Eric Penrose | Critical Review of LHC Safety Arguments (Summary and Conclusion)

Conclusion and Risk assessment summary: dangers involving established physics theory - not excluded by available safety arguments

The arguments that imply danger, apply, or otherwise closely involve theoretical principles of established physics and with feasible parameters: black holes decaying over 30 years in isolation with increasing radiation, black holes absorbing the Earth in millennia, or much less time, emerging metastable or virtually stable negative strangelets or magnetic monopoles, and the transition to alternative energies of space.

The only empirical reassurance is from cosmic rays that strike astronomical bodies. If resulting particles are strangelets, they can be susceptible to disruption at such high speeds. Yet, for black holes, no argument is offered to challenge Plaga’s and Rössler’s claims that astrophysical reassurances may not apply [12,18]. For black-hole-capturing white dwarfs or neutron stars there are un-established [1] implications regarding how the strong nuclear force in combination with the black hole speed, affects the proportion of protons or neutrons absorbed and therefore the applicability of that provisional accretion model ([1]) itself to earth accretion estimates. Reliability of accretion rate calculation [3] appears strongly questionable, given their neglect of surrounding temperature itself and of accretion from applicable solid or liquid. Because cosmic rays may not reach some astronomical bodies (concentrated interstellar dust domains), may pass through some astronomical bodies (internal superfluidity of neutron stars [12]), not cause black holes due to potential exotic nuclei constituents [10,17], or with iron nuclei cosmic rays, not anyway enable the relevance of neutron star collapse [3,39]. Disruption of negative strangelets from cosmic rays, whether metastable or stable, has been argued could be feasible in three safety reviews [25,28,29]. With energy transition, isolated cosmic rays do not anyway satisfy the criteria for such transition according to Prof. Dixon and arguments concerning magnetic monopoles are not consistent, so not satisfactorily thorough.

Things might be expected to ‘go wrong’ when entering uncharted physical territory creating unprecedented conditions involving the creation of new types of matter in capturable and undisruptible states on Earth that have not existed for the billions of years of Earth’s existence.

At present, safety arguments put forward have left various alarming, serious outstanding questions, (completely ignored by the media including even the science media), that are consistently not addressed such that they are not properly considered or even considered at all. In such a circumstance, where safety appraisals are unsatisfactory, there seems no basis upon which to justify the operation of the LHC.

Only an independent review agency - not a review system undertaken by the research organisation itself where nonzero risks are unacceptable to acknowledge as a matter of policy - and that, to the satisfaction of the critics, fully consults with them (along with LHC proponents), can provide a satisfactory context in which safety can be properly reviewed.

Download: Eric Penrose’s Critical Review of LHC Safety Arguments(2).pdf