Last Friday, I discussed the still open questions with Dr. Ellis at CERN. I want to quote the points I consider important first and then comment on them in accordance with my knowledge:
“since the atom smasher reproduces natural processes only under lab conditions, i.e. uncontrolled processes in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by the occlusion of cosmic radiation and air molecules. These natural processes have never had any negative influence on the environment, which allows conclusions on the test setup.”
- Please follow the second link and read the points I collected in this regard. The quoted point is only true to some extent since detailed calculations by CERN are missing.
“There are no concrete clues that relevant risk or damage scenarios have not been taken into account from the outset for the performed risk assessment.”
- Please note that neither the LSAG paper nor the cited publications include sufficient quantitative calculations. We talk about a risk, a risk is calculable and the limits of reliability have to be presented. This has not been done sufficiently. In my opinion, the risk assessment is therefore also “insufficient”.
“A constitutional complaint is only admissible if a complainant claims that a respective law (Art. 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 4a GG, § 90 Abs. 1 BVerfGG) is presently and directly violated through the affected sovereign act. A complainant has to substantiate his claim sufficiently to prove that such a violation is possible (cf.BVerfGE 28, 17 <19>; 52, 303 <327>; 65, 227 <232 f.>; 89, 155 <171>).
The claim of this complainant, however, is not sufficient since it is not proved that the affected decisions can violate the constitutional right according to Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG.”
- Please consider this: the experiments represent processes which do not occur in our solar system except for the cosmic radiation, but I already doubted the comparability and it is confirmed by the facts (see above). As you know, nuclear processes already bear substantial risks; in this case, however, only after preparation. I totally agree with Ms Schroeter that there does not have to be an imminent danger (you call it substantiation), but more general safety aspects are required. For example an exact representation of CERN’s comparison to nature. But this is not available. Good but not sufficient approaches are mentioned in de Rujula, Dar et al. 1999 “Will relativistic…”.
“In accordance with the respective responsibilities, everyone exercising public authority has an increased responsibility when making decisions based on doubtful effect assessments. This is especially true when breaking new ground in science. It is important here to provide as much information as possible for a risk assessment as rational as possible while taking the different decision possibilities of a system with separation of powers into account.”
- In this context I would like to ask which public authority in Germany you think has provided “as much information as possible”, an important point you mentioned with good reason. To make matters worse, not even CERN provided such an information basis! I would like to quote Dr. Ellis here – as you may know, Dr. Ellis is one of CERN security experts who contributed considerably to the paper which is significantly important for you and your authorities (so-called LSAG paper 2008):
“Correct. There is no scientific motivation for these reviews. They are a foregone conclusion, even though the community has the right to expect CERN to demonstrate the validity of the safety arguments.”(in: PhysicsWorld)
Please pay attention to the second clause of his statement with regard to the context you mentioned and ask him about it personally – like I did at CERN on Friday and had my opinion confirmed.
“The following applies: the higher the potential risks for health or life, the lower the threshold of probability to predict the occurrence of damage, where exceeding the threshold would require effective national safety measures. In terms of heavy damages to life or health of many legal persons, a respective possibility recognized in advance is basically enough to make use of the duty to protect (cf. BVerfGE 66, 39 <58>). The possibility of a damage of apocalyptic dimensions resulting from a scientific project – as expected by the complainant – has to be eliminated in accordance with the state of the scientific and technical knowledge (cf. BVerfGE 49, 89 <142 f.>, on possible risks the legislator was aware of).”
- I will not comment on this here, but put my trust in your understanding that the “zero risk” declared by CERN (correct in the mentioned relation, but not proved) also has to be proved quantitatively. Qualitative considerations, here e.g. with regard to the cosmic radiation, are not sufficient.
“Opposed to this, the mere hint to hypothetical case developments beyond those reasonable doubts only justifies remaining risks, meaning that the possibility of future damages cannot be eliminated completely. This is due to the limits of thinking in terms of empirically verifiable and theoretical aspects (cf. BVerfG, decision of the Third Chamber of the First Senate, 28 February 2002, l.c., on the precaution against hypothetical dangers)”.
- Here I agree with you. Please pay attention to the up to now (thank God?) not experimentally validated Hawking radiation. Apart from the cosmic comparison, this would be our only “sheet anchor” in the possible production of black holes (as I said, up to now “theory only”). Please note as well that the possible production of small black holes in so-called brane worlds is considered as possible by experts with the energies that can be achieved today. Although it was still considered as not possible in the past millennium, it is not an “ad hoc criterion” or “supporting consideration”. The reaction of many of my colleagues was rather curiosity than warning, stop of all experiments and careful revision – I absolutely cannot understand this reaction, I think this is rather childish behaviour.
“However, the officials exercising public authority have the duty to exploit their information sources and to perform a risk analysis with specialised evaluation.”
- It’s a good thing you point this out – where and when did this happen in the way you describe (I am repeating myself)? Are there any documents about this?
“The Higher Administrative Court only checked the Federal Government’s assessment of potential risks since the executive authorities are responsible for the evaluation. It is not a part of the judicial review proceedings to replace the assessment of scientific issues the executive bodies are responsible for by own evaluations (AtomgesetzBVerfGE 61, 82 <114 f.> on the legal situation; cf. BVerfGE 49, 89 <136>).”
- Whoever takes this part – it is important that there has to be such a party as you stated correctly. How and on which basis did the government decide?
“Because the research process only generates knowledge which, in accordance with experience, is only approximate knowledge and otherwise depends on structural paradigms. The knowledge does not provide complete certainty, but can basically be corrected through new experience or the proof of conflicting developments of theories. It therefore only complies with the current level of unrefuted possible errors (cf. BVerfGE 49, 89 <143>).”
- Nevertheless, it has to be allowed to make enquiries on the certainty of the knowledge and to quantify it (only done insufficiently so far, as should be clear by now and can easily be proved). You may know that the theory of small black holes as well as the comparison to cosmic radiation is subject to constant change since it is most current research. Using this as a safety basis for the experiment only is scandalous.
2010-05-06 | achtphasen | 11:09:03 | 
| comment
