Interview with a critic CERN. Link below
See what the critics have to say in detail:
Those of you who have followed my blogs on Einstein and physics theory will recall that I frequently referenced CERN which is an international project near Geneva Switzerland which has as it's goal the re-creation of the conditions of the Big Bang.
The project, planned for years, first fired up in 2009 with mixed results and limited power and problems with the gigantic magnets which accelerate the particles. But, the multi-billion dollar project has drawn fire as the most dangerous tinkering in the history of the world and has been described as a threat to the entire planet. Lawsuits seeking to injoint its operations have been filed.
Below find a citation on the Cern project from the NY Times of October, 2009.
"The Cosmic Countdown in Geneva Goes On"
By DENNIS OVERBYE
The Debate over CERN's safety:
The issue is that, if successful, no one knows what will really happen. The horrendous prediction of Luis Sancho, in a law suit to shut CERN down, claims that there is a 78% chance that the entire earth can be swallowed up by a black hole created by the collider. No one, he says, can predict that it will not happen.
Others predict that the accelerator has the goal creating some of the most explosive atomic reactions in the known universe and, if successful, puts the entire planet at risk and no one is looking closely at these Dr. Frankenstein Physicists, tinkering with what they, in fact, can not control. What is the truth here?
Other critics say that the HLC can disrupt the entire magentic field of the earth with disasterous results--including deadly exposure of earth from cosmic rays, earthquakes, electrical disruptions of unimaginable destruction if our satellite systems are destroyed. After all, they point out, a collider is a gigantic magnet running electrons and protons through the largest machine in the history of the world.
So what is the truth of all this, and when, for my calendar, are the next tests to be held?
Let's take up these arguments pro and con in the next coming days.
Also see the scenario critics create at the following link.
For those that want to read the entire article, I have reproduced it below.
Published: March 10, 2010
First signs: Earlier 2010. The Proton c-speed ring: Earthquakes and volcanic activity.
The first hints that the LHC is seriously damaging life on Earth will come from an increase on earthquake and volcano activity. This is due to the fact that the LHC is creating a powerful gravito-magnetic field, a ‘ring’ of charged, massive particles that can interact with the magnetic fields of the magma and Earth’s center.
Disturbances on the Earth’s magnetic field by the magnets of the LHC and specially the charged positive c-speed flow of protons can come through 3 different processes:
- The possibility that the 27 kilometers continuous ring of charged protons can interact with self-similar charged flows in the magma or earth’s center, creating a powerful electro-magnetic effect, displacing magma and causing earthquakes and volcano activity. It is a fact that the first day that the charged, proton ring was created in 2008 it caused 4 significant Earthquakes, the first one in Iran, seconds after it was powered up.
The proton, charged ring could act as a new pole of a magnetic field with Earth’s inner fields.
- The creation of strange liquid, already produced in the first experiments, (Kaons at the LHC, hyperons at RHIC) could also provoke explosions in the magma. If stable, it will leak in increasing quantities to the center of the Earth. Some of it will remain in the center, forming the seed of a strangelet. Some will accrete and/or explode in the mantle, in highly energetic, tiny bombs.
- The creation of gravitational waves. The LHC is a 27 Kilometer ring of positive charged massive particles, turning at c -speed. This is essentially equivalent to the ‘singularity’ of a Kerr black hole - a rotating c-speed charged ring of mass. Since a Kerr singularity can produce transversal gravitational waves; the LHC might produce perpendicular gravitational waves that will sink straight towards the center of the Earth (in a similar process a rotating , charged coil is used to produce electromagnetic waves). If so those Gravitational waves, which are undetectable will affect magnetic fields, provoking earthquake waves and increase volcano activity.
Each time the machine increases its speed and ‘luminosity’ (mass), as CERN powers up the LHC, we should observe an increase of earthquakes and collateral deaths, till the 2 possible ‘doomsday events’ happen:
Strangelet Scenario: Fall 2010; 2012
In the fall of 2010 CERN will begin colliding groups of 70 million lead hadrons at 287 tev, unpacking millions of quarks in each collision. Those quarks will be first accelerated at light speed, acquiring relativistic mass, becoming heavier strange quarks, the substance of a strange quark-gluon soup called a ‘strangelet‘. The strange liquid has the potential to become stable and start an ‘ice-9′ big-bang reaction. If that happens that effectively transforms the Earth into a pulsar.
CERN video on these collisions:
During 2010 and 2011 as the LHC increases the potency and number of quarks it collides in its experiments, it will create greater quantities of atoms of strangelet liquid, called hyperons, made of up, down and strange quarks, which it has already produced in unexpected numbers at low energies, despite all their safety reports that said it would never produce them.
As quarks accelerate at c-speed, they acquire mass, because energy cannot go beyond light speed. Energy curls tiny vortices of space-time (Einstein’s definition of mass), making those quarks heavier. At light speed our protons made of up and down quarks (uud) will become strange quarks, converting the colliding protons into hyperons (usd particles, atoms of usd=strange liquid). Within the point of collision hyperons merge in pairs becoming dibaryons, which are stable and neutral and so they cannot be detected.
