“Technical Proposal for ALICE” | CERN’s own strangelet-estimations published 1995
http://consult.cern.ch/alice/Documents/1995/01/abstract
CERN’s main safety message is that the LHC only does what cosmic rays are already doing."With heavy ions at a centre-of-mass energy of about 5.5 TeV/nucleon, the LHC is the only machine which will reach, and even extend, the energy range probed by cosmic ray nucleus-nucleus collisions."
The above quotation shows that the ALICE experiment is designed to create collisions which go beyond the energy range of cosmic rays.1. Introduction and Overview | http://consult.cern.ch/alice/Documents/1995/01/TECH_PROPOSAL/chap1/node2.html#SECTION00110000000000000000
Above statement does not imply that strangelets won’t be created by collisions at ALICE, rather that they won’t be observed."In heavy-ion reactions strangelets and MEMOs might be found in the final state as objects with baryon number A ≈ 2-40, Z/A ratio ranging from ~ -0.5 up to +0.5…"
...
"The phase space covered by ALICE (-0.9 ≤ η ≤ 0.9) is characterized by a low net baryon density and a chemical potential μB ≈ 0, thus conditions not favourable for strangelet formation (as opposed to strangelet production at large rapidities [98]).The issue of fluctuations within a region of low net baryon number (i.e. a region with a similar amount of matter and anti-matter) was recognized in the LSSG Report [LSSG p. 9], but ignored in the LSAG Report....
"Recent theoretical developments [97] suggest, however, that strangelets could be produced also at the LHC as a result of local fluctuations in the net baryon number"This statement contrasts sharply with the LSAG Report’s claim that:...
"Strangelets and MEMOs could be stable or metastable objects, and their stability, lifetime, and decay modes are strongly parameter dependent [96]."This statement from the LSAG Report can also be shown to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the published physics literature on strangelets."Most theoretical studies of strangelets conclude that, if they exist, they must be unstable, decaying with a typical strange-particle lifetime of around a nanosecond. In this case, any production of strangelets would pose no risk." [LSAG p. 9]This mass range between 6 and 15 GeV should be contrasted with the estimates in both the LSSG Report and the LSAG Report which calculate the probability of forming a strangelet with a mass of close to 20 GeV [LSSG p. 8] [LSAG Add p. 7]....
"As an example, we consider strangelets with Z = 1 and Z = 2 and a mass between 6 and 15 GeV (i.e. |Z/A| < 0.3). This mass range is of particular interest as lower mass strangelets are less stable (see Ref. 96) while heavier objects have lower production cross-section."
The technical report itself points out that heavier objects (e.g. strangelets with masses close to 20 GeV) have a lower production cross-section, but it is on the basis of the lower production cross-section for those cases that the LSSG Report argued that the strangelet risk would be astronomically low [see LSSG presentation].
Note also the statement thatIn this case they are referring to strangelets with masses less than 6 GeV, whereas in the LSAG Report it is claimed that,"lower mass strangelets are less stable".(Whenever the mass of strange quark matter is less than the corresponding mass of conventional nuclear matter, it may be expected to be stable, and vice versa.)"However, it has been speculated that strange quark matter might weigh less than conventional nuclear matter with the same number of up and down quarks, but not for atomic numbers smaller than 10." [LSAG pp. 9-10]...
"We have evaluated the probability for normal stable particles to contaminate the strangelet energy-loss (ES) distribution for S1 in the TPC.
...
"Stable strangelets are identifiable for a production probability per event of order 10-4 or more."
...
"Results for the ITS which can be used only as a complement of the TPC are less favourable since the minimum measurable production rate increases to 10-2."11.10 Strangelets http://consult.cern.ch/alice/Documents/1995/01/TECH_PROPOSAL/chap11/node12.html#SECTION0011100000000000000000
These estimates were calculated for a data set of 50,000,000 central lead-lead collisions, so the document is saying, that after 50 million central collisions, the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) would have only been able to conclusively detect the production of positive strangelets if ALICE had created at least 5,000 of them.
The Inner Tracking System (ITS) would have been able to detect positive strangelets if at least 500,000 had been created.
The LSAG Report’s Addendum on Strangelets uses a figure of 800 central heavy ion collisions per second [LSAG Add p. 8], so this implies that positive strangelets would need to be produced at a rate of at least 1 every 12.5 seconds in order for the TPC to detect them.
Strangelets which are initially neutral would be almost impossible to detect.
http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2010/07/30/technical_proposal_for_alice_draft
2010-08-16 | achtphasen | 09:45:33 | 
| comment
Die Kritiker haben Angst“ – reicht das?
