Internal pecking between the critics is counterproductive.

Every bit of potential evidence against any of the (false-proven) safety arguments is fine in its own right. But: the less cogent the result in question, or the less important the safety argument it puts into question is, the more the strategy of procrastination followed by CERN is being helped. Right? The most precious resource is the running-out time.

Much more important, therefore: Did anyone hear from the Security Council as of yet? CERN is called up to respond to this no longer secret news.

Let’s note that Rothman criticized the physics community even more damningly for its arrogance dismissal of any outsiders dealing with public concerns, its peddling of a false safety argument (Cosmic Ray 1), and its ignoring that Vilkovisky could be right and if he was (saying that mBHs would evaporate only half their mass) we would have to deal with the fact that Hawking forgot to account for the effect of black hole radiation on the spacetime in which it took place, and find new safety arguments beyond Hawking radiation guaranteeing they would go pop! before they did any damage.

Rothman said that safety concerns will arise even more often in the future and we should deal with them by lining up a panel of physicists to examine them properly, instead of their current strategm of skipping the whole issue as tiresome and liable to put a spanner in the works of the LHC.

Rossler thinks that it would only take a week to put a proper safety review committee together, so it wouldn’t interrupt the LHC very long. Rothman + Rossler = do it.

Incidentally Vilkovisky has his own psychological problems, having become a serious recluse. All these guys are probably what the average hockey mother would call “autistic”.

Dear riskalert:
It is the initials of a person who is close to my heart even though no longer among us.

Forgive me the involuntary delay, I was abroad.

Who is J.O.R.?