Thus dibaryons once formed, will fall to the center of the Earth, accreting matter as they form a growing ball of strange liquid. Most of them will explode in their path to the center of the Earth provoking mini-big bangs in the mantle, which will cause an increase in earthquake activity during the years 2010 and 2011. But some will arrive to the center of the Earth, where they will form a growing ball of ultradense strange liquid, which finally will crunch the Earth into a strange star. We will know this scenario’s end is closer, when we experience magnitude 9 earthquakes that kill hundreds of thousands of human beings.
PDF: Quark Stars
Black Hole Scenario: 2013
In 2013 the LHC will accelerate protons and hadrons at maximal energy, colliding them at over 1 Pev, producing heavy, bottom, charm and top quark-gluon liquid condensates, aka Higgs, possible substances of black holes. The quark-gluon soup it will produce will be far denser and attractive than strangelet liquid, hence the process of accretion of the Earth will be self-similar to the strangelet event but much faster.
Those collisions have the potential to create micro-black holes and top quark condensates (the real Higgs). The top quark condensates have properties similar to black holes, which according to Albert Einstein will not evaporate, rather convert matter (the Earth) into a 3 cm Black Hole or Frozen star.
A black hole is made of strings (the minimal components of quarks) which are the components of gluons and quarks. Their mathematical description is equivalent (a 5th dimensional world of strings is equivalent to a 4 dimensional world of quarks); which reinforces the idea that a black hole is a top quark star.
The LHC was created to produce massive quantities of top quarks since the Higgs and a top quark condensate are the same substance, (the Higgs was promoted as the new ‘God particle’ just to get more research resources, not allocated to study known-particles). It will not form black holes that evaporate. Since quarks don’t evaporate.
The black hole will not fall to the Earth but it will become the new, densest center of the Earth and the Earth will fall into LHC’s creation. The process will last a very short time. Some images might be captured on TV but most likely wherever we are, we will just feel a strong wind, and then a blast of attractive forces will crunch and kill us, as the Earth explodes into a Nova."
Well this is a very cheery scenario! But is it true ? Who is Luis Sancho and why is he saying these awful scary things about the Cern project?
Next time let's find out.
Below another critic speaks.
The LHC (Large Hadron Collider) experiments : Where might equals right.
By Marguerite Thoresen (B. Journ)
Abstract: This paper discusses why the LHC experiments at CERN are unsafe and a danger to life on Earth. Discussions using the precautionary principle, safety aspects, ecofeminism and risk analysis enable an understanding of the issue. The Large Hadron Collider took 20 years to design and build. New and revised scientific theories indicate the LHC experiments recently commenced at CERN may lead to destruction of planet Earth. Obtaining a legal injunction to stop the LHC experiments while safety issues are discussed is difficult and several attempts have failed. Meanwhile, the LHC machine continues to operate at ever increasing rates of power while CERN avoids open and honest discussion of safety issues. This authoritarian approach by CERN and its scientists marginalizes, disempowers and devoices world citizens and concerned scientists. In the past, authoritarian approaches of those in power pursuing deemed justifiable but abhorrent courses of action, resulted in the development and use of the atomic bomb used to kill at least 70,000 people in Hiroshima alone. Authoritarian approaches in Nazi Germany resulted in the holocaust, killing over 6 million people. In both these cases the average person could do little to stop these atrocities.
The issues: The Large Hadron Collider experiments at CERN have outcomes which CERN scientists themselves cannot fully predict. In a 2007 interview with the “New Yorker” magazine”, Jos Engelen , CERN’s Chief Scientific Officer, was quoted as saying that “CERN officials are now instructed with respect to the LHC world-destroying potential ‘not to say the probability is very small but that the probability is zero.’”
Professor Otto E. Roessler is one of many scientists who say the LHC experiments are a danger to our planet. Professor Roessler is a Professor of Theoretical BioChemistry and a Chaos theorist at the University of Tubingen, Germany. He has a medical degree, has published Physics papers, taught theoretical physics and has over 300 scientific papers published. Professor Roessler says that LHC experiments could lead to the destruction of Earth and other planets. One of the main problems discussed by Professor Roessler is that the LHC experiments could create micro black holes, some of which would be drawn to the centre of the Earth by the Earth’s gravitational pull to eventually grow and cause the destruction of our planet. CERN admits to the fact that the LHC may create unknown numbers of micro black holes but CERN scientists rely on a theory by theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking who says micro black holes will evaporate. The rate of production of micro black holes produced by the LHC is estimated by German Astrophysicist Dr Rainer Plaga in his paper “On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders”. Dr Plaga says “A production rate of up to about one BH per second could then occur at the nominal LHC luminosity i.e, the LHC would be a “black hole factory”. He says “The possibility that a collider-produced black hole (BH) - or another exotic object -might catastrophically grow by accretion and thus injure or kill humans deserves careful attention”. 
In explaining the outcome of LHC experiments at CERN, Professor Otto Roessler says one outcome might be that a positive or negative outcome from the experiment “is indistinguishable as the mini black hole leaves no decipherable sign of their existence – at first”. Professor Roessler says “This difference to its predecessors makes the current experiment a guaranteed success: at causing an unprecedented amount of human suffering. For there will be no way to explain to anyone that he or she is safe or to apologise for the suffering to expect. The rational fear unavoidably caused can only be made go away by convening a post-facto scientific world conference that proclaims absolute safety. Unfortunately, every scientist who would not agree with this preassigned verdict would act irresponsibly. Since this will be obvious, no one would ever again believe a single world from a scientist. Anti-scientific fundamentalism would have won –even if the experiment proves innocuous in hindsight” .
