The Large Hadron Collider at CERN had its first run last night. According to Professor Stephen Hawking http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4715761.ece there is a less than 1% chance that it will produce a black hole.

But that is still a chance and millions of people have been worrying that the collider will cause a rift in space time that will swallow the earth.

All of which makes me wonder where it leaves the "precautionary principle". This principle is pretty vague, but it generally seems to mean that if, in the opinion of the person advancing it, and if this opinion can be supported by some facts, or the opinion of some experts, there is a significant risk from pursuing a particular action, then that particular action should not be taken.

I call it the "don't get out of bed" in the morning principle, not least for the reason that staying in bed has its own risks, and the precautionary principle appears to me to start from the erroneous position that what currently exists is better, and safer, than what might exist, so there is only one-sided weighing of risk.

It is normally invoked by environmentalists arguing against a new project, or the roll-out of some new technology. GM, for example, is often on the wrong end of this argument, as is burning fossil fuel for energy.

So why was not there not more public angst over the LHC?

What benefits were gained from splitting the atom?. Would we have been better off if they didn't push the button?.

Perhaps there was some public angst but it did not reach the public domain.

The scientist who spoke about the LHC on Denton the other night stated that the risk of a black hole was small and even if a black hole occurred it would be of molecular size and not pose a threat to mankind. I don't think there was a great deal of media attention on this until just prior to the commencement of the experiment. See more information towards the end of the 'Catalyst' article in the link below:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/09/10/2361062.htm?site=catalyst&topic=latest

GM food on the other hand might be perceived as more of a threat if it was felt that profit motive took precedence over safety and prudent research. It does happen. Any issues with GM has implications for the whole food chain and the health of populations. It is still relatively new science.

Are you sure you aren't talking about the Hicks Photon?

The end of the world?
Don't tell that to the Parliament of Victoria. They have just knocked back a reasonable euthanasia bill and have approved a bill to decriminalise abortion.

I think its strange that the media haven't picked up on the end of the world but they blithely accept the spin about Global Warming that is put out by the IPCC.

I don't think we have any journalists left, just media release readers.

GrahamY
I agreed with you until you started with the 'political labelling diatribe'.
I think you'll find it is the "conservative" right and the progressive "left" is the current politically expedient labelling practice fantasy.

Personally Labels are an intellectual and moral cop out as they don't really describe real people. See my comment to Craig Emerson’s last offering.

With regard to the precautionary principle one might point out that the “risk?” should be taken in a scientific “context”. Science at this level is more about scientific probabilities than actual hard provable facts. The 1% (low number) is more of an interesting possibility than a real risk. The good professor Hawking is a Theorist.

If we examine most of the great Scientific theories of this ilk they are at best stepping stones not the destination
i.e. Newton’s laws fail in the sub atomic and the planetary sense,
Even some of Einstein’s have indicated as being incremental and not absolute.

By the way which voyage of sailing discovery did Higgs command? and why is his boson so important? another famous mutiny perhaps?:-)