Archive for the ‘First Hearing in US Federal Court’ Category

First Hearing in US Federal Court of Hawaii, June 16, 2008

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Visit LHCDefense.org Legal Room for all the legal documents in the case.

Click to enlargeThe first hearing in US Federal Court in Hawaii (focused on the potential existential threat this experiment may pose to the planet) is scheduled for June 16, 2008. The Safety and legal issues surrounding this planned experiment may arguably be the most relevant topic related to the Large Hadron Collider at this time.

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 one of Martin Meenagh’s recent June 2008 blogs 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 a probability rather than just a possibility…

The affidavit of Luis Sancho on page 18 also includes this allegation.

CERN censors information on the risks involved. Its 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 assertion of ‘minimal risk’. This happened as he himself explained in a 2007 interview in The New Yorker, due to the growing public fear. So instead of addressing the legitimate fears of the citizenship, CERN decided to hide all risks involved;

Note that the statement “no risk” has been confidently told to the press and the public, long after CERN’s LHC Safety Assessment Group acknowledged fundamental flaws and omissions from prior assertions that rendered such prior assessments inadequate and invalid, and before any new safety study had been either completed nor passed any known peer review.

(… fundamental flaws and omissions including the cosmic ray theory of safety that failed to realize and/or acknowledge that the results of cosmic ray collisions with stationary particles on Earth would travel too fast to be captured by Earth’s gravity but has since been acknowledged by LSAG, and failure to realize and/or acknowledgment that credible papers exist that dispute whether Hawking Radiation exists at all, whether micro black holes might grow rather than evaporate [1][2][3][4], dispute that micro black hole might evaporate before growing, which again LSAG did later acknowledge was plausible)

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

(And just to be clear, the promised theory of safety still has not been released to the world’s scientists to peer review and validate for at least four months as demanded in the legal action submitted to US Federal Courts, though CERN reports to the press that this safety assessment has been completed.).

The legal papers have been served to CERN, copies attached.

Legal Service 2

(To view a larger image, depending on the browser you are using, you may be able to right mouse-click on the image to view and zoom in)