In a paper “The Black Hole Case: The injunction against the end of the world”, Eric. E Johnson, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, gives a detailed summation of most of the issues that different scientists are raising as potential threats from the LHC experiments. Johnson says “critics, of course, fear that particle-physics experiments will annihilate humanity. At the same time, particle physicists fear that humanity will annihilate their experiments. The angst felt by the physics community is not trivial. One top CERN physicist said that most of CERN’s member-nation governments are “desperately waiting for the right opportunity to shut down the place. There is nobody fighting for this to survive, to continue” he said. “We have to fight ourselves – the physicists”” . Johnson outlines at least five threats from the LHC experiments including black holes, strangelets, magnetic monopoles, a bosenova, and a vacuum transition which could destroy not only Earth, but the universe. These threats are credible scientific theories and all have merit.
In allowing a dangerous project to proceed in a community or on this planet, risk assessment (in this case the threat to our planet from these experiments) should be explained in an environmental impact statement or a safety report. In 2008 a court case against CERN stated “CERN has failed to provide an environmental-impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act” . Safety reports issued from CERN will of course be biased since they have a vested interest in keeping the experiments going.
In her article “Green Justice: A holistic approach to environmental injustice”, American lawyer Nicole C Kibert writes “When a potentially hazardous project is being proposed, if it is a well-organized and economically well-off community, the community members will be able to come up with their own risk analysis numbers showing an unacceptable risk resulting in permit denial. However, if the negative impact is going to fall mainly on people who are not able to fight back, then the project will most likely go ahead with a risk analysis showing an acceptable risk by the permitting agency” .
Industrial Risk Assessment when applied to projects such as the LHC is extremely difficult to quantify and even if you can prove that enough risk of danger exists to warrant stopping the project, jurisdiction and lack of rules and regulations that normally deal with keeping such things in check in any one country are lacking in this case. Therefore without a huge global outcry and the majority of physicists speaking against the project, it is unlikely those in charge of the LHC will consider stopping the experiments when so much time and money has been invested.
In the case of the LHC which cost over $6 billion dollars to build, it is unlikely that proponents of the project will accept requests to stop the experiments, even if it would alleviate concerns and enable some open and honest discussion of the risks of the LHC. If such a Risk Assessment was undertaken, there could be a consideration of cost benefit analysis. In the paper by Eric E. Johnson, The Black Hole Case: The injunction against the end of the world, human life was given a value by Judge Richard A. Posner in calculating the value of all human life. He valued the extinction of all human life at 600 trillion dollars. Posner says “valuing human lives is not… quite so arbitrary a procedure as it may seen. It sounds like an ethical or metaphysical undertaking, but what actually is involved is determining the value that people place on avoiding small risks of death” . In this paper, Posner arrived at this figure by valuing each human life at $50,000 and multiplying that number by the world population of 6 billion to arrive at 300 trillion dollars and he then doubles this to adjust for future lives that haven’t been accounted for.
Which ever way you consider these equations, the sum of money put on a human life is arbitrary and if the world ended there would be no-one left to pay the claim and no recipients either. What value should we give the life of the 16 year old girl who committed suicide because she could not bear to see the destruction of all that was dear to her (by the LHC experiments) and therefore thought it was better to end her life. Isn’t her life worth more than all of the LHC? Isn’t one life worth more than the LHC?
The LHC has no real focus except to look for answers to questions about matter and antimatter and how the universe was formed. If there was no LHC, life would go on as normal tomorrow. In examining how people might feel who have spent so much time and effort on a project that might explain unexplained matters of physics but which also may result in the end of the world, a quote by author C. S. Lewis who wrote about the Lord of the Rings by J R Tolkien seems relevant. He implied that the weapon mentioned in Lord of the Rings was based on the atomic bomb (also a threat to humanity). “Here is a book published when everyone was preoccupied by that sinister invention [the atomic bomb]; here in the centre of the book is a weapon which it seems madness to throw away yet fatal to use” .
Cost benefit analysis is difficult to apply to the LHC since you cannot really quantify human life and the benefits are largely unknown. Death is simply not a redressable injury under law.
The Precautionary Principle
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause – and – effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”(From the January 1998 Wingspread statement on the Precautionary Principle) . The precautionary principle states that “if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus, that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action” .
In the court case to obtain an injunction against the LHC where the applicants were Luis Sancho and Walter L. Wagner (nuclear safety expert), it was stated that “ Neither CERN nor the government defendants have engaged in any form of hearings or other meetings in which the plaintiffs or members of the public would have been allowed to attend so as to comply with requirements for Environmental Assessment [EA] findings, Findings of No Significant Impact [FNSI], or Environmental Impact Statements [EIS], or any other NEPA requirements or European Commission requirements pertaining to the Precautionary Principle” . Therefore it can be seen that there was little consultation with experts and the public to have any say in whether the LHC machine should be used. This application to the court in Hawaii also stated that the LSAG (safety report) is biased towards defendant CERN in that it was prepared by a committee consisting entirely of CERN employees or former employees.
