Doomsday Fears at RHIC

Generating Irrational Fear

The media's approach to RHIC has been quite varied. Most coverage of RHIC by the media has been positive. Many very objective and well-written articles have been published in preceding months (Boyle 1999; Browne 1999; Lane 1999; Rogers 1999; Matthews 1999; Mukerjee 1999; Suplee 1999). However, a few bad apples have spoiled things for everyone, sparking unnecessary fear and concern in the public regarding the safety of RHIC (Leake 1999; Moody 1999a). This has put BNL sharply on the defensive. Alarmist writers have done the journalistic equivalent of wantonly shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. These writers, often operating from nothing better than rumors and the words of crackpots, sparked a blizzard of panicked letters by concerned citizens as the word of "pending doomsday" spread.

In July 1999, Scientific American reported that a March article on RHIC by Madhusree Mukerjee entitled "A Little Big Bang" (Mukerjee 1999) "alarmed several readers" (Letters 1999). True to Scientific American style, the article itself provided a readable account of the activities at RHIC. Yet it prompted readers to openly speculate on the possibility of RHIC somehow altering "the underlying nature of things such that it cannot be restored" and creating miniature black holes. Another reader waxes that he is "concerned that physicists are boldly going where it may be unsafe to go." How such fears were spawned before this article is unclear.

Also in July, Jonathan Leake of the Sunday Times of London wrote an article simply entitled "Big Bang Machine Could Destroy Earth" (Leake 1999). The article goes on to rationally describe the goals of the experiment and outlines some of the details of the science involved. On the whole, the short article is rather informative. However, interspersed amongst the fairly calm and rational text are spikes of unqualified alarmist rhetoric. The sensationalist title of Leake's piece betrays his underlying premise: the machine is dangerous. The "could" in the title, from a journalistic point of view, is essentially superfluous. The piece ends by quoting a leading British scientist: "The big question is whether the planet will disappear in the twinkling of an eye. It is astonishingly unlikely that there is any risk--but I could not prove it."

In September, Fred Moody wrote a short online opinion piece for ABCNEWS.com entitled 'Atlas Shrugs" (Moody 1999a). Moody's past articles demonstrate that he is quite educated in a whole host of technology subcultures. However, the article is the most incendiary and blatantly irresponsible piece of journalism yet published on RHIC safety issues. A few weeks after his original article, Moody published an apologetic follow-up piece that chided scientists for nor having a sense of humor (Moody 1999b). However, the damage had already been done.

Moody's piece starts with a quote: "If scientists can be counted on for anything, it's for creating unintended consequences." The article's summary box glibly states, "The hubris of trying to replicate the universe just after the Big Bang could have catastrophic consequences." From here the piece introduces us to Moody's friend, David Melville, "an eccentric physicist and thinker" who writes Moody a "panicky e-mail" admitting that he is "preoccupied" with the RHIC experiments, "the most dangerous event in human history." At one point (it was later removed), in the margins, there was an informal online poll asking the loaded question, "Should potentially dangerous experiments, like the one at Brookhaven, be allowed to proceed [yes or no] ?" Melville claims, "It has been theorized by Steven Hawking that from this quark-gluon plasma other forms of matter are also produced. The most dangerous being a black hole." Hawking's honest, but comically wry, response: "I never said that. Long Island is quite safe" (BNL 1 999).