Eine kleine Online-Polemik wider die Polemik
Die Protagonisten des CERN und ihre leider allzu reflexhafte Gemeinde
versichern ihrer Umwelt anscheinend statthaft, dass die Kritikergemeinde
(Oppositionelle also) von Irrtümern getrieben und als Skeptiker wider
den „normalen
Gang der Dinge“ deswegen lächerlich sei. Abstrus vor diesem Hintergrund
zeichnen die arglosen Boten der experimentellen Physik in Gesprächen ein
Bild von einer ängstlichen Schar am Rande des CERNIVERSUMS, die Angst um
sich und ihre Lieben hätte. Freilich habe ich Angst um mich und meine Lieben
– jeden Tag auf dieser Erde fürchte ich. Ich fürchte mich vor Krieg,
Bürgerkrieg, atomarem Krieg, Kleinkrieg und jeder anderen Art von Krieg. Zum
Beispiel. Und ich fürchte mich auch davor, in eine Situation zu geraten, die
meiner Kontrolle entgleitet oder, schlimmer noch, die ihr niemals unterfiel.
Damit einher geht die Vertrauensfrage, die – uns aus der Politik nur zu gut
bekannt – eher selten in wissenschaftlichen Kreisen die Runde macht.
Politik, so könnte eine Vermutung lauten, verstünde man, Wissenschaft
hingegen, so die weitaus komplexere Annahme – schon nicht mehr breitflächig
und umfassend. Sie ist, um es mit den Ansätzen der Systemtheorie
(ansatzweise) zu erklären, derart komplex, dass man ihr vertraut, weil man
keine Alternative hat. Und ein Hobbywissenschaftler zu sein, ist
unschicklich und gilt in Expertenkreisen als anstößig. Über Politik sagt
man: „Da kannst Du nichts ändern.“ Über Wissenschaft sagt man: „Das versteht
keiner.“ Mit diesem kleinen aber feinen Unterschied ist es heute möglich,
einer aufgeklärten und an sich auch kritischen Öffentlichkeit Vertrauen
einzuflößen und von „Detailfragen“ abzusehen. Was dagegen eine demokratische
Wissenschaft zu regeln verstünde, steht außer Frage, wird landläufig
gefordert und in Papiere gegossen aber von einer Mehrheit der
Wissenschaftler eher abwertend behandelt. Und damit geraten die
Nichtwissenden auf die Seite der Experten – als „Mehrheit“ versteht sich,
die vertraut. Jede Frage wird als Bremsklotz missdeutet und in exponierte
Kreise verlagert. „Wissenschaft zum Kaufen.“ Groß, bunt, laut und Zukunft
versprechend tritt sie in unsere neuen Tage ein und beginnt sich als
tägliches give-away dort festzusetzen à la „Ich war ja gestern bei meinem
CERN-Wissenschaftler und der hat gesagt …“ Der Autor dieses kleinen Textes
hatte jüngst die Freude zu erleben, in einem Gesprächskreis das laute
Lachen über die CERN-Kritiker zu vernehmen. Als ich zurückfragte, weshalb
denn „alle“ Kritik am CERN „immer“ falsch sei und was denn nun das
„grundsätzlich
Kritische“ sei, entlarvte sich die Gemeinde und bot: Nichts. Nichts, außer
ein paar illustre Geschichten über die Notwendigkeit des Fortschritts ganz
allgemein und Otto E. Rössler, der, wie man sich eingestand, Einstein auch
noch ähnlich sähe. Immerhin, man kennt ihn. Das war es also bereits. Ich war
nicht erbost, nur verschaffte ich meinem Unmut Platz, doch Genaueres wissen
zu wollen, da ich ansonsten zu einem reinen Smalltalk nicht bereit sei, wie
ebenso die CERN-Wissenschaftler nicht, die nicht Mühe und deren
Delegationsländer nicht Kosten gescheut hatten, das Experiment so groß und
überhaupt werden zu lassen, zu einem Smalltalk bereit wären. Und dann kam
der vermaledeite Spruch zur „Angst“. Sie sei der einzige Antrieb der „
Skeptiker“, sich so ins Zeug zu legen und dem CERN das Ende zu bereiten.
Verblüffend hilflos.
Ich beantwortete die Anzeige folgendermaßen:
Nein, die haben keine Angst vor einem Urknall und auch nicht vor einem
Schwarzen Loch und doch schon gar nicht vor einem Scheitern des Experiments
in menschheitlicher Hinsicht. Vielmehr Angst müssten die doch, wenn
überhaupt davor haben, dass ihr Ruf geschädigt wird und ihr soziales Leben
einen dubiosen Verlauf nähme. Denn, wie soll man sich vor einem Experiment
solchen Ausmaßes noch fürchten, wenn es schief geht?