In the document titled “Communication under the optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights” addressed to the Human Rights Committee at the UN, it is stated “The European Union has formally accepted the precautionary principle. However, in the case of CERN, we could not find an official willing to take responsibility for enforcement of that principle”. This document also quotes the Future of Humanity Institute of Oxford University, U.K, as saying “While the arguments for the safety of the LHC are commendable for their thoroughness, they are not infallible. Although the report considered several possible physical theories, it is eminently possible that these are all inadequate representations of the underlying physical reality. It is also possible that the models of processors in the LHC or the astronomical processes appealed to in the cosmic ray argument are flawed in an important way. Finally, it is possible that there is a calculation error in the report…However, our analysis implies that the current safety report should not be the final word in the safety assessment of the LHC. Such work would require expertise beyond theoretical physics, and an interdisciplinary group would be essential” .
CERN’s answer to any criticisms is to say that the LHC is safe to use. CERN documents say “If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC are harmful” . Many scientists have commented on this statement with rebuttals which include the fact that the experiment being undertaken at CERN is extremely different to what happens in space because, firstly, particles in space are moving freely and are not set up to clash in such a focused way and in the conditions that exist in the CERN LHC experiments.
In 2007, CERN’s chief scientific officer Jos Engelen was quoted as saying that “CERN officials are now instructed with respect to the LHC’s world-destroying potential ‘not to say that the probability is very small but that the probability is zero’”. The zero-risk policy was questioned by collider supporter Kapusta who said “The odds [1 in 5 million] are tiny but not zero. A physicist never says never. Is this tiny probability acceptable… given the potentially devastating consequences?” .
It is obvious that the precautionary principle has not been observed by CERN and that no committees have been allowed to form made of experts from different fields and members of the public and that CERN has disregarded and ignored the voices of those who have spoken out and asked for a safety conference. Experts have said that there are risks including risks we can theorise about and risks that we may not even comprehend.
Clues to the unknowns of the CERN experiments can be found in much of their documentation. For instance, in corrected update 3 [CERN, 30th March 2010], CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci says “This is a step into the unknown. We are doing something that no-one has done before. We hope we find things that are really new. There are known unknowns out there, like dark matter and new dimensions about which we hope to learn. But it is possible that we will find some unknown unknowns which could be hugely important for mankind. With the LHC, we have the tool that we need” .
Probable risks are being taken that rival and eclipse those known risks of terrible events such as exploding huge atomic bombs. The people who publicly discuss these issues have no other recourse to date other than interviews and open publications and discourse since CERN is unlikely to agree to stopping the experiments while debate is allowed. People are asked to accept CERN’s word that everything will be all right based on unproven theories and PR releases that make dubious comparisons between the LHC experiments and what happens in space. The fear caused by CERN has contributed to the death of one young girl and it has contributed to the sadness felt by many other people who feel that CERN has disregarded their civil and human rights by conducting these experiments knowing full well safety concerns are not addressed and all life risks being destroyed.
The Precautionary Principle includes a consideration of social justice issues compatible with Ecofeminist principles because feminist environmentalists and health activists contributed to the original conception of the Principle and the ensuing Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle (1998) The precautionary principle embraces the idea of “forecare” and “caring for” which are distinctly feminine concepts that women have articulated for years . These principles have not been addressed or discussed by CERN, nor has CERN shown any formal attempt to satisfy the Precautionary Principal.
In a document submitted to the Human Rights Committee at the UN by people from “conCERNed international” (www.concerned-international.com), it was stated that “composition of the panels that conducted the LHC safety reviews in 2003 and 2008 failed to address issues of conflict of interest, diversity of specialization, and consultation of the public” . ”The first panel was composed only of collider physicists. This led to complaints about conflict of interest. This lack of a fully disinterested arms-length safety assessment was also the model for the safety assessment of a previous U.S collider, the RHIC at Brookhaven which was started up in 2000” .
In a book “Catastrophe: Risk and response”, Professor Richard Posner observed the lack of arms-length assessment and called for strict regulation of colliders. Posner wrote many scientists have an “attitude gap created by the different goals, and resulting different mindsets of science on the one hand and public policy on the other. The scientist qua scientist wants to increase scientific knowledge, not make the world safer – especially from science” .
Other safety concerns raised in the document to the Human Rights Committee at the UN quote an expert’s report on the LHC Risk management practices: review of the risk assessment process used for the 2008 LHC safety study” (Leggett 2009). Leggett’s paper reported that the 2008 LHC study “shows that the LSAG report has less than a quarter (in fact, only 18%) of the elements that would be present if current recommendations for best-practice safety assessments were followed as shown in the survey” .
The report to the Human Rights Committee states all direct and non-direct contributors to the 2008 safety review were particle physicists. All the contributors to the 2008 safety review (including the SPC report) are presently listed in the CERN directory (at the time of the publication of the report). Therefore none were “experts beyond the scientific community… for example, lawyers, ethicists” et cetera despite that being recommended by the European Commission. The document quoted one of the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness: the rule against bias – no one to be a judge in their own cause . This paper also said the question (about safety to be considered) should have been “Can there in fact be a way that a catastrophe could occur from collision from the available physics? Not ‘how can it be argued that there is safety?’” .
