I have to admit that eventually I just started skimming over your comments. It seems you feel that “the experts” are obligated to provide you with an explanation to alleviate all of your fears. An explanation which you must be able to easily understand at that. I wish you would express your concerns in a succinct manner, but my guess is, you are not capable of doing this because, just like the anti-vaccine crowd (it’s thimerosal! No, wait, it’s other toxins! No, wait, it’s [insert anything {sucrose anyone?} to try and make the case]! nothing the experts can say will allay your fear.

That’s okay, BTW. Can’t win ‘em all or convert 100%, but at a certain point, we can and should say, ’nuff said.

You want easily understood and are told that the chance isn’t 10% or 5% but MUCH MUCH less. And your response is to wonder if we can trust that those numbers are accurate or can be trusted. BA provides you a link to check this info out and you plead that it’s over your head.

Do you see the problem?

And the natural vs artificial experimental occurrence is a false dichotomy. All naturally occurring things are good while the man made stuff is bad? Come on.

You say you jumped out of an airplane? All that carbon spewed out into the atmosphere so you could enjoy a momentary thrill?!?!? And you call yourself an environmentalist. This is sarcasm BTW, to try and get you to see some of the absurdity you are putting forth.

you asked: “….If these ultra-high-energy particles in question are always entering the atmosphere anyway as someone noted – then why do we need the LHC to generate them? Can’t we study them well enough by observation …..”

I would assume that it is far easier to study a particle in a controlled environment where you know nearly exactly where the particle is going to be when it collides, rather than trying to study a particle that enters our atmosphere, where you would not know where or when it would be striking, rendering further observation extremely difficult and making the results virtually useless. Its just too difficult.

The fact you bring that up however, is strong evidence that the LHC is going to be fine when it does collide these particles. If it happens in the atmosphere, and we are all fine, then one can assume the same sort of forces involved at the LHC will be safe for our environment also.

Yes, I’m a bit wordy sometimes – guilty as charged. That’s because I care strongly & is an indication of how much I want to convey my views clearly and in depth. Is that so bad? Is it so frustrating & enraging for you to skim through comments if you don’t choose to read them?

As for filling up Phil Plait’s comments I rather thought he’d appreciate serious discussion even somewhat lengthy discussion. I do try to edit – as you noted I’m not great at that yet. I’m not great at computers either.

As for your surname? Please excuse me for making the asumption that as a married couple you would both adopt the male surname. It is how it has been (& remains) in my culture and is even, I percieve, usually still the case in yours. If that offends you, my apologies, no offence was intended. Call me old-fashioned if you like, but this new-fangled custom of keeping your names separate post-marriage is one that puzzles me & one I find hard to understand.

However, Gia, your posted the link (& thanks for that btw) and you’ve commented on the story – and the fact that your husband is the person in question surely isn’t irrelevant and doesn’t make you an impartial observer but rather a *partial* one.

I assume you love & care about your husband (or is ‘partner’ the word to use now even post marriage? Sorry if I’m not feminist-culture-adept enough.. ) so why reject sharing his name? But that’s a whole other discussion really..What does make me wonder is :

Why not make it clear that you have an emotional (I’d presume) attachment in this topic?

Anyway I will just say one more thing :

If these ultra-high-energy particles in question are always entering the atmosphere anyway as someone noted – then why do we need the LHC to generate them? Can’t we study them well enough by observation and not need to risk turning our planet into a something like a quasar or Active Galactic Nucleus from whence these particles – I gather – arise?

I’ve gone through the comments here and have found:
You wrote approximately 4,400 words
*Everyone* else – about 38 different people- wrote approximately 3,700 words- that’s approximately 100 words each- some posted more, some less.

To me, your commenting in this thread *is* a bit excessive. I merely suggested you start your own blog where you can write all you want rather than filling up Phil’s comments. If, of course, you think writing 40 *times* more than anyone else here is *normal*, than forgive me, but I just think it’s a bit much.

Also, who I may be married to has absolutely no relevance whatsoever on what I think about the excessive amount you have commented here. I was commenting about *your inability to self-edit* not on Brian’s talk or your reaction to it, therefore there was no need to have stated who I sleep with at night before giving my opinion. To suggest otherwise is actually offensive, I’m afraid. It implies that I am not allowed to form my own opinions about things without announcing upfront that I am married. Surely that’s not what you were suggesting, is it?!

Oh. And my surname isn’t Cox.

Please remember I may have been – heck I _was_ angry at you at the time I responded above. Forgive me please for being human and responding whilst feeling hurt and cheesed off.

I try to be a peacemaker & I did get, perhaps, a bit carried away and I’m not proud of myself for that so I hope you’ll accept my apology for that.

I do respect you & your husband, but I am uneasy over CERN & I feel upset & hurt at how you’ve responded to thoughts, questions & comments so far. Sure, I am not perfect (& ok maybe I do ramble a bit at times & over-react at others. Mea culpa.) but I do think I have the right to express my views and ask questions of the Bad Astronomer & others.

I do think folks like myself are justifiably nervous over this sort of experimentation similar to that which did lead to the development of the atomic bomb – at least as I see it although I suppose you disagree. I’d like to see a reasoned, full debate on this treating all sides with respect and consideration. I try to be polite and civilised & I do want to hear the alternative views even if I don’t share them. Please return that courtesy. I find it hard to understand why my comments apparently anger you so much – & if you wish to tell me so then I’ll bear that in mind.

Please thank your husband from me for his excellent talk – I too am a fan of Dr Carl Sagan & science esp. observational astronomy. However, also please ask him if he can answer my questions posed on the BA blog & whether he really – & I mean deep-down in his heart really – feels the CERN-LHC is ethical in the risks it may be taking with the entire planet if anything like the worst fears of folks like me come true.

If the Bad Astronomer tells me he doesn’t want my comments then I’ll listen to him & abide by his wishes but for you to do so seems … well a bit presumptous & high-handed really.

I haven’t commented on your blog (Can’t seem to work out how to do so anyway to be honest ..) but I’ll respect your wishes & refrain from asking awkward questions there if you insist.

But as far as Dr Phil Plait’s blog goes, until informed otherwise – by him personally – I intend to participate fully within his rules.

I don’t think I’ve breached his rules here or been a troll – if Ihave then my apologies .. & please feel free point out what I’ve done wrong (other than disagree with you & maybe explain why I disagree a bit lengthily?) so as I know. Is there a word limit to posts here or something? If so its thefirst I’ve heard of such. Or do you (Gia that is NOT the BA) just want to hear only from those who agree with you?
——————————————–
Oh dear, I’m commenting again, yegods, on a public comment-seeking blog & all. Gee (or is that Gia?) how dare I?