Nein liebe Kritiker an den Kritikern, Angst kann es nicht sein.
Die derart Zurechtgewiesenen fanden Gefallen an der Argumentation und allein
die Tatsache, dass die Sicherheitsargumentation des CERN sowie weitere
wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen recht oft den Begriff
„wahrscheinlich“enthalten, lässt sich ausgezeichnet als Argument für
eine wahrscheinlich
größere Unsicherheit verwenden, als die Risikoexperten sie vorgeben. Und
tatsächlich: Wahrscheinlich ist es so.
Paul Caspar Boux im Juni 2010
22.06.10 | achtphasen | 06:31:10 | | 1 comment
In dem Sinne etwa: Auch wenn am LHC ‘neue Physik’ gefunden werde, dann bestehe die ‘alte’ doch dennoch weiter.
Viel entgegenzuhalten ist solchem Vertrauen in die Stabilität dieser Materie nicht.
Historisch bewandertere Menschen mögen sich an Ernest Rutherford’s Entsetzen darob erinnern, dass die, seit der Antike unteilbar gedachten Atome (a-tomos), als durchaus teilbar erkannt worden sind.
Die Früchte nuklearphysikalischer Experimentiererei seit 60 Jahren haben die grössten menschgewirkten Katastrophen hervorgebracht, von Hiroshima über Tschernobyl bis zur absolut ungelösten Frage, wohin denn der radioaktive Müll der diversen Kernkraftwerke entsorgt werden soll.
60 Jahre sind ein Augenblick in Relation nur schon zur Zeitdauer der Weiter-Evolution des Menschen seit dem Aussterben der Neandertaler.
Welche Arroganz ist die Arroganz unserer Generation, zu vermeinen, betreffs Wissen um die Substanziabilität der Erde, am Ende des Lernens und darum am Ende der Vorsicht (Precaution) angekommen zu sein.
Die Eintretens-Wahrscheinlichkeit katastrophisch wirksamer Kettenreaktionen durch TeV-energetische Kollisionsexperimente mag als eine geringe erscheinen. Ist aber keineswegs mit Gewissheit ausschliessbar.
Keineswegs ausschliessbar sind katalytisch katastrophische Kettenreaktionen; weder rabiat schnell erfolgende Materietransformation, noch (- meine Hauptbesorgnis! -) zumindest anfänglich unbemerkbar langsame Materietransformation (eventualiter schon seit einer guten Dekade durch nichtdetektierbare, weil stabil- oder meta-stabil-verbleibende, Kollisionsprodukte).
Zumal der Anteil verschwundener Energie desto höher liegt, desto höher die in die kollidierenden Hadronen investierten Energien sind.
Ob sich stabilverbleibende ‘exotische Kollisionsprodukte im Erdkern ansammeln
- und welche Wechselwirkung solche ‘Teilchen’ wann mit irdischer Materie haben -
ist eine der bedeutsamen Unwägbarkeiten bei den Experimenten an hochenergetischen Teilchenbeschleunigern. Teilchenphysiker scheinen das axiomatische Credo verinnerlicht zu haben, das NICHTS Stabilverbleibendes nebst den bekannten (und somit bekanntermassen ungefährlichen) normal-baryonischen Elementarteilchen (Leptonen und Hadronen) aus hochenergetischen nuklearen Kollisions-Experimenten entstehen könne.
Der Physiker Credo vor Hundert Jahren war, dass Albert Einstein’s spezielle Relativitätstheorie eine unphysikalische sei, weil sie den hypothetisierten, damals vermeintlich nur noch nicht nachgewiesenen Lichäther nicht miteinbezogen hat, von dessen Existenz ALLE Physiker zu Zeiten Michelson und Morleys überzeugt waren.
Mit den Zeiten aber ändert das Wissen
- und mit dem Wissen auch das allgemeine Credo zum noch nicht Beweisbaren.
Am LHC werden nun aber Fakten geschaffen.
Physiker und Geologen könnten in 10 Jahren (oder 100 Jahren oder 1′000 Jahren …) vor der Aufgabe stehen, den Mitmenschen erläutern zu müssen, dass im Erdkern menschgewirkte Materietransformationen stattfinden, die die Folge von damals (heute!) als gäntlich sicher gepriesenen Nuklear-Experimenten sind.
