A nuke is child talk compared to a black hole.
Oh yeah? Tell that to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think they have a quite different perspective regarding which is more dangerous. A nuclear reaction destroying the landscape for generations and burning hundreds of thousands of people to a crisp in seconds or one or more theoretical scenarios that everyone who knows what they're talking about, thinks is absurd.I mean if you had to chose between being nuked and being perfectly fine, which would you chose?
Did you actually read that article? Or did you just link to it? Here is a quote for you from the very first paragraph. "The consensus in the scientific community is that experiments at the LHC present no danger and that there is no reason for concern". Could it possibly be any clearer?
Black holes aren't the only threat here, read the wiki.
You're right, because "The Safety Assessment Group argues that they would also have been produced by cosmic rays and have stopped in the Earth or some other astronomical body, and the stability of these astronomical bodies means that they cannot be dangerous". Do you get it yet? The experiments going on at the LHC aren't dangerous, because they occur naturally thousands of times every day. since the earth has been here around 5 billion years and and counting, it seems reasonable to deduct that if there was even a slight chance of anything bad happening, it would have happened already and we wouldn't be here. Seriously, read the wiki.And no you're right. Black holes aren't the only threat. However the other threat (stranglets) have not yet been proven to exist, despite 8 years worth of research. They are theorized to exist, because they explain certain astronomical phenomenon, however they are as likely to occur as the biblical flood, as far as scientific evidence goes.
I'm against it!
Sorry, but we need to build a hyperspace bypass.