Calls for a safety conference where all the perceived threats from the LHC experiments could be discussed have so far been ignored by CERN. In a recent interview with Professor Otto E. Roessler, he said that “I want to be disproved. It would be wonderful if one could disprove this main danger that black holes would not evaporate, would be therefore eternal essentially, so they would eventually eat the Earth. Whether I’m right that it’s only 5 years or it takes longer is less important in comparison. But this is the basic question on the table and the public should be allowed to participate in a discussion about this question. I call it a security or safety conference and this conference doesn’t cost much. It doesn’t take more than a week to arrange. It can be done. And CERN can wait for this week. And if enough people on the planet say, why not go the safe way, then everything is fine” (Professor Dr Otto E. Roessler) .
In discussions of the safety of our planet and LHC experiments, Russian academic Evgeni Dovgel says “The energy of particle collisions which can be achieved in this collider is millions of times higher than the energy of the synthesis of helium atoms out of hydrogen atoms in a hydrogen bomb explosion, the frequency of collisions to be achieved is a million times per second, while the temperature at the point of particle collisions is to be 100 thousand times as high as the one at the center of the sun. They say, this will help scientists reproduce in the collider (on the inhabited planet!) those conditions which existed in the universe for the first fractions of a second after the big bang, which supposedly created the universe (but the cause of which is unknown to them), as well as helped them clarify their assumptions concerning physical laws” . Dovgel points out that the safety report produced by CERN scientists is flawed and he also says that the report conclusions are erroneous. He also says that many scientists seriously criticize this report but it is being ignored by CERN. Dovgel is another example of another voice speaking out against the dangers of the LHC being ignored by CERN.
Attempts to stop the experiments have been tried using legal means including a law suit pursued in a Federal court in Hawaii by Walter L. Wagner (nuclear safety expert) and Luis Sancho. This case failed. They sought to require an environmental impact statement from the U.S government in its role of funding and participating in the LHC project. The case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, but Judge Helen Gillmor wrote “It is clear that Plaintiffs’ action reflects disagreement among scientists about the possible ramifications of the operation of the Large Hadron Collider. This extremely complex debate is of concern to more than just the physicists”. Other court cases including a case in the Swiss courts in 2008 and a law suit in Germany in 2009 to prevent full-power operation of the LHC at CERN also failed. And Eric Johnson says “Suing to stop the LHC is a unique litigation endeavor. Problems abound. The only thing that seems straightforward is the prayer for relief (a remedy in civil law) but what is the claim? In what court do you file it? And how do you get personal jurisdiction over CERN?” .
Situations such as CERN would not arise if we had a world that respected an Ethic of Care which is discussed by people involved in the environmental movement as well as being implied by scientists such as Roessler who advocated that all scientists take a Hippocratic Oath. In “Green Justice: A holistic approach to environmental injustice” by Nicole C Kibert, Kibert says “Ecofeminists have stated that to begin working towards breaking down the oppression systems that perpetuate the degradation of both the earth and disenfranchised people, we must shift to an ethic “that makes a central place for values of care, love, friendship, trust, and appropriate reciprocity-values that presuppose that our relationships to others are central to our understanding of who we are .” Kibert says “This ideal is something that can also be included in environmental education programs, but to really work it has to be implemented on a much larger scale, on the level of a paradigm shift .”
Unfortunately the universal adoption of an Ethic of Care is yet to happen and it may be an ideological dream opposed by groups who want to dominate and control others. In the case of the LHC experiments, the human race now looks on at discussions, theoretical postulating and arguments more suited to an unreal world of science fiction stories than real life. The reality of the sunrise on any given day being the last sunrise for everyone on the planet is no longer a nightmare but reality.
In past scenarios of huge loss of life, such as the atomic bomb or tsunamis or the Nazi Germany holocaust, there was some knowledge that the human race as a whole would still survive. People had some certainty, other that a meteor hitting the Earth or death by accident, murder, war or sickness of at least having the chance to plan for old age. There was a knowledge that when an individual died, the rest of humanity would keep going; that the birds would still sing and the forests would still grow and those remaining on this beautiful planet would keep looking for solutions to the problems of the world.
Has science in the pursuit of science chosen to ignore safety and risk assessment thus gambling with all human and animal and plant life and our planet? Who gave science that authority? Did we? In our everyday lives there are rules and regulations and laws that reflect society’s norms and safeguard all of us. Cars that go too fast are stopped by police and police will apprehend a man with a gun threatening the innocent (hopefully but not always before he has killed people). Wars are still fought disempowering some and empowering others but these are usually localized. In the global scheme of things, where are the laws and regulations that hold CERN to account and what is to stop other scientific establishments also taking great risks with people’s collective lives? Until international laws are changed and/or until a predominantly Ecofeminist nurturing, non-violent, sustainable, precautionary and environmentally friendly approach becomes reality in our world, we will be faced with situations such as CERN and the LHC experiments where “might equals right” and where those who dispute such an organization are told to shut up or are personally attacked, marginalized or rebutted with answers that are neither sound or satisfactory.
