QUESTION OF THE WEEK
Last week's question concerned the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the
controversial $9 billion machine designed to smash opposing beams of
protons together at close to the speed of light. The machine is
designed to simulate conditions that existed microseconds after the
Big Bang occurred, which proponents expected would help them understand
the origin of the universe. Opponents fear it could create a black hole
that will ultimately destroy the Earth. We asked if you though the LHC
was too risky. Sixteen percent of you said yes, 84 percent said no.
Here's more of what you had to say:
"There are always Chicken Littles crying about the sky falling.
There were even physicists in the development of the atomic and
hydrogen bombs claiming that the bombs would detonate all the oxygen on
earth. 100 years from now, our descendants will be laughing at how
foolish and primitive the beliefs were in our day." -Tony
"The Hadron Collider's greatest risk is a collapse of the power grid,
not the effects at the target. Though large, the accelerated particle
energy is only the force applied to it, no more. In perspective,
our universe is full of collisions large and small, but the ones that
show themselves are very large indeed." Wayne Baldridge
"No, not too risky. The better question is, 'Is it too expensive?'
Unlike other atom smasher designers, this one requires the magnets to
be cooled to -270 deg C. When a magnet fails, it takes months to
replace - allowing time to slowly warm the section needing repair, and
then slowly cooling that section after repair. It's been stated that
these failures occur fairly regularly. Not a very efficient way to
spend $9 billion dollars. It is more likely that our tax money is going
to get sucked into a black hole than the earth itself." J Kopp
This week's question concerns the proposed $700 billion bail-out plan for
U.S. financial firms. The House of Representatives has rejected a bill that
would give the government power to buy soured securities from Wall Street
firms and banks, institute debt insurance for bailed-out firms to protect
troubled assets, and impose restrictions on executive compensation. The
bill's supporters say the measures are needed to stabilize a faltering
economy; critics argue the bill would cost taxpayers more and won't help
homeowners faced with foreclosure or sinking home values. What do you think?
Will the Federal bail-out plan help the U.S. economy? Yes or no?
Submit your answer and post your comments at:
http://link.abpi.net/l.php?20080930A16* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
