“This is the interim web-site for the Large Hadron Collider [LHC]
legal defense fund. This fund has been established by Walter L.
Wagner, a nuclear physicist, to initiate legal action to require that
CERN and the Large Hadron Collider engage in a full safety analysis
for all potential theoretical hazards inadequately addressed to-date.
Such hazards include theoretical miniature black holes, theoretical
strangelets, deSitter Space transitions, etc. The existing “cosmic
ray argument” has been proven falacious for a variety of reasons [see
risk-evaluation forum], and no existing proof of safety is currently
available. The LHC propaganda machine that ‘everything is safe’ is
well funded by your tax dollars, paying large salaries to thousands of
people who have much to lose financially should the LHC be unable to
prove its safety. As most of them perceive the risk to be small, they
are willing to take that ‘small risk’ at our expense. The actual risk
cannot presently be calculated.”
LAWSUIT DEMANDS RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST CERN
Particle smasher ‘not a threat to the Earth’
BY Hazel Muir / 28 March 2008
Campaigners in the US are attempting to delay the start-up of the
world’s most powerful particle smasher with a lawsuit claiming it
could spawn dangerous particles or mini black holes that will destroy
the entire Earth.
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is nearing completion at CERN, the
European centre for particle physics near Geneva, Switzerland.
Scientists hope it will begin operations in mid-July.
On 21 March, Hawaii residents Luis Sancho and Walter Wagner filed a
lawsuit in Hawaii’s US District Court against CERN and US contributors
to the project demanding that they do not operate the LHC until they
prove it is safe. The US contributors named are the Department of
Energy (DoE), the National Science Foundation and Fermilab, an
accelerator laboratory near Chicago.
The DoE and Fermilab will not comment on the case, insisting it is a
legal matter to be dealt with by the Department of Justice.
The lawsuit’s claims are “complete nonsense”, James Gillies, a
spokesman for CERN, told New Scientist. “The LHC will start up this
year, and it will produce all sorts of exciting new physics and
knowledge about the universe,” he said, adding: “A year from now, the
world will still be here.”
The collider will simulate conditions less than a billionth of a
second after the big bang, by smashing protons together at enormous
energies. Physicists hope to resolve long-standing questions, such as
why particles have mass and whether space has hidden extra dimensions.
But Wagner and Sancho’s court papers raise theoretical scenarios in
which the LHC could create particles that gobble up the Earth, such as
“killer strangelets”. Strangelets are hypothetical blobs of matter
containing “strange” quarks, as well as the usual “up” and “down”
types that make up ordinary matter.
If a strangelet were stable and negatively charged, it might begin
eating the nuclei of ordinary matter, converting them into strange
matter. Eventually the menacing chain reaction could assimilate our
entire planet and everyone on it.
A 2003 safety review for the LHC found “no basis for any conceivable
threat”. It acknowledged that there’s a small chance the accelerator
could create short-lived, mini black holes or exotic “magnetic
monopoles” that destroy protons in ordinary atoms. But it concluded
that neither scenario could lead to disaster.
That report and lay summaries of its findings are available on CERN’s
website. An updated version of the safety assessment will soon be
released, and physicists plan to discuss safety during a CERN open
house on 6 April.
Wagner raised similar concerns to those in the new court papers during
development of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York State. “RHIC started running
in 2000 and we’re still here,” says Gillies.
Besides, he adds, much higher energy collisions that those at the LHC
frequently occur in nature, because cosmic ray particles zip around
our galaxy at close to the speed of light. The moon has undergone such
collisions for 5 billion years without being devoured by a ravenous
black hole or killer strangelet, he adds.
However, Wagner and Sancho describe CERN’s safety reviews as
“perfunctory” and say the cosmic ray argument may be misleading.
“There is no question that should [the] defendants inadvertently
create a dangerous form of matter such as a micro black hole or a
strangelet, or otherwise create unsafe conditions of physics, then the
environmental impact would be both local and national in scope, and
quite deadly to everyone,” their lawsuit claims. A website appeals for
funds to support their case.
Unconfirmed reports say that a magistrate judge has been assigned to
the case for an initial conference on 16 June, and that Wagner intends
to serve court papers to the federal government.
“What we want to do is get this machine up and running,” Gillies says.
“We’ll show people that the world is not going to disappear.”