Solche tragische Folgewirkung mag unwahrscheinlich anmuten, mit Gewissheit auschliessbar sind Materietransformationen im Erdinnern aber keineswegs.
Und keineswegs wiedergutzumachen.
Weder finanziell noch technisch.
Dennoch wird diese Tage mit 2*3,5TeV Kollisionsenergie (und stetig gesteigerter Luminosität) die Kollisions-Maschine auf die Schwerionen-Experimente (geplant ab Herbst 2010) kalibriert.
Aufgrund wirtschaftlicher Bedürfnisse der Experimentatoren müssen Resultate gezeigt werden, auf dass budgetsprechende Parlamentarier die Umrüstung der Maschine im Jahre 2012 finanzieren werden.
Dass der nur scheinbar cern-unabhängigen LSAG-Gruppe Risikolosigkeitverlautbarungen nachweislich besserem eigenen Wissen widersprechen, dass kümmert ganz offenbar weder die selbsternannten Aufklärer noch die sicherheitsverpflichteten Regierungen.
Marc Fasnacht
16.06.10 | achtphasen | 13:44:16 | | 1 comment
The “hazard” associated with a chemical is its intrinsic ability to cause adverse effects.
The “risk” is the probability that such effects will occur in the various applications in which the chemical will be used and discharged (exposure scenarios).
For a chemical, risk assessment takes into account both the hazards of that chemical and the exposure to it (both human and the environment).
2010-06-04 | achtphasen | 10:04:53 | | comment
10.05.10 | achtphasen | 12:03:11 | | comment
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
2010-05-01 | achtphasen | 21:58:16 | | comment
and would have changed those obviously intense disires for very- or falsyfication towards refining humanity’s ability of detecting collisionproducts which occure in natures own safe mode in aboundance by cosmic rays hitting on Earth and the Moon.
Not to modify ones equipment although whole populations of parallel-universes are at stake (and eventually Earth also) perfectly fits to worst european tradition of conquerring, devasting and slavering other ‘worlds’, which - before discovery and ‘christianization’- were much more in harmony with the surrounding nature, as after their detection.
Indeed, i am a fan of hight-technologies! But i would like them to be used cautious and responsible and not as mass-products for people kept ignorant with high-tech tools loosing thus all connection to nature’s given reality and loosing compassion neither with those, that are starving of hunger nor with those, that will live in later periods, and thus are unable to defend their interest on their own.
I would like our culture using high-technology to help Earth becoming abetter place to live. A man-made paradise. Where no one has to be starving of hunger. Making the deserts flourish AND producing there big amounts of energy by covering Earth’s desertical areas with checkerboard-like roofs wich have solar-panels on the upper-side and dew-collectors at the down-side. Doing so, energy-production in aboundance and enflourishment of huge nearly infertile landscapes would go along. It could be that easy, really!
Such technological investment in the poorest regions of the world would bring good ‘fruits’
- such investment would be a kind of compensation for european crimes against humanity and nature since the so called ‘era of discoveries’ … and further there would be huge acreages to place auger-like detectors. Same on the moon.
2010-04-25 | achtphasen | 23:36:01 | | comment
Sent: Wed, April 21, 2010 10:51:46 AM
Subject: Leserbrief zu GESTERN
Leserbrief
Danke für die heutige Überschrift ("Ein großes Schwarzes Loch"), die mir erlaubt, dem Schwäbischen Tagblatt den folgenden, der Tübinger Polizei vorliegenden Text zu schicken: “19. April 2010. Betrifft: Bombenalarm in Genf mit Auswirkungen auf die Schweiz, Europa und die Welt. Ich habe wissenschaftliche Beweise, dass am CERN bei Genf ein Apparat in Betrieb ist, der mit einer hohen (circa 8-prozentigen) Wahrscheinlichkeit einen die Erde in wenigen Jahren vernichtenden sogenannten ‘Miniquasar’ produzieren wird bzw. möglicherweise schon produziert hat. Ich stelle daher Strafanzeige gegen den Betreiber wegen ‘Vorbereitung und Durchführung eines Anschlags auf das Leben der Bürger der Schweiz, Europas und der Welt’. Ich reiche diese Anzeige bei meiner örtlichen Polizei ein mit der Bitte, sie auf dem Dienstweg an alle Polizeidienststellen Europas und der Welt weiterzuleiten. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Otto E. Rössler, Abteilung
für Theoretische Chemie der Universität Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 720′76 Tübingen, Deutschland.”
