A few scientists question LHC safety
(For latest news, please redirect to http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/)
CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment is expected to concentrate 5 times more energy than ever created at rest* on Earth before. CERN’s extensive 2008 LHC safety study concludes no possibility of danger from any novel particles that might be created (summarized in layman’s terms on CERN’s well written LHC Safety site).
However a few scientists in the United States and Europe still challenge CERN’s safety arguments as potentially flawed, or at least unconfirmed, recommend proceeding slowly and filed law suites in the United States, Europe and with the United Nations to require proof of safety before LHC operations begin (or before energy concentrations are significantly increased).
* Unlike cosmic ray collisions with Earth, head-on collisions created by LHC type colliders*, produce some slow moving collision results that may be captured by Earth’s gravity.
* Single main circle [non-linear] particle colliders like the LHC, require two particle beams to travel at exactly the same speed in opposite directions before crashing head-on.
Background Documents: for an Independent Assessment of the LHC’s Safety (20 pages of links): http://www.lhcsafetyreview.org/docs/Background%20Documents.pdf
Legal Thesis: Bloomingburg (1/11/2010) Reviews Asst. Prof. of Law, Eric E. Johnson’s paper (30 Dec 2009) The Black Hole Case: The Injuction Against the End of the World.
Concerns expressed by scientists:
Otto E. Rössler, Ph.D
Visiting Professor of Physics Dr. Otto E. Rössler, University of Türbingen, F.R.G, creator of Chaos Theory’s Rössler Attractor and founder of Endophysics
“miniblack holes as are expected to be produced soon at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.” 
“To publicize the danger because time is running out is a big decision.” 
“ …after 50 months the earth to a centimeter would have shrunk. It would be nothing more there, not only no more life, there but also the earth would be… a small black hole.” 
 Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk, Prof. Dr. Otto. E. Rössler, Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen (2008)
 A Rational, Moral and Spiritual Dilemma, Prof. Dr. Otto E. Rössler’s (2008)
 “Biggest crimes of humanity”, Prof. Dr. Otto. E. Rössler, 20 Minuten News (25 June 2008)
 Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: “Â-theorem“ demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric Prof. Dr. Otto. E. Rössler, (January 20, 2009) Revised Version for Chaos, Solitons and Fractals
Paper How a Tiny Little New Result Can Save the World – A Tribute to John Wheeler summited by Professor Otto E. Rössler on Nov 28, 2009
Dr. Rössler responds to El Nachie Watch, July 17, 2010, http://www.lhcfacts.org/category/cern/character-assasination/
Walter L. Wagner, Co-Plaintiff
“there is at present a significant risk that has not been proven to be an impossibility, and that operation of the LHC may have unintended consequences which could ultimately result in the destruction of our planet.” 
“Perhaps cosmic-ray collisions really are creating tiny black holes or strangelets, but those little bits of doomsday zip by too fast to cause any trouble. In the LHC, they say, the bad stuff could hang around long enough to be captured by Earth’s gravity and set off a catastrophe” 
Luis Sancho, Co-Plaintiff
Video by Luis Sancho, Philosopher of science, Co-Plaintiff US Federal Lawsuit
“In layman terms, what CERN is doing is asking each of us, and all of mankind, to play a game of Russian Roulette with 2 bullets; one for the creation of black holes, and one for the creation of strange matter.” , page 24, part 47.
“my beliefs that CERN is acting with criminal negligence and it is not warning the public and the authorities that sponsor them of the real risks involved in the LHC experiment” , page 25, part 50.
“At the present stage of knowledge there is a definite residual risk from mBHs production at colliders. This final conclusion differs completely from the one drawn by G & M.”  Part 6 Conclusion, page 9
“I put up for further [discussion] three [feasible] measures for risk mitigation, at least in the start up phase of LHC”  Part 6 Conclusion, page 9
 On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders, Dr. Habil. Rainer Plaga (26 Sep 2008)
James Blodgett, Biometry and Statistics, (MS, MBA, MA)
“I would say that there is definitely a risk, and that the risk is considerably higher that was thought until recently. Most of the authors who have written on the subject agree that there is a risk”  Part 9, Page 5.
James Blodgett, MS, MBA, MA, is Coordinator of the Global Risk Reduction Special Interest Group (in American Mensa), Contact Person for Risk Evaluation Forum, a member of the ethics advisory board for the Lifeboat Foundation, and a member of the Society for Risk Analysis
 AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES R. BLODGETT, DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII (2008)
Dr. Richard Webb (Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering)
“[Dr. Webb] agreed that the potential for an accidental thermonuclear detonation of those fusible materials from an errant beam might be present, and needs to be examined in detail.” 
