Comments on: The 8 Reasons CERN Upholds for Continuing its Black-hole Onslaught https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/08/the-8-reasons-cern-upholds-for-continuing-its-black-hole-onslaught Safeguarding Humanity Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:47:29 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2 By: Otto E. Rössler https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/08/the-8-reasons-cern-upholds-for-continuing-its-black-hole-onslaught#comment-145802 Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:40:22 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4697#comment-145802 Dear Tom:

Thank you for trying to clarify a bit.

Allow me to say that the word “considers” that you use is too weak. It should read: “hypothetically considers.” Note that this activity is not the same thing as considering a result (which they, as I said, avoided quoting).

Nevertheless allow me to use this occasion to publicly ask my colleagues Giddings and Mangano to defend their silence kept for 4 and 1/2 years by now. Otherwise the awkward situation arises that the only members of CERN who ever took the pains of trying to defend the LHC experiment get the full blame for CERN disregarding all safety concerns. It is obvious — I feel — that these honorable two scientists were not allowed by the political leadership of CERN to continue their very meritful — if long outdated — scientific work.

Take care, Otto

]]> By: Tom Kerwick https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/08/the-8-reasons-cern-upholds-for-continuing-its-black-hole-onslaught#comment-145780 Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:01:24 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4697#comment-145780 To clarify for the reader: The G&M safety report of 2008 already considers non-existence of hawking radiation, successful production of uncharged MBH, and worst case scenario growth rates based on white dwarf and neutron star longevity — albeit based on the assumption that measurements of magnetic fields on such bodies are reasonably accurate (these are quoted at 99% confidence in the papers the LSAG take their figures from). The competence of detectors is not used as a safety assurance, though lack of competence in such could mask an issue such as what Otto proposes, while ‘no scientist defends CERN’ is a somewhat misleading comment, as in truth very few scientists take the concerns seriously enough to ‘defend CERN’.

]]>