The following document was filed on Friday, March 21, 2008:
PO Box 411
Honomu, HI 96728
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
LUIS SANCHO, WALTER L. WAGNER,
US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
FERMILAB, CENTER FOR NUCLEAR
ENERGY RESEARCH (CERN),
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,
DOE ENTITIES 1-100,
COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND
COME NOW Plaintiffs LUIS SANCHO and WALTER L. WAGNER, and for causes
of action allege as follows:
1. At all times herein mentioned plaintiff Luis
Sancho is a citizen of Spain, with residence in the United States.
2. At all times herein mentioned plaintiff Walter
L. Wagner is a citizen of the State of Hawaii.
3. At all times herein mentioned defendant United
States Department of Energy [hereinafter DOE] is a federal agency with
operations in the State of Hawaii.
4. At all times herein mentioned defendant
Fermilab is a federal laboratory with operations in Chicago, Illinois
and Geneva, Switzerland at the LHC.
5. At all times herein mentioned defendant
National Science Foundation [hereinafter NSF] is a federally chartered
agency for distributing federal funds to recipients, including
6. At all times herein mentioned defendant Center
for Nuclear Energy Research [hereinafter CERN] is a European agency
with operations in Switzerland and France.
7. Plaintiffs are presently unaware of the names
or locations of Doe Defendants 1-100.
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS Re LHC
8. Defendants DOE, Fermilab, NSF and CERN, and
Does 1-100 have engaged in a partnership relationship to construct a
machine in and around Geneva Switzerland known as the Large Hadron
Collider [hereinafter LHC]. The LHC machine is presently under
construction and nearing completion, with completion anticipated in
9. Defendants intend to test the LHC machine upon
completion, with testing to commence within days of completion.
10. The purpose of the LHC machine is to create
novel conditions of matter never previously existent on earth, so that
defendants may seek to investigate the properties of this novel
condition of matter for purposes of fundamental physics research.
11. The machine is scheduled to operate by colliding
high-energy beams of protons [Hydrogen nuclei] or Lead nuclei into
each other. The resultant collision of the two atoms traveling in
opposite direction and then colliding head-on is designed to release a
large amount of energy, and fracture the atoms into more fundamental
particles, as well as create novel particles from the abundance of
12. Various competing theories of physics predict
various outcomes from these collisions, with no agreement amongst
physicists as to what the outcome will be.
13. In addition to fracturing the atoms into
smaller, more fundamental particles, some of the competing theories
predict that the outcome will be a rearrangement of the more
fundamental particles, or creation de novo from the abundance of
energy present, or both, into novel forms, which include the following
descriptive particles from those theories:
a) Strangelets: Under this theory, the original
constituents of the atom [“up” quarks and “down” quarks] will
recombine with newly created “strange” quarks to form a new, more
stable form of matter called a “strangelet”. Its enhanced stability
compared to normal matter would allow it to fuse with normal matter,
converting the normal matter into an even larger strangelet. Repeated
fusions would result in a runaway fusion reaction, eventually
converting all of Earth into a single large “strangelet” of huge size.
b) Micro Black Holes: Under this theory, the
compression of the two atoms colliding together at nearly light speed
will cause an irreversible implosion, forming a miniature version of a
giant black hole, the remnant of a collapsed star. Like its much
larger cousin, a miniature black hole would not emit light, and any
matter coming into contact with it would fall into it and never be
able to escape. Eventually, all of earth would fall into such growing
micro-black-hole, converting earth into a medium-sized black hole,
around which would continue to orbit the moon, satellites, the ISS,
c) Magnetic Monopoles: Under this theory,
the high energy of the collision would be converted into two massive
particles known as north and south magnetic monopoles. Each would
carry a fundamental unit of magnetic charge. Such particle might have
the ability to catalyze the decay of protons and atoms, causing them
to convert into other types of matter in a runaway reaction.
14. The above theories, and other theories showing
potential adverse consequences, have been well articulated in various
scientific publications. No absolute refutation of the adverse
scenarios that have been described has yet been articulated, though
efforts have been made, and it has been suggested by defendants that
the ‘risk’ of the adverse scenarios is small. Those efforts were
perfunctory “safety reviews” which purported to prove the falsity of
the adverse scenarios by indirect means. However, fundamental flaws
were existent in those “safety reviews” and pointed out to defendants
by plaintiffs. As a result, another “safety review” is currently
underway by the defendants. The current safety review is known as the
LHC Safety Assessment Group [LSAG] Safety Review. It was initially
scheduled for completion by January 1, 2008, but defendants have
delayed its release, and it has not yet been released to the public
for review by the science community at large, as promised [see Exhibit
“A” of affidavit of Walter L. Wagner].