 AFFIDAVIT OF WALTER L. WAGNER, DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII (2008)
“ … the scientists are fully aware that it is not a project without a grave risk to the life of the Earth.”
(Comment removed by request)
“… stake the very survival of all life on earth on the truth of their ZPE stuff! … a gamble.”
“I’m only not worried because I do not think that step 1 [micro black hole creation] will occur in the first place. But this is just my personal skepticism.“
LHCFacts salutes scientists who dare to voice an independent opinion
“serious reprisals and negative repercussions for their careers if they were to speak out about perceived dangers of the LHC. Denial of tenure, unaccepted manuscripts, and ostracism by peers are among the penalties an academic in such a situation might plausibly face.“
Dr. Eric Johnson, Associate Professor of Law 
Huang-Superatom in Pfau-Bosenova: A Falsifiable Prediction A recent experiment by Tilman Pfau, Masahito Ueda and colleagues  achieved a first Bosenova implosion  using magnetic atoms. According to Kerson Huang and Ueda , who predicted indistinguishability-based implosions before they were actually observed , a magnetic superatom must have formed in the Pfau-Ueda experiment. Owing to its giant magnetism, this superatom ought to be discoverable in the residuals of the Pfau experiment. Hereby the superatom’s diameter could be found to range from 30 atom radiuses (liquid droplet) over 10 to the -14 m (large atomic nucleus) to 10 to the -18 m (potential black-hole radius). Thus for the the first time, the controversial question of whether or not a compact relic is generated in a Bosenova implosion, and whether superatoms exist, could be answered empirically. This is important because despite their early prediction , relics are still not generally believed to exist nor is the associated new form of matter, superatoms. A second reason which makes this empirical check important is monitoring: By down- and up-grading the initial atom number while recording the magnetism of the corresponding relic, nature’s unknown black-hole threshold could be determined empirically from the onset of a decrease in magnetism caused by gravitational redshift. The Pfau experiment is therefore a maximally important tool for the avoidance of inadvertent black hole formation. For J.O.R. Authors: O.E. Rössler, D. Hoffmann and J. Tankersley Jr., University of Tubingen, F.R.G.
 T. Lahaye, J. Metz, B. Frohlich, T. Kich, M. Meister, A. Griesmaier, T. Pfau, H. Saito, Y. Kawaguchi and M. Ueda, d-Wave collapse and explosion of a dipolar Bose-Einstein condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 080401 (2008).
 E.A. Donley, N.R. Claussen, S.L. Cormish, J.L. Roberts, E.A. Cornell and C.E. Wieman, Dynamics of collapsing and expanding Bose-Einstein condensates. Nature 412, 295 (2001).
 M. Ueda and K. Huang, Fate of a Bose-Einstein condensate with attractive interactions. Phys. Rev. A 60, 3317 (1999).
AOL News Poll: Is the giant particle smasher worth the risk? No: 61%, Yes: 39% with 259,307 total votes.
BBC on-line Poll: Is it Worth the Risk? Yes 54%, No: 46%
Q: What is the Large Hadron Collider?
The ‘LHC’ is the largest, most expensive scientific experiment ever created. It is located along the French and Swiss border and it will collide tiny particles at nearly the speed of light to create conditions that may not have existed since the first fraction of a second after the big bang almost 14 billion years ago.
Q: Why all the concern now?
When funding for the LHC was approved decades ago, scientists believed that there was no reasonable danger. A few years ago CERN scientists predicted the LHC might create tiny particles called micro black holes at a rate of 1 per second.
Q: What is a micro black hole?
A micro black hole is a particle trillions of times smaller than an electron but it is so dense that any other particles it touches would be collapsed into it.
Q: Are micro black holes dangerous?
Unknown. CERN believes that micro black holes would either evaporate or grow too slowly to be dangerous. Other scientists believe micro black holes would not evaporate and might grow quickly. One scientists believes micro black holes might create dangerous radiation as it grows.
Dr. Otto Rössler’s theory is that when an mBH (micro black hole) accretes a charged particles they will not go straight into the mBH, but will circulate around the mBH creating magnetic fields that would strongly attract other charged particles thus accelerating the growth rate.
Nuclear Physicist Walter L Wagner discovered that cosmic ray impacts with Earth do not prove that LHC created micro black holes would be safe. CERN promised to produce a new safety report in response.
Q: Do physicists believe that micro black holes would evaporate?
One Delphi study found that opinions of physicists differ significantly on their belief that micro black holes might evaporate or not.