Dedications and thanks
Much thanks and kudos to all the scientists who have voiced their concerns openly about the dangers to our planet Earth from the LHC experiments. These scientists have shown courage, integrity and bravery in speaking out against those who would impose potentially deadly experiments on a planet inhabited by over 6 billion people. Our planet also contains an incredible array of flora and fauna over which we humans have stewardship. Scientists such as Dr Otto Roessler, Dr Walter Wagner and others such as law Professor Eric E. Johnson and Russian academic Evgeni Dovgel all deserve Nobel peace prizes in my opinion much more than the perpetrators of potentially life threatening experiments at LHC that could exterminate our planet and all who live on it.
Evgeni Dovgel quoted Oppenheimer (father of the atomic bomb) as saying it wouldn't matter if the atomic bomb had blown the world up because there would be no-one left to judge him (Oppenheimer) or the other scientists involved. In his paper (see link below) Evgeni Dovgel wonders will we be so lucky with the LHC experiments that we survive the dangers they may bring? In our world, recent risk versus benefit failures include the space shuttle Challenger that blew up, killing the crew on board, and the recent disaster from the BP oil rig leaking an unstoppable flow of oil into the ocean. These are examples of humans miscalculating risk.
Dovgel says "The connection between madness and genius has been proved many times. After the explosion of the first atomic bomb, its “father” R. Oppenheimer was “joking” that, of course, they hesitated, too, but decided, if everything ended well, no one would condemn them. And if not, then there would be no one to judge them... They took the risk and became famous: they were the first who exploded the atomic bomb. Today’s nuclear physicists are also ready to take the risk to become famous for ‘such discoveries, which are not yet even conceived,’ in the course of ‘experiments, whose results may not be predictable in principle’."
The fate of the planet is in the hands of nuclear physicists: shall we be lucky this time?
Communication under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Available: http://www.concerned-international.com/?q=complaint#comment-27
Plaga, R. 2009, On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders, Available: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.1415v3
Rössler, O. 2008, A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma
Johnson, E. 2009, The Black Hole Case: The Injunction Against the End of the World,Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5480
 Overbye, D. 2008, Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot More. The New York Times, March 29, 2008. Available:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html
Luis Sancho, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al., Defendants, 2008. Available:
 Kibert, N. 2001, Green Justice: A Holistic Approach To Environmental Injustice. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law [Volume 17]. Available: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol17_1/kibert.pdf
Lewis, C.S. 1959, 'Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism' (Republished in “Fern-seed and Elephants”), Available: http://orthodox-web.tripod.com/papers/fern_seed.html
 Mies, M. and Shiva, V. 1993. What is ecofeminism?. Available: http://www.wloe.org/WLOE-en/background/ecofeminism.html#mies-shiva
 Declaration Toward a Global Ethic, Global Ethic Foundation.
The Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations. Available: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Perlman, D. Psychological Dimensions of Nuclear Policies and Proliferation, NuclearFiles.Org. Available:
 Girl suicide 'over Big Bang fear', BBC News website, 11th September 2008 .
 'I want to be disproved': Interview with Professor Otto E. Roessler about the Dangers at the CERN LHC, Notepad Publishing.
 Tickner, J. and Raffensperger, C. and Myers, N. The Precautionary Principle in Action: A Handbook.
The Precautionary Principle: Precaution Round-up -February 2010, Science and Environmental Health Network.
 Seager, J. Rachel Carson Died of Breast Cancer: The Coming of Age of Feminist Environmentalism, Signs, Vol. 28, No. 3, Gender and Science: New Issues (Spring, 2003), pp. 945-972
 Are LHC collisions safe?, CERN website.
 Cern takes step to unlocking secrets of universe, Mar 30, 2010, Swissinfo.ch: Swiss News. Available: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/science_technology/Cern_takes_step_to_unlocking_secrets_of_universe_.html?cid=8586904
Posner, R. 2004, Catastrophe: Risk and response, Oxford University Press, New York. p.252.
 Dovgel, E. The fate of the planet is in the hands of nuclear physicists: shall we be lucky this time?
 Curtin, D. 1996, Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care, Ecological Feminist
Philosophy, Karen J. Warren ed.
This paper is self published on Rabbit Information Service website as of 13 June 2010.
July 30, 010
Now the counter to all this has been laid out as well. Here are a few samples of those that saw these critiques as having no merit whatsoever.
This is from Wikipedia:
Specific concerns and responses
Otto Rössler, a German chemistry professor at the University of Tübingen, argues that micro black holes created in the LHC could grow exponentially. On 4 July 2008, Rössler met with a CERN physicist, Rolf Landua, with whom he discussed his safety concerns. Following the meeting, Landua asked another expert, Hermann Nicolai, Director of the Albert Einstein Institute, in Germany, to examine Rössler's arguments. Nicolai reviewed Otto Rössler's research paper on the safety of the LHC and issued a statement highlighting logical inconsistencies and physical misunderstandings in Rössler's arguments. Nicolai concluded that "this text would not pass the referee process in a serious journal." Domenico Giulini also commented with Hermann Nicolai on Otto Rössler's thesis, concluding that "his argument concerns only the General Theory of Relativity (GRT), and makes no logical connection to LHC physics; the argument is not valid; the argument is not self-consistent." On 1 August 2008, a group of German physicists, the Committee for Elementary Particle Physics (KET), published an open letter further dismissing Rössler's concerns and carrying assurances that the LHC is safe. Otto Rössler was due to meet Swiss president Pascal Couchepin in August 2008 to discuss this concern, but it was later reported that the meeting had been canceled as it was believed Rössler and his fellow opponents would have used the meeting for their own publicity.
