{"id":3199,"date":"2012-02-13T09:40:37","date_gmt":"2012-02-13T17:40:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/?p=3199"},"modified":"2017-04-16T22:27:38","modified_gmt":"2017-04-17T05:27:38","slug":"lhc-critique-press-release-feb-13-2012-cern-plans-mega-particle-collider-communication-to-cern-for-a-neutral-and-multi-disciplinary-risk-assessment-before-any-lhc-upgrade","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/2012\/02\/lhc-critique-press-release-feb-13-2012-cern-plans-mega-particle-collider-communication-to-cern-for-a-neutral-and-multi-disciplinary-risk-assessment-before-any-lhc-upgrade","title":{"rendered":"LHC-Critique PRESS RELEASE (Feb 13 2012): CERN plans Mega-particle collider. COMMUNICATION to CERN: For a neutral and multi-disciplinary risk assessment before any LHC upgrade"},"content":{"rendered":"

- CERN\u2019s annual meeting to fix LHC schedules in Chamonix: Increasing energies. No external and multi-disciplinary risk assessment so far. Future plans targeting at costly LHC upgrade in 2013 and Mega-LHC in 2022.<\/strong><\/p>\n

- COMMUNICATION to CERN \u2013 For a neutral and multi-disciplinary risk assessment before any LHC upgrade <\/strong><\/p>\n

According to CERN\u2019s Chamonix workshop (Feb. 6\u201310 2012) and a press release from today: In 2012 the collision energies of the world\u2019s biggest particle collider LHC should be increased from 3.5 to 4 TeV per beam and the luminosity is planned to be increased by a factor of 3. This means much more particle collisions at higher energies.<\/p>\n

CERN plans to shut down the LHC in 2013 for about 20 months to do a very costly upgrade (for CHF 1 Billion?) to run the LHC at double the present energies (7 TeV per beam) afterwards.<\/p>\n

Future plans: A High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) is planned, \u201ctentatively scheduled to start operating around 2022\u201d \u2014 with a beam energy increased from 7 to 16.5 TeV(!):
\nhttp:\/\/cdsweb.cern.ch\/journal\/CERNBulletin\/2012\/06\/News%20Articles\/1423292?ln=en<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

One might really ask where this should lead to \u2013 sooner or later \u2013 without the risks being properly investigated. Many critics from different fields are severely alarmed.<\/p>\n

For comparison: The AMS 2 experiment for directly measuring cosmic rays in the atmosphere operates on a scale around 1.5 TeV. Very high energetic cosmic rays have only been measured indirectly (their impulse). Sort, velocity, mass and origin of these particles are unknown. In any way, the number of collisions under the extreme and unprecedented artificial conditions at the LHC is of astronomical magnitudes higher than anywhere else in the nearer cosmos.<\/p>\n

There were many talks on machine safety at the Chamonix meeting. The safety of humans and environment obviously were not an official topic. That\u2019s why critics turned to CERN in an open letter:<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013
Communication on LHC Safety directed to CERN<\/p>\n

For a neutral and multidisciplinary risk assessment to be done before any LHC upgrade<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014-
Communiqu\u00e9 to CERN
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014-<\/p>\n

Dear management and scientists at CERN,<\/p>\n

Astronomer and Leonardo-publisher Roger Malina recently emphasized that the main problem in research is that \u201ccuriosity is not neutral\u201d. And he concluded: \u201cThere are certain problems where we cannot cloister the scientific activity in the scientific world, and I think we really need to break the model. I wish CERN, when they had been discussing the risks, had done that in an open societal context, and not just within the CERN context.\u201d<\/p>\n

Video of Roger Malina\u2019s presentation at Ars Electronica, following prominent philosopher and leading constructivist Humberto Maturana\u2019s remarkable lecture on science and \u201ccertainy\u201d: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=DOZS2qJrVkU<\/a><\/p>\n

In the eyes of many critics a number of questions related to LHC safety are not ruled out and some of them have concrete and severe concerns. Also the comparability of the cosmic ray argument is challenged.<\/p>\n

Australian risk researcher and ethicist Mark Leggett concludes in a paper that CERN meets less than a fifth of the criteria of a modern risk assessment:
\nhttp:\/\/lhc-concern.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/09\/leggett_r\u2026_1__09.pdf<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

Without getting into details of the LHC safety discussion \u2013 this article in the well-recognized Physics arXiv Blog (MIT\u2019s Technology Review) states: \u201cBlack Holes, Safety, and the LHC Upgrade \u2014 If the LHC is to be upgraded, safety should be a central part of the plans.\u201d<\/p>\n

Similar to pragmatic critics, the author claims in his closing remarks: \u201cWhat\u2019s needed, of course, is for the safety of the LHC to be investigated by an independent team of scientists with a strong background in risk analysis but with no professional or financial links to CERN.\u201d
\nhttp:\/\/www.technologyreview.com\/blog\/arxiv\/27319\/<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

The renowned Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) in Karlsruhe and other risk researchers have already signalized interest in cooperation. We think, in such a process, naturally also CERN and critics should be constructively involved.<\/p>\n

Please act in favour of such a neutral and multi-disciplinary assessment, maybe already following the present Chamonix meeting. Even if you feel sure that there are no reasons for any concerns, this must be in your interest, while also being of scientific and public concern.<\/p>\n

In the name of many others:
[\u2026]
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013
LHC-Kritik \/ LHC-Critique
\nwww.LHC-concern.info<\/a><\/p>\n

Direct link to this Communication to CERN:
\nhttp:\/\/lhc-concern.info\/?page_id=139<\/a><\/a>
Also published in \u201coekonews\u201d: http:\/\/www.oekonews.at\/index.php?mdoc_id=1067776<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

CERN press release from Feb 13 2012:
\nhttp:\/\/press.web.cern.ch\/press\/PressReleases\/Releases2012\/PR01.12E.html<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cBadly designed to understand the Universe \u2014 CERN\u2019s LHC in critical Reflection by great Philosopher H. Maturana and Astrophysicist R. Malina\u201d:
\nhttps:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/2012\/02\/badly-designed-to-understa\u2026t-r-malina<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cLHC-Kritik\/LHC-Critique \u2013 Network for Safety at experimental sub-nuclear Reactors\u201d, is a platform articulating the risks related to particle colliders and experimental high energy physics. LHC-Critique has conducted a number of detailed papers demonstrating the insufficiency of the present safety measures under well understandable perspectives and has still got a law suit pending at the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n

More info at LHC-Kritik \/ LHC-Critique:
\nwww.LHC-concern.info<\/a>
\ninfo@LHC-concern.info<\/a>
+43 650 629 627 5<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

- CERN\u2019s annual meeting to fix LHC schedules in Chamonix: Increasing energies. No external and multi-disciplinary risk assessment so far. Future plans targeting at costly LHC upgrade in 2013 and Mega-LHC in 2022. \u2014 COMMUNICATION to CERN \u2013 For a neutral and multi-disciplinary risk assessment before any LHC upgrade According to CERN\u2019s Chamonix workshop (Feb. [\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":107,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33,38,30,12,20,873,48,225,219,439,8,17,410],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cosmology","category-engineering","category-ethics","category-existential-risks","category-futurism","category-nuclear-energy","category-particle-physics","category-philosophy","category-physics","category-scientific-freedom","category-space","category-sustainability","category-transparency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/107"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3199"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3199\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51950,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3199\/revisions\/51950"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}