Scientist James Blodgett conducted a survey of physicists in 2004 that found that physicists’ estimates that Hawking radiation would fail ranged from 0% to 50% (0%, 0%, 0.000000001%, 0.1%, 1%, 1%, 1%, 2%, 2%, 7%, 10%, 10%, 30%, 35%, and 50%).
Q: Dr. Hawking believes micro black holes could evaporate, could he be wrong?
Yes. Several theoretical scientists studied Dr. Hawking’s theories and concluded that Dr. Hawking was mistaken, micro black holes would not evaporate.
“black holes do not radiate” 
“The possibility that non-radiating `mini’ black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe” 
“the effect [Hawking Radiation] does not exist.” 
“2) infinitely delayed Hawking radiation; 3) infinitely weak chargedness of black holes” 
“it is possible that… the behavior of the black hole is stable” 
 arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0008016, Trans-Plankian Modes, Back-Reaction, and the Hawking Process, Prof. Dr. Adam D. Helfer (2000)
 arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304042v1, Do black holes radiate? Do black holes radiate? Prof. Dr. Adam D. Helfer (2003)
 arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607137, On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again, Prof. VA Belinski Paper. (2006)
 www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk, Prof. Dr. Otto Rössler (2008)
 arxiv.org/abs/0808.2631 On the Stability of Black Holes at the LHC, M. D. Maia, E. M. Monte (2008)
Q: Would scientists purposefully risk danger to Earth?
Scientists have been willing to take calculated risks in the past. CERN scientists believe that the Large Hadron Collider is an extremely important experiment and they might be willing to accept some level of risk.
New: Q: Are safer collider designs possible and practical?
Future higher energy collider may be based on linear rather than circular designs. Linear head-on colliders could allow for un-equal beam speeds that might be able to guarantee that no particles created in collisions would be created at rest with respect with Earth, and all particles created would be sent safely into space, similar to cosmic ray collisions with Earth.
Q: Have any of CERN’s particle physicists experssed any concerns?
Some CERN particle physicists may have some concerns  but they have been asked to represent LHC safety as zero risk regardless of personal opinion. 
“We don’t want to know if it’s possible we will blow up the world–because, quite frankly, we already know the answer. And the answer is, quite frankly, despite all the testing we will ever do–yes. It’s possible. That doesn’t help us.
What we want to know is if we are going to destroy the world. And we can’t know this with certainty, but in reality, we don’t really care about certainty. We care about whether or not it’s probable–that is, likely, that we will destroy the world. So again, possibility–irrelevant. Likelihood–key.” 
“Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertionof ‘minimal risk’ ”  Part 34, Page 18.
 RE: LHC Dangerous? by yy2bggggs on Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:27 pm UTC , XKCD (12 Apr 2008)
 Affidavit of Luis Sancho, US District Court Hawaii, Luis Sancho (March 2008)
A century ago the radical theories of a young and inexperienced Dr. Albert Einstein were arrogantly rejected by the established physics community until proven correct by experimentation.
Today the genius of Professor Dr. Otto. E. Rössler is an inconvenient truth and his concerns similarly largely ignored as are calls by other senior scientists for independent safety review and to proceed slowly.
Nobel winning scientist Frank Wilczek recently joked (paraphrase) “If this does cause the end of the world, I will not only be very surprised but very embarrassed!”. That pretty much sums it up!
New From Otto Rossler, Ph.D, January 14, 2011
“Summary of My Results ion the LHC-Induced Hazard to the Planet”
– submitted to the District Attorney of Tubingen, to the Administrative Court of Cologne, to the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of Germany, to the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity, and to the Security Council of the United Nations –
by Otto E. Rossler, Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle A, 72076 Tubingen, Germany
The results of my group represent fundamental research in the 3 fields of general relativity, quantum mechanics andchaos theory. Several independent results obtained in these disciplines jointly point to a danger – much so as if Nature had posed a trap to humankind if not watching out.
The MAIN RESULT concerns BLACK HOLES and comprises 10 sub-results
Black holes are different than previously thought and presently presupposed by experimentalists. It is much as it was with the Eniwetak bomb, where incorrect physical calculations caused a catastrophe – albeit a localized one at the time. Four Tubingen theorems (gothic-R theorem, TeLeMaCh theorem, miniquasar theorem, superfluidity theorem) entail 10 new consequences:
1 ) Black holes DON’T EVAPORATE – they can only grow.
2 ) Artificial black holes generated at the LHC are therefore undetectable at first.
3 ) Black holes are uncharged. So the fast majority created pass right through the earth’s and sun’s matter.
4 ) Only the slowest artificial ones – under 11 km/sec – will stay inside earth.
