resources, casual ease by which humans enter
into warfare, ignorance of their own classic wisdom literature,
petty agendas which drive even intellectuals (such as USCF's
scandals). What sorts of rewards do we anticipate from high
energy particle research to offset the prospect of risk? What
has been learned from the detectors deployed on the moon?
Evidently the RHIC seeks to push the envelope beyond what
the moon detectors do, otherwise its justification goes away.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to resolve
the naysayer's contentions because science depends upon
empirical foundations. A notion that mad scientists ought to
proceed unchecked by oversights and the forum of public
discourse seems unwarranted. Knowledge about science
is not purposed only for the scientists. Science sustains an
obligation to explain itself, and explain its explanations, to
the lay public. The gap between science and non-science
widens with each generation, a rather disturbing prospect.
Surely we can make a better effort to close or bridge that gap.
Suppose that one were a member of the lemming species.
How would other lemmings respond to an individual lemming
who expressed objection & resistance to running over a cliff?
Perhaps such individuals would be excoriated as crackpots,
terrorists, political prisoners or, worse yet, rebel "survivalists."
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-1 BOMBER "CATCHES FIRE" IN MIDDLE EAST
BUT THERE'S MORE TO THE STORY THAN BEING FIRST REPORTED. . . .
According to AMERICAN media, this state-of-the-art, nuclear
equipped, long-range bomber "caught fire." HOWEVER, other
reports from around the world indicate the plane "deviated from
its flight plan, squawked a "CIA identification code" and was
ordered by US Air Force Commanders in the region to land at a
US base immediately. When the plane failed to comply, US Air Force
jets were scrambled to "strafe" the plane and coerce it to land !
Reports coming in this morning say the plane was going to attack
targets inside Iran and was stopped by fellow Air Force fighters.
As the B-1 was being straffed by USAF fighters to coerce its
ordered landing, a US Aircraft carrier in the region scrambled
its own fighter jets to go after the US AIR FORCE jets !!
http://rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/04/04/news/top/doc47f68a8fc90d0408650464.txt?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