On 10 August 2008, Rainer Plaga, a German astrophysicist, posted a research paper on the arXiv Web archive concluding that LHC safety studies have not definitely ruled out the potential catastrophic threat from microscopic black holes, including the possible danger from Hawking radiation emitted by black holes. In a follow-up paper posted on the arXiv on 29 August 2008, Steven Giddings and Michelangelo Mangano, the authors of the research paper "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes", responded to Plaga's concerns. They pointed out what they see as a basic inconsistency in Plaga's calculation, and argued that their own conclusions on the safety of the collider, as referred to in the LHC safety assessment (LSAG) report, remain robust. Giddings and Mangano also referred to the research paper "Exclusion of black hole disaster scenarios at the LHC", which relies on a number of new arguments to conclude that there is no risk due to mini black holes at the LHC.. On 19 January 2009 Roberto Casadio, Sergio Fabi and Benjamin Harms posted on the arXiv a paper, later published on Physical Review D, ruling out the catastrophic growth of black holes in the scenario considered by Plaga. In reaction to the criticisms, Plaga updated his paper on the arXiv on 26 September 2008 and again on 9 August 2009. So far, Plaga's paper has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
 Legal challenges
On 21 March 2008, a complaint requesting an injunction to halt the LHC's startup was filed by Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho against CERN and its American collaborators, the US Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, before the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The plaintiffs demanded an injunction against the LHC's activation for 4 months after issuance of the LHC Safety Assessment Group's (LSAG) most recent safety documentation, and a permanent injunction until the LHC can be demonstrated to be reasonably safe within industry standards. The US Federal Court scheduled trial to begin 16 June 2009.
The LSAG review, issued on 20 June 2008 after outside review, found "no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced by the LHC". The US Government, in response, called for summary dismissal of the suit against the government defendants as untimely due to the expiration of a six-year statute of limitations (since funding began by 1999 and has essentially been completed already), and also called the hazards claimed by the plaintiffs "overly speculative and not credible". The Hawaii District Court heard the government's motion to dismiss on 2 September 2008, and on, 26 September, the Court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction over the LHC project.
On 26 August 2008, a group of European citizens, led by a German biochemist Otto Rössler, filed a suit against CERN in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The suit, which was summarily rejected on the same day, alleged that the Large Hadron Collider posed grave risks for the safety of the 27 member states of the European Union and their citizens..
Late in 2009 a review of the legal situation by Eric Johnson, a lawyer, was published in the Tennessee Law Review.  In February 2010 a summary of Johnson's article appeared as an opinion piece in New Scientist.
In February 2010, the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) rejected an injunction petition to halt the LHC's operation as unfounded, without hearing the case, stating that the opponents had failed to produce plausible evidence for their theories.
So what do we have here? What are the facts. In the coming days I will publish other comments and views pro and con and see where we stand at that point.
For a look at an official report on the safety of the Cern project click on the link below.
October 16, 2010
So where are we now in the Cern project? Information is very difficult to come by; but here is what my look at it reveals:
They are going ahead but seemingly much more cautionously since the "accident" of last year and the year before, essentially at one-third to half power. Full power would be 14 mil. TEV (total electron volts.)
Several of the purely physics theory issues remain resolved, even as the law suits to stop the project have failed.
A central issue among the physicists was the examination of the central equations involved--that is whose equations are correct in the context of the possible threat Cern might contain-Hawking or Einstein.
This is interesting because Cern advocates state that Hawking's idea on black hole formation is correct because he argued, on paper, that such black holes would be tiny and disapate, immediately, presumbably by other partices ranging from anti-matter, to even stranglets themselves.
(See my blog Einstein, on this site for some background on Stephen Hawking.)
The problem with relying on Hawking's equations is that I have not read where he endorses those equations himself, anymore especially since his views on black holes were rejected by Hawking's himself in a titantic battle with Susskind, another physicist. (Again, see my blog on this site for more background.
Therefore, if the Hawking equations cannot be relied upon to prove the experiment is safe where do we go from there?
Detractors, one of them at least, argue that Einstein's equations are the ones that really apply in evaluating the Cern experiment. Einstein's field equations predicted that in a black hole scenario, an infinity of energy would be the result. (This would be a big explosion.) DisCerning readers will recall this harkens back to the famous black box radiation experiments which Einstein and Planck sought to discredit, experiments which also predicted "infinite" radiation as a possibility from ordinary matter. (This is allied to the idea which ultimately gave us E=Mc2.
So Cern is a threat, in this view, because it becomes a gigantic atom-splitting machine, the power of which has not been seen since the Big Bang itself.
So what do we do here? It don't look all that good, no matter which point of view you adopt, and in either case, proof one way or another is not forth-coming.
What to do?