5 ) Inside matter, a resident black hole will – via self-organization – form a so-called “miniquasar”: An electro-gravitational engine that grows exponentially, shrinking the earth to 2 cm in a few years time.
6 ) Since black holes are uncharged, charged elementary particles conversely can no longer be maximally small (“point-shaped”). Hence space is “bored open” in the small as predicted by string and loop theories.
7 ) Therefore the probability of black holes generated by the LHC experiment is boosted up to about 10 percent at the energy of 7 ( soon to be raised to 8 ) TeV.
8 ) This high probability was apparently not yet reached in 2010, since the originally planned cumulative luminosity was not achieved, but the higher-energetic second proton colliding phase scheduled to start in February 2011 is bound to reach that level.
9 ) Black holes produced in natural particle collisions (cosmic ray protons colliding with surface protons of celestial bodies including earth) are much too fast to get stuck inside matter and hence are innocuous.
10 ) The only exception is ultra-dense neutron stars. However, their super-fluid “core” is frictionless by virtue of quantum mechanics. Ultra-fast mini black holes that get stuck in the “crust” grow there to a limited weight before sinking into the core where they stop growing. Hence the persistence of neutron stars is NOT a safety guarantee, as CERN claims.
MAIN QUESTION: Why do the CERN representatives disregard the above results?
( 10 possible reasons )
1.) The novelty of the above results.
2.) The limited dissemination of the above results. So far, only three pertinent papers have appeared in print, two in conference proceedings in July 2008 and one in an online science journal in 2010. The others are still confined to the Internet.
3.) The a-priori improbability that several results from independent areas of science would “conspire” to form a threat rather than cancel out in this respect. There seems to be no historical precedent.
4.) The decades long intervals between new results in general relativity are responsible that new findings meet with maximum scepticism at first.
5.) One – the unchargedness result (Ch in TeLeMaCh) – unthrones a two centuries old physical law.
6.) The embarrassing fact that the large planetary community of string theorists suddenly hold an “almost too good” result in their hands causes them to rather keep a low profile than triumph.
7.) The wanting spirit of progress in fundamental physics, whose results too often proved to be “Greek gifts.”
8.) The LHC experiment is the largest and most tightly knit collective endeavor of history.
9.) The fear to lose sponsors and political support for subsequent mega projects.
10.) The world-wide adoption of high-school type undergraduate curricula in place of the previous self-responsible style of studying has the side effect that collective authority acquires an undue weight.
Why has the “scientific safety conference” publicly demanded on April 18, 2008 not been taken up by any grouping on the planet? For nothing else but FALSIFICATION of the presented scientific results was and is asked for. Falsification of a single one will wipe out the danger. A week of discussing might suffice.
Neither politics nor the media realized up until now that not a single scientist on the planet assumes responsibility for the alleged falsity of the presented results. No individual defends his disproved counterclaims (the number of colleagues who entered the ring can be counted on one hand). This simple fact – no open adversary left – escaped the attention of a media person or politician.
Neither group dares mess with a worldwide interest lobby – even though it is not money that is at stake for once but borrowed authority. So as if the grand old men of science of the 20th century had no successors, nor had the gifted philosophers and writers ( I exempt Paul Virilio ). Bringing oneself up-to-date on a certain topic paradoxically seems impaired in the age of the Internet.
Thus there are no culprits? None except for myself who wrongly thought that painful words ( like “risk of planetocaust” ) could have a wake-up effect at the last minute. The real reason for the delayed global awakening to the danger lies with this communication error made by someone who knows how it is to lose a child. In the second place, my personal friends Lorenz, Weizsacker, Wheeler and DeWitt are no longer there.
I therefore appeal to the above-listed high legal and political bodies to rule rapidly that the scientific safety conference take place before the LHC experiment is allowed to resume in February 2011. Or to, in the case of a further delay of the conference, outlaw resumption of the experiment for so long.
I reckon with the fact that I will make a terrible fool of myself if, at long last, a scientist succeeds in falsifying a single one of the above 10 scientific findings or 4 theorems. This is my risk and my hope. I ask the world’s forgiveness for my insisting that my possibly deficient state of knowledge be set straight before the largest experiment of history may continue.
However, the youngest ship’s boy in the crow’s nest who believes he recognizes something on the horizon has the duty to insist on his getting a hearing. I humbly ask the high bodies mentioned not to hold this fact against me and to move in accordance with my proposition: First clarification, then continuation. Otherwise it would be madness even if it in retrospect proved innocuous. Right?
Sincerely yours, Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher (For J.O.R.) 2011-01-14