15. Plaintiffs and their associates are experts in
physics and other fields of science, technology and ethics who are
capable of reviewing and analyzing such safety reviews for flaws or
errors. Plaintiffs and some of their associates have filed in support
of this complaint various affidavits detailing some of the safety
flaws and ethical flaws in safety review currently evidenced.
Plaintiffs and their associates require a minimum of four to six
months time to review the LSAG Safety Review, as well as the relevant
scientific literature, in order to determine whether defendants’ most
recent pending LSAG Safety Review is once again fundamentally flawed,
or satisfactory in addressing the safety issues in accordance with
generally accepted standards in science, technology and industry.
email : LHCdefense [at] hotmail [dot] com
“The real goal of this next generation of accelerator experiments is
to try and distinguish between the many possible models of high-energy
collisions that are relevant to the early universe, and decide which
ones are correct and which ones are beautiful but really are only
‘MICROSCOPIC BLACK HOLES WILL NOT EAT YOU’
Safety at the LHC
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) can achieve energies that no other
particle accelerators have reached before. The energy of its particle
collisions has previously only been found in Nature. And it is only by
using such a powerful machine that phyicists can probe deeper into the
key mysteries of the Universe. Some people have expressed concerns
about the safety of whatever may be created in high-energy particle
collisions. However there are no reasons for concern.
Modest by Nature’s standards
Accelerators recreate the natural phenomena of cosmic rays under
controlled laboratory conditions. Cosmic rays are particles produced
in outer space in events such as supernovae or the formation of black
holes, during which they can be accelerated to energies far exceeding
those of the LHC. Cosmic rays travel throughout the Universe, and have
been bombarding the Earth’s atmosphere continually since its formation
4.5 billion years ago. Despite the impressive power of the LHC in
comparison with other accelerators, the energies produced in its
collisions are greatly exceeded by those found in some cosmic rays.
Since the much higher-energy collisions provided by Nature for
billions of years have not harmed the Earth, there is no reason to
think that any phenomenon produced by the LHC will do so.
Cosmic rays also collide with the Moon, Jupiter, the Sun and other
astronomical bodies. The total number of these collisions is huge
compared to what is expected at the LHC. The fact that planets and
stars remain intact strengthens our confidence that LHC collisions are
safe. The LHC’s energy, although powerful for an accelerator, is
modest by Nature’s standards.
TGVs and mosquitoes
The total energy in each beam of protons in the LHC is equivalent to a
400 tonne train (like the French TGV) travelling at 150 km/h. However,
only an infinitesimal part of this energy is released in each particle
collision – roughly equivalent to the energy of a dozen flying
mosquitoes. In fact, whenever you try to swat a mosquito by clapping
your hands together, you create a collision energy much higher than
the protons inside the LHC. The LHC’s speciality is its impressive
ability to concentrate this collision energy into a minuscule area on
a subatomic scale. But even this capability is just a pale shadow of
what Nature achieves routinely in cosmic-ray collisions.
During part of its operation, the LHC will collide beams of lead
nuclei, which have a greater collision energy, equivalent to just over
a thousand mosquitoes. However, this will be much more spread out than
the energy produced in the proton collisions, and also presents no
Microscopic black holes will not eat you…
Massive black holes are created in the Universe by the collapse of
massive stars, which contain enormous amounts of gravitational energy
that pulls in surrounding matter. The gravitational pull of a black
hole is related to the amount of matter or energy it contains – the
less there is, the weaker the pull. Some physicists suggest that
microscopic black holes could be produced in the collisions at the
LHC. However, these would only be created with the energies of the
colliding particles (equivalent to the energies of mosquitoes), so no
microscopic black holes produced inside the LHC could generate a
strong enough gravitational force to pull in surrounding matter.
If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth
is still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside
the LHC are harmful.
Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a process
discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
evaporate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes. If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they
would exist only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived
that the only way they could be detected would be by detecting the
products of their decay.