I am trying to get more detailed info and will get back soon.
If anyone out there has anything to add to this story please contact me at Lonnie.lonniehicks.com
October 30, 2010
I am getting emails from individuals asking if I have any information on whether last week any tests were made at the LHC, the point being that we have had a Tsuami and an volcano eruption. Any connection? Not sure; I am emailing a few people to get information.
I read on the Cern twitter page that an experiment ran on October 25th and another before than. Related. Don't know. Have to dig deeper.
Nov 23, 2010
Meantime see this youtube video on the Cern issues. It is view of Dr. Walter Wagner who gives more details on the Cern situation.
So what is "Strange Matter" which the above authors find so dangerous? Read on.
CERN increases the power of the machine 15%. Good idea or dangerous?
A careful reading of the above entries would indicate that this is a dangerous situation. See what you think.
Now what is a state here is a question of is right in predicting what will happen at CERN Einstein or other physicists.
Einstein clearly predicted that a an object approaches the speed of light mass increases toward infinity and the amount of energy need to produce that speed would be also infinite.
The question is whether or not protons being sped up at CERN reach or come close to this threshold. And if so what are the concrete effects.
The second point is that do the gigantic magnets used to accelerate these particles pose at threat to the Earth's magnetic field? Data show that the Earth's magnetic field is shifting at an accelerated rate. Is CERN involved.
Third at high speeds no one can predict the behavior of lead hadrons, something that seems ominous.
We will look at these issues in the coming days.
Five days after increase the power at CERN an 8.2 earthquake hits.
Five days from last April start-up a year ago the Tsunami hits Japan. Concidence?
How common is a 8.2 and a 9.1. See link below.
See new video on Parallel universes, CERN Black Holes and Times Travel and Strangelets
Now what makes all this more critical is that CERN assures us that everything is ok but the very physics theory that it utilizes has collasped and therefore there can be no real assurances offered us. As critics have pointed out, the argument about whether black holes can be created at CERN fails no matter which theorists ideas you use, Einstein or Hawking.
The history of that argument is one where the debate was had as to whether black hole making by CERN turned into a debate as to whether Hawkings calculations around how black holes are created and whether Einstein was right about how black holes get created--that is the argument as to whether any black holes would be tiny and dissapte instantly or swallow the earth.
An important debate no?
Well first lets examine the Einstein argument about black holes in the video below and then we will have look at Hawkings arguments. This may be the most important debate ever as to the future of the earth.
See the video first and come back tomorrow and lets talk then.
Secondly see at the end of this video a fascinating discussion on how stranglets can be created and threaten the earth.
Weighing in on CERN's safety are scholars from Oxford. See link below and then we discuss. See what you think.
Click on the author's name(Toby Ord) in blue in the article to get a PDF of the article.
A quote from the above paper after examining CERN's analysis of the safety of the project the authors go on to say:
"While the arguments for the safety of the LHC are commendable for their thoroughness, they are not infallible. Although the report considered several possible physical theories, it is eminently possible that these are all inadequate representations of the underlying physical reality. It is also possible that the models of processes in the LHC or the astronomical processes appealed to in the cosmic ray argument are flawed in an
important way. Finally, it is possible that there is a calculation error in the report."
"However, our analysis implies that the current safety report should not be the final word in the safety assessment of the LHC."
"To proceed with the LHC on the arguments of the most recent safety report alone, we would require further work on estimating P(¬A), P(X|¬A), the acceptable expected death toll, and the value of 15 future generations and other life on earth. Such work would require expertise beyond theoretical physics, and an interdisciplinary group would be essential. If the stakes were lower, then it might make sense for pragmatic concerns to sweep aside this extra level of risk analysis, but the stakes are astronomically large, and so further analysis is critical."
Interesting article on how the Earth's Core is poorly understood. I am thinking of this in relation to CERN's impact on the Earth's Magnetic Field which is generated by the Earth's core.
Recent Earthquake Activity
CERN to run its most powerful experiments ever Dec 17th to Dec 21st
the Mayan calendar date? Yep
CERN and earthquakes. Is there any evidence?
Best website run by CERN critics
12/13/12 New Report on the HIggs. Note the quote below
"Biggest problems: beam instability (much bigger problem in 2012 than 2011); stray high-energy particles affecting electronics in the tunnel; dust falling out of the beampipe into the beam, potentially a significant problem for 2015."
What do latest data show about the Higgs?
"Still, current theories predict a very specific set of behaviors for the Higgs, and it’s not yet clear whether the particle found at CERN meets those. The discovery may yet turn out to be a close cousin, rather than an identical twin, to the particle that Peter Higgs predicted. Scientists have been posting papers almost daily at arXiv.org, an online forum for new research not yet in journals, exploring the consequences of what a non–standard model Higgs might mean — from limiting the scope of other theories to raising the possibility of brand-new particles never before dreamed of."
Meantime another earthquake
See section in the article below on table top magnetism
"So topological insulators could create conditions for elusive particles like axions to pop into existence, says Zhang. The insulators could serve as a sort of “baby universe” on a tabletop, he speculates, allowing the creation, manipulation and study of particles that physicists wouldn’t otherwise have access to."
Quote from article above.
Cosmic Rays and cloud formations.