Ihr Otto E. Rössler, Tübingen
2010-04-21 | achtphasen | 12:18:29 | | 2 comments
We had the intention to emphasize, that we can prove CERN/LSAG’s’Safety-Assesment’ documentation 2008 as intentionally given misleading security-statments, where there can’t be no guarenteed security at all.
We tried to line out, that all governments are relying onto one 10-paged documentation, which is provable incomplete, and thus giving the false impression, as if there wouldn’t be no danger at all.
We were patiently told, that police in Switzerland may only act against violation of those paragraphs, that are listed as criminal ones in the ‘Straf-Gesetz-Buch’.
We were told, that all the rest of legal debattes must be treated as civil-affaires, where one is needed to defend his (claimed) right on civil-courts, without any assistance of police.
In fact: in general i agree with this as reasonable - because i really do not like my country to become a police-state, at all.
…
But in this case, the impossibility to make police working against experimentator’s elite stultifying my government by intentionally telling not more than even half of the truth (hiding exactly those dangers, they themself must perfectly be aware of)
is at least problematic.
Not receiving any assistance is problematic, of course.
So, as there was no chance to convince the police-officer(s), that LSAG-documentation is something else, than just one’s private declaration of one’s private saying …
(which indeed would be a saying, to be treated as free speach)
… but the one and only documentation, onto all governmental decisions, if accepting the not even quantified risks of endangering the planet’s existance, would be worth eventual benefits and returns of investments …
i’ll change my personal focus onto what are my personal interests, and i leave critizisme of this frightening peak-madness, which’s swiching on yesterday is indeed an already fullfilled crime of accepting the non-quantified but never the less not-excludable risk of destroying this planet, which in fact is not property of anybody, not even property of humanity, but which’s property ARE all forms of life on it, all forms of life of the past, the present and the future.
Nobody knows, if RHIC is pollutioning Earth’s core. Nobody knows, if creationing of stable strange multiquark nuclei is already undetected going on since a decade and if such undetected side-effects (missing-energies) might lead to destruction of all forms of life on Earth - in a few months or a few thousands of years … or never until the end of our sun’s live-span.
But if already at RHIC the monstruosity of destabilizing this planets matter is ongoing - it will be enhanced enormous at LHC starting to collide heavy-nuclei in august/september this year.
Nobody can really know what will happen - but all should perfectly know, that messing around with eventualities as
as it never has been, since billionth of second after the so called Big-Bang, can’t in no way be considered as some juristically immunizised specialist’s affair only.
It would be easy and wise to avance further in nucleasr-science without accepting (residual-)risks of endangering the whole of Earth’s existance, by deciding to shut down RHIC and LHC asap; and to modify the ways of nuclear researches, by changing towards examination of those collision-events which occure in Earths’ atmosphere and on the moon by cosmic-rays, without artificial acceleration of protons and heavy-ion nuclei to study the fall-out of their non-nature-like slow head-on-collision-products.
This ‘Peak-Madness’ is just another symbol of this cultural era, our generations are born into. An era that mainly is an era of non-responsability.
CERN’s neglection of any risk what’o ever in LSAG 2008 is intentionally misleading the decision-making processes of those, who are responsible to protect citizens against danger … misleading the decision-making processes of those, who are governing and thus responsible.
Marc Fasnacht
2010-03-31 | achtphasen | 12:56:55 | | 39 comments
2010-03-29 | achtphasen | 21:03:15 | | 2 comments
The most expensive and prestigious scientific experiment of history bases its public acceptance on a “safety report,“ written by staff, which makes two decisive claims: (1) Any mini-black holes generated by the LHC experiment can only grow linearly inside Earth and hence will be innocuous; (2) if any danger existed, the natural ultra-fast analogues of the artificial mini-black holes ought to have long extinguished most neutron stars. The safety report was never updated even though it was published under a policy of selective non-quotation. For the authors knew ahead of publication that point (1) is false if chaos theory is right, and point (2) is false if quantum mechanics is right. As I described (partially) in a talk responded to in early 2008 by one of the safety authors in a public interview, and then in more detail in two papers sent to CERN months before their own report appeared and published ahead of the latter. Both results go
unchallenged up to this day to the best of my knowledge.
All I am asking for is a public clarification of this state of affairs before the experiment is resumed or upgraded in any form – as currently planned for tomorrow. Please, dear planet, do insist on falsification of this proof of danger before “CERN“ – the only legally immune State on the planet – is allowed to go on in violation of the principle of scientific honesty. This modest request would be justified even if the planet were not put at stake, as I still hope to be the case. For J.O.R. 31.01.10
2010-01-31 | achtphasen | 19:58:15 | | 28 comments
