The planetary law community is refusing to respond to both : Why?

“My motivation in writing is certainly not to engender fear. I have no
apprehension to share. Nor is it my intent or my desire to shut down the LHC. Mine is not a policy argument. Frankly, my research for this article has intensified my armchair interest in seeing what results from the LHC’s novel experiments. My argument is one of law. My conviction is that, when a blackhole case arrives on a docket, no court should abdicate its role as a bursar of equity, even where, as here, the socio-political pressure to abstain will be immense, the factual terrain will be intensely intellectually challenging, and the jurisprudential conundrums are legion. At the end of the day, whether the LHC represents an intolerable danger is, in my view, an open question. I have not
endeavored to provide a definitive answer. But I think the courts should.

It is part of our 21st Century reality that we must take seriously a number of surreal planetary disaster scenarios. In that sense, the synthetic-black-hole disaster is not unique. For some time now, we have been confronted with the possibility of nuclear war and global climate change. In the future, we may have to remove still more scenarios from the science fiction category and place them on a list of real worries. Someday, we may need to seriously consider catastrophic threats from nanotechnology, genetic engineering, or artificial intelligence. Each one of these human-made global disaster scenarios involves incredibly complex questions of science, engineering, and mathematics. Courts
must develop tools to deal meaningfully with such complexity. Otherwise, the wildly expanding sphere of human knowledge will overwhelm the institution of the courts and undo the rule of law—just when we need it most. ”

Thus, this is a proper Lifeboat topic, and the implications are enormous, and the discussion here is a public service in itself. It is the moral and social responsibility of informed participants in the CERN adventure such as Hansel to give up taking endless ineffective potshots against Rossler’s personality and discuss the enormous issue at stake.

You should be able to find something, surely, in 89 pages (sorry, pp 819 to 908, which is 89, not 91).

Apparently it is only yourself who believes that the flaws dont exist and are made up by the imaginative untutored readers who criticize them. You need to read the references you are given before you are qualified to criticize the complaints as caused by lack of understanding of CERN simple safety reasoning, some of which was actually intended for the general public.
’
Sorry you have conducted your skirmishes with the critics on blogs for years now, but I predict that they would continue without effect for years to come until you actually read the material being discussed. Why not start with Eric Johnson, as I suggested. There are 97 pages to make everything clear to you at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5480.pdf

Perhaps you might then rise to the meta level occupied by Prof Rossler, and actually be able to critique what he says to some effect, without thinking that your expertise automatically debunks it. What we are talking about here is the design of a bridge, not the nuts and bolts of putting it together. Your expertise is the latter, according to your own posts.

The outcome of ever rising energy levels at the LHC remains to be properly analyzed in terms that take into account very general claims and assertions by many physicists who differ on the bridge design or meta level. You have yet to show that you can discuss things to advantage on this level. I am sure you can, but you don’t seem to be willing to try.

I have faith in you Hansel! Please try it.

Strangelets and how CERN´s documents contradict its safety assurance:
http://www.heavyionalert.org/docs/CERNContradictions.pdf
CERN-physicists say that higher collision energies produce more massive strangelets also.

It is known that CERN/LSAG does not tell much about the differences between cosmic ray collisions and collisions at the LHC, but have you seen the following phrase (see end of abstract)?
“Because of the much larger mass number, Pb-Pb events can be expected to show exotic phenomena that is beyond the reach of cosmic rays.“
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1046330

Best regards to all.

Your “friend Konrad Lorenz” was a supporter of Nazi-fascism and a bloody racist. He wrote in 1940: “The racial idea as the basis of our political system has already infinitely done much in this direction.” With “this direction” he meant the eradication of what he thought are “asocial cells” and “ethical inferior”. Even in writings of the 70s he repeated this ideology. You are proud of him? You try to use his “authority”? Disgusting!

For more quotations and references see (in German language, but quite detailed): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Lorenz

Pinky, the gothic mouse