Thread: The Large Hadron Collider

Originally Posted by Nickelking

as a geek I can't wait until 9/10 to see what we learn, but a lot of folks are saying we shouldn't meddle with this kind of stuff. Opinions?

Objectively speaking (but, of course, I'm interested in other points of view) research into "pure science" starts out as innocent intellectual curiosity and ends up killing people. What have we gained from nuclear physics, so far, besides atomic bombs and nuclear reactors? These huge public science projects are work-fare for scientists so that they'll be available to build the next big weapon (if they don't blow us up by accident along the way).

Originally Posted by Chimensch

What have we gained from nuclear physics, so far, besides atomic bombs and nuclear reactors?

First off you're rather quick to discount nuclear power... that's a huge step in clean energy. But ok, you want to discount that I'm game. What has nuclear physics done for us... it grew the ability for medical imaging by leaps and bounds allowing us to have a much more effecient diagnosis procedure in our medicine. The knowledge regarding half life allowed us to date ancient artifacts much more precicely which hugely helped archeologists. It led to the development of proton therapy for cancer which has saved my grandfathers life. and that clean energy thing, but we won't mention that.

So yeah as you said science doesn't do anything for us.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

First off you're rather quick to discount nuclear power... that's a huge step in clean energy. But ok, you want to discount that I'm game. What has nuclear physics done for us... it grew the ability for medical imaging by leaps and bounds allowing us to have a much more effecient diagnosis procedure in our medicine. The knowledge regarding half life allowed us to date ancient artifacts much more precicely which hugely helped archeologists. It led to the development of proton therapy for cancer which has saved my grandfathers life. and that clean energy thing, but we won't mention that.

So yeah as you said science doesn't do anything for us.

OK, I stand corrected ... and I'm happy for your grandfather, but what's clean about nuclear energy? It's dangerous (Chernobyl) and leaves a lot of waste that we still don't know what to do with.

True the waste is a problem, but at least it's containable. as for chernobyl yeah that was bad, but it was also built shoddily and barely maintained. compare the number of plants in extince to the number of disasters caused by them.

I live in an area surrounded by nuclear plants and have never had a problem.

PS: Sorry for the previous post btw, got a bit heated by the argument that science in general isn't good. I was prepared for arguments against the LHC but not science in general.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Sorry for the previous post btw, got a bit heated by the argument that science in general isn't good. I was prepared for arguments against the LHC but not science in general.

That's OK, my clothes were a little singed but no flesh. I'm not trying to say that nothing good comes from basic science but that it's a question of proportion. For example, on the negative side nuclear physics gave us the atom bomb (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), the cold war, tens of thousands of nuclear war heads and depleted uranium. If it were possible to draft a balance sheet of benefit versus harm, I think we'd be surprised by how negative it is. Your grandfather and the archeological artificats on the plus side and the War in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction), 200 Israeli nukes and Iran enriching uranium on the other... See where I'm coming from? I'm not saying that we shouldn't do science because no one's going to stop it, anyway. I'm just saying that I used to feel that "progress" was a good thing and now I'm beginning to see the dark side.

I see your point, but really the cold war would have happened with or without those weapons. It was even fought on many levels other than weapons... space, olympics, etc.

This really is a whole other thread though. so I'm gonna back off.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

This really is a whole other thread though. so I'm gonna back off.

Sorry for hijacking your thread. Ciao!

Originally Posted by Chimensch

OK, I stand corrected ... and I'm happy for your grandfather, but what's clean about nuclear energy? It's dangerous (Chernobyl) and leaves a lot of waste that we still don't know what to do with.

Chernobyl is what happens if people do stupid things. Like manually disable all safety elements (by removing them or mechanically blocking them), driving the reactor knowingly beyond its design limits, ignoring anybody who argued against it, and then at the very last instant performing an action which was known to increase the reaction first before slowing it, rather than slowing it immediately.

Chernobyl is a sad testament to what happens if people with authority violate every rule in the book, only to see what happens.

As the Americans say: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

But bruno, there's still a point there despite a poor example. 3 mile island? these accidents do happen.

But then textile factories are a haven of fire, refineries explode, and tankers spill oil into the ocean. A nuclear plant is safe enough to be considered an acceptable risk at their current disaster rate in my opinion.

Brings back fond memories of what I like in rap, I'm not so big on what most make today.

PS: I can't be the only one thinking "Large Hardon Collider" am I?