…nor will strangelets
Strangelets are hypothetical small pieces of matter whose existence
has never been proven. They would be made of ‘strange quarks’ –
heavier and unstable relatives of the basic quarks that make up stable
matter. Even if strangelets do exist, they would be unstable.
Furthermore, their electromagnetic charge would repel normal matter,
and instead of combining with stable substances they would simply
decay. If strangelets were produced at the LHC, they would not wreak
havoc. If they exist, they would already have been created by high-
energy cosmic rays, with no harmful consequences.
Reports and reviews
Studies into the safety of high-energy collisions inside particle
accelerators have been conducted in both Europe and the United States
by physicists who are not themselves involved in experiments at the
LHC. Their analyses have been reviewed by the expert scientific
community, which agrees with their conclusion that particle collisions
in accelerators are safe. CERN has mandated a group of particle
physicists, also not involved in the LHC experiments, to monitor the
latest speculations about LHC collisions.
email : lsag [at] cern [dot] ch [dot]
Download the specialist report published in the United States
Download the specialist report published in Europe
Super Monkey Collider Loses Funding
Controversial Experiment Comes To An End
October 22, 1996
Congress voted Monday to cut federal funding for the superconducting
monkey collider, a controversial experiment which has cost taxpayers
an estimated $7.6 billion a year since its creation in 1983.
The collider, which was to be built within a 45-mile-long circular
tunnel, would accelerate monkeys to near-light speeds before smashing
them together. Scientists insist the collider is an important step
toward understanding the universe, because no one can yet say for
certain what kind of noises monkeys would make if collided at those
“It could be a thump, a splat, or maybe even a sound that hasn’t yet
been heard by human ears,” said project head Dr. Eric Reed Friday, in
an impassioned plea to Congress. “How are we supposed to understand
things like the atom or the nature of gravity if we don’t even know
what colliding monkeys sound like?”
But Congress, under heavy pressure from the powerful monkey rights
lobby, decided that money being spent on the monkey collider would be
put to better use in other areas of government. Now, with funding cut
off, the future of our nation’s monkey collision program looks bleak.
Congress began funding the monkey collider in 1983, after Reed
convinced lawmakers that the U.S. was lagging behind the Soviet Union
in monkey-colliding technology. Funds were quickly allocated so that
Reed could spend a week procuring monkeys on Florida’s beautiful
Captiva Island. Though Reed returned with a great tan and a beautiful
young fiancee, he reported that there were no monkeys to be found on
the sunny Gulf Coast island. Congress funded subsequent trips to the
Cayman Islands, Bora Bora and Cancun, but these searches also yielded
Two years passed without a single monkey being procured, and Congress
was close to cutting the project’s funding. It was then that Reed got
the idea to utilize monkeys already being bred in captivity. The
Congressional Subcommittee for Scientific Investigation was enthralled
by the idea of watching caged monkeys copulate, and increased funding
by 40 percent.
With a steady supply of monkeys ensured, construction of the monkey
collider began on a scenic Colorado site. Despite environmental
pressure, a mountain was levelled to facilitate construction of the
seven-mile-wide complex. Huge underground tunnels were dug, at a cost
of billions of dollars and 17 lives. Money left over was used to build
resort homes, spas and video arcades for Reed, his colleagues and
Construction of the collider’s acceleration mechanism was delayed for
years, as scientists couldn’t decide how to get the monkeys up to
smashing speed. Last month, it was finally decided that the collider
would employ a system in which the monkeys run through the tunnels
chasing holographic projections of bananas. “Monkeys love bananas,”
Reed said, “and they’re willing to run extremely fast to get them.”
But now it seems the acceleration mechanism may never be built. With
the monkey collider placed on indefinite hold, the huge research
facility in Colorado lies dormant.
To keep the space from going to waste, Congress Monday voted to
convert the empty underground tunnel into a federally funded drag-
racing track. The track is expected to create hundreds of jobs in the
form of pit crews and concessions workers, and will allow President
Clinton to impress important foreign dignitaries with America’s
Despite this promising alternate plan, most involved with the monkey
collider project feel the sudden cuts in funding are inexcusable. “It
is a travesty of science,” Reed said. “I remember the joy I felt in
college when I would launch monkeys at one another with big rubber
bands, and this project would have been even more enlightening.”