: Note that the lawsuit also alleges the following on page 15 of AFFIDAVIT OF LUIS SANCHO IN SUPPORT OF TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:

“CERN has neither asked mankind to validate these experiments, nor has it been open and clear about those risks to the public. On the contrary it has systematically hidden evidence, and hence it is, in my opinion and hopefully that of this Court, liable of criminal negligence and occultation of proofs, as it carries about what amounts to a potential global genocide“.

For a short discussion on Risk Calculations and Assumptions, I recommend the reasonable quality, short discussion of risks and calculations in the comments under Martin Meenagh’s recent June 2008 blog] and some related calculations at James Blodgett on Risks. including this assessment:

”If the following reasonable and plausible assumptions prove to be correct, then the uncomfortable truth may be that the probability of destruction of Earth could be closer to 100%, far from the often quoted 1 in 50 million, though only mother nature currently knows for certain due to our limited understanding of the physics involved.”

A. LHC Creates black holes as CERN Predicted (1 per second) [1]
B. Micro Black holes do not evaporate as LSAG accepts is plausible. [2]
C. One or more micro black holes are captured by Earth’s gravity as LSAG accepts as plausible. [3]
D. Micro Black holes grow exponentially as Dr. Otto E. Rossler ’s paper predicts and calculates. [4]

Unfortunately, “no risk” propaganda may be so effective in lowering the fear to the level that even mosts physicists do not bother to check the facts… they like most of society assume that other physicists would not gamble with the safety of the planet, and that what is being told to the public is an open and honest assessment of “no risk” and not just public relations propaganda…

However after reasonable fact checking it quickly becomes clear that “no risk” or even the prior assessment of “minimal risk” is far from a reasonable assessment of the real unknown risks involved, that may be closer to a probability than to a possibility…

Note that the statement “no risk” has been confidently told to the public, even after CERN’s LHC Safety Assessment Group acknowledged fundamental flaws and omissions from prior assertions that rendered such prior assessments inadequate and invalid (such as the cosmic ray theory of safety that failed to acknowledge that the results of cosmic ray collisions with stationary particles on Earth would travel too fast to be captured by Earth’s gravity, or the realization that credible papers dispute whether Hawking Radiation exists at all, dispute that micro black hole might evaporate before growing), and before any new safety study had been either completed nor passed any known peer review.

Perhaps it can be argued that falsifying risk assessments to the press and to outside scientists can be justified. I do not share that opinion.