
How do we know the LHC really is safe? - bd
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126926.800-how-do-we-know-the-lhc-really-is-safe.html?full=true
======
bd
See also the original paper:

 _"Probing the Improbable: Methodological Challenges for Risks with Low
Probabilities and High Stakes"_

<http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5515>

------
fh
"Flawless logic" in here:

> Lots of arguments do turn out to be wrong. To get an idea of how many, Ord
> and his colleagues looked at the proportion of published scientific papers
> that are eventually retracted. Using Medline as their source, they found it
> to be around 1 in 10,000. Given that Medline covers mostly top-ranking
> journals, they estimate the error rate for all journals to be more like 1 in
> 1000, which suggests a fairly high chance of error in any argument. And
> remember, scientists often don't publish painful and embarrassing
> retractions unless forced, so the true rate may be even higher. <

It's true. Studies have shown the error rate of physics papers to be 1 in
10000. But that was only _high-quality_ papers, for the average paper we
estimate it to be 1 in 1000 or more. Also, physicists are self-absorbed
egomaniacs who would only admit a mistake if their professional reputation
depended on it, so the _true_ error rate is at least 1 in 100 in fact. 1 in 10
if it's about string theory, which I don't understand anyway.

