I never used the term “fraud”. You seem to be reading more into this than was intended. I just think it is funny that an official LHC risk assessment paper presumably designed to reassure fails to come up with any probabilities—and just says: “it’s safe”. To someone like me, that makes it look as though it is primarily a PR exercise.
IIRC, others have observed this before me—though I don’t have the reference handy.
I would classify a supposedly scientific paper that “sat on figures” and “was instructed about the desired conclusion” as a fraud. If you would prefer “whitewash” (a word you did use) instead of “fraud” I would be happy to change in the future.
just think it is funny that an official LHC risk assessment paper presumably designed to reassure fails to come up with any probabilities—and just says: “it’s safe”.To someone like me, that makes it look as though it is primarily a PR exercise.
But the paper was quite a bit longer than “it’s safe,” seemed quite correct (though particle physics isn’t my field), and indeed gave you enough information to calculate approximate probabilities yourself if you wanted to. So to me it looks like you’re judging on only a tiny part of the information you actually have.
Because it doesn’t actually say the words “not greater than 1 in 3E22 and that’s just calculating using the cosmic rays that have hit the earth in the last 4.5E9 years” means it should be ignored?
I never used the term “fraud”. You seem to be reading more into this than was intended. I just think it is funny that an official LHC risk assessment paper presumably designed to reassure fails to come up with any probabilities—and just says: “it’s safe”. To someone like me, that makes it look as though it is primarily a PR exercise.
IIRC, others have observed this before me—though I don’t have the reference handy.
I would classify a supposedly scientific paper that “sat on figures” and “was instructed about the desired conclusion” as a fraud. If you would prefer “whitewash” (a word you did use) instead of “fraud” I would be happy to change in the future.
But the paper was quite a bit longer than “it’s safe,” seemed quite correct (though particle physics isn’t my field), and indeed gave you enough information to calculate approximate probabilities yourself if you wanted to. So to me it looks like you’re judging on only a tiny part of the information you actually have.
Because it doesn’t actually say the words “not greater than 1 in 3E22 and that’s just calculating using the cosmic rays that have hit the earth in the last 4.5E9 years” means it should be ignored?
Uh, what? I think I said “PR exercise”, not “worthless document”.