http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-10/atom-smasher-exposes-hole-in-earth-s-defenses-kevin-hassett.html
This article was said to have disappeared shortly after it appeared, so I reproduced it here:
Atom Smasher Exposes Hole in Earth’s Defenses: Kevin Hassett
January 11, 2010, 04:42 AM EST MORE FROM BUSINESSWEEK
Book Excerpt: Rethinking Retention - BusinessWeek
Rules Regarding Copyrighted Software - BusinessWeek
Hatoyama's Credibility Make Be Hurt by Reverse on Finance Minister - BusinessWeek
Review: 2010 Mercedes-Benz E350 Coupe - BusinessWeek
The Next Wave of Airline Security Systems - BusinessWeek
Story Tools
e-mail this story print this story digg this save to del.icio.us
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the most ambitious physics experiment ever. Buried in deep underground tunnels and covering a loop of about 16.5 miles, it consumes about the same amount of energy as a large city.
The LHC will explore the most important unresolved questions in physics. In particular, it could provide evidence of the existence of the Higgs boson, a hypothesized particle that has become known as the God particle. If it is found to exist, it could complete our understanding of the basic laws of the universe.
Accelerators such as the LHC work by bashing energetic beams of particles together, then studying the detritus. The high-energy LHC is like a telescope with an extra-powerful lens. It will allow scientists to see things they have never seen before, because its energy is about seven times greater than that of the most powerful accelerator to date.
That high energy has caused significant controversy. Some have warned that the collider’s energy could induce a catastrophic event. A brilliant review of the risks associated with the experiment by University of North Dakota law professor Eric Johnson has made me think twice about an experiment I have always favored.
There are many things that theoretically could go terribly wrong, some of them quite exotic. The chief threat is that the LHC’s high-energy collisions might create a microscopic black hole that would, perhaps over a few years, swallow the Earth.
Unfortunately, subsequent research by physicists at the University of California-Santa Barbara, Stanford University and Brown University showed that it was theoretically possible that much lower energy levels could create black holes. One paper even suggested that something with the energy level of the LHC might generate one black hole per second.
With its initial safety argument under assault, the physics community turned to an alternative. Even if a black hole were created, this new argument went, it would be tiny and would evaporate harmlessly. This was consistent with a theory of physicist Stephen Hawking. The evaporation argument was widely viewed as sound, and the LHC continued on track.
So the physics community retreated to what originally seemed like a terrific point: High-energy cosmic rays constantly bombard Earth and collide with particles in the atmosphere. If those collisions were going to create a black hole, then Earth would already be gone.
It turns out that this argument, too, is a loser.
When a cosmic ray rocketing toward Earth collides with a particle, the result of the collision would most likely be blasted into space. That means a black hole created by such a collision might be well beyond our galaxy before it is large enough to harm anything. In the LHC, by contrast, the result of collisions between two particle beams might stay put and cause significant trouble.
Thus, the safety arguments that have justified turning on the LHC are each a little less decisive than was originally believed. Oxford University’s Toby Ord, a philosopher by training, adds one last concern. It may be that the models that we use to make predictions about the possibility of catastrophe are themselves flawed.
Whatever the likely benefits from this experiment, it is impossible that they would be significant enough to justify accepting a cost that includes a real risk of the Earth’s destruction. If Ord’s numbers are correct, and they may not be, then the LHC is the biggest policy error of all time.
As science progresses, the possibility climbs ever higher that the fondest dreams of scientists might entail risks of planetary destruction -- whether it’s the next physics experiment at even-higher energy or a genetic experiment that might unleash the perfect disease. The best science explores things far from our understanding. How can we know that things we do not understand will not kill us?
Early in his term, President George W. Bush appointed a bioethics panel to consider the weighty questions that scientific advances presented. A successor panel named by President Barack Obama has a lamentably narrow focus. It is urgent that a panel be assembled to explore policy in the presence of catastrophic scientific risks.
The alternative is to continue to bet the future of our planet on a process that keeps producing safety assurances that are subsequently refuted.
Click on “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.
--Editors: Laurence Arnold, Steven Gittelson.
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at +1-202-862-7157 or khassett@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this column: James Greiff at +1-212-617-5801 or jgreiff@bloomberg.net
-0- Jan/11/2010 02:00 GMT