LHC Safety and the Law

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by rpenner, Sep 23, 2008.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Interesting case. Thankyou to rpenner and Walter L. Wagner for providing information.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    The mere lack of a mechanical rule does not seem to me a basis for an appeal, especially in this case when 10% funding and less has uncontested caselaw support. I don't think there being another reasonable way for the judge to proceed is grounds for appeal -- I think you have to show error in law or equivalently complete unreasonableness.

    Should some cases show 10% or less is not a "major Federal" act and some other 9th circuit cases show 9% or more did indeed constitute a "major Federal" act, then it seems that you would have a strong case for appeal only if the factual record supported the contention that the LHC funding was between 9% and 10%. In fact, the federal supplied figures indicate that 9.1% funding is a top estimate of construction percentage paid for by the US, which could shrink more if labor costs for the European part of the LHC construction were taken into account.

    In addition, section II C of the Analysis would seem to strengthen the reasonableness of the judge's decision, and II D strengthens the reasonableness of reliance on Friends for this particular case.

    Even if I had influence with federal appellate judges, it would inappropriate for me to exercise it. (It would be quite the criminal conspiracy to rig a federal appeal in the 9th circuit as the judges are randomly selected in panels of 3 from various states.) But to my best information, no one who posts on this forum has influence with any federal judges or the policy makers of the defendants. But if you do have a hearing, the odds favor a San Francisco trial. (Honolulu seems the next most likely to me.)
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    I was jesting.

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is located in San Francisco. Looks like I'll be able to go see the Buffalo in Golden Gate Park once again. If we prevail there, then the trial would be in Honolulu where the case was filed.


    The "10%" is not a "bright line" rule for good reason, which is where the appellate issue will focus, and as Judge Gilmor indicated, each case has to be decided on its merits. The US participation was for materials only. The US likely provided closer to 15% to 20% of the materials costs; whereas CERN covered all the labor costs. Additionally, I believe the total dollar amount was more than the US participation in all of the cases cited by Judge Gilmor combined together. As those numbers get bandied about, the appellate court will formulate some form of basis to obtain jurisdiction [or not] which will be clearer for future courts to decide on this type of issue.

    And, as I mentioned, in the other cases, the actual impact on people was miniscule. Here, 10% involvement is an impact on 100% of the people; whereas in the other cases, 10% involvement was an impact on perhaps 0.1%of the people. I believe that that fact will be a major factor in the appellate court's reasoned analysis. I've not read all of the case law on this issue as of yet, and I'm sure I'll find further support as I do so. I almost always do.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saxion Banned Banned

    Ok, you cut my post down into almost unbearable time consuming elements. So i will also take the time to answer you.

    Not really.

    However, he does hold one thing superior to the rest of you. He really does like to name call.

    That is jerk, or at the very least, one who appears to be acting like a jerk.

    Maybe so. In the end of the day, they still have a right to voice a view about something they find potentially dangerous.

    You would be surprised how many people out there in this big world, independant of reading Walters work, who are simply affraid.

    And they needed not thorough investigation into the General Theories of Relativity, to conclude how they generally felt about it.

    Ever heard of internet bullying?

    It's a real thing you know. Not a myth.

    I disagree somewhat. We can actually tell lot by a person, through their writing, and general attitude. Since there is a lot of information we gather as complex humanoids, the very ability to form opinions of someone simply through their writings, is quite consequential.

    It's a well known fact of science that the written language holds almost just as much information in contrast to someone talking to you.

    Also, i said, ''even if not well,'' it is still decent to compose yourself.

    Too bad. I don't take it back.

    When he continues to call people names (on a personal level of communiction), it seems more than obvious.

    Because he has, with people who do not claim to know much, he still calls people ''thick as shit'' or more or less along the same lines, with the highest impunity.

    Yes, of course i can.

    What like? Don't you understand what i said?
  8. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    As I re-read the decision, I see clearly that Judge Gillmor used a two pronged test checking both the percentage Federal funding and the level of Federal control. I don't think that anyone is disputing that LHC is a major project, but what is being disputed is that it is a major Federal project, and that is the meat at which both prongs of the test are aimed at.

    Counting European labor, an often quoted figure in the press is that LHC cost $8 billion, which would put the US construction costs at less than 7% unless you can demonstrate that the US spent more on construction than the $531 million quoted by the Strauss Declaration (Doc. 20 at 14). But at 21, Strauss indicates that the $5.84 billion number is exclusive of labor while the US DOE portion of $450 is not, and at 22 he correctly rounds the ratio 7.7+% to "about 8%" and condemns this argument more with:
    (Which would imply a price tag of $10-13 billion for LHC.) Further, for the actual collider construction costs, the International Agreement provides "any increase in funding requirements for the LHC shall be the responsibility of CERN." The Strauss affidavit is supported in these statements by attachments 3 (dated December 1999), 4 (dated December 8, 1997), 8 (dated December 1, 1998), and giving the greatest breakdown of the spending in one place: 9 (dated February 2008).

    The Strauss documents contradict your assertion that the "US participation was for materials only." If you have actual evidence of this, I don't recall seeing that presented in the record, and it would change your claim on appeal from "error in law/judgment" to "new evidence" -- which is a tougher hill to climb given the 10 year history involved. But it seems that you are focusing only on the 10% prong which the judge seemed to find caselaw supporting and not the lack of Federal control prong which the judge also considered and found caselaw for both domestic and international jointly-funded projects.

    Oh, and Saxion, all the Internet bullying I see described is defined between children and teenagers who go to the same school, so the term appears inappropriately co-opted to apply to Read-Only messages on this thread. You say everyone has a right to voice their opinion, but if that is a baseless opinion and the spreading of that opinion causes harm, riots, suicide, arson, etc. then surely the ignorant fearful disseminators bear responsibility for that harm. Is this not the lesson of witch trials? Also, there is tension between your criticism of Read-Only, who voices his opinion from a basis, and your support for free speech of the fearful yet ignorant.

    I mostly find Read-Only annoying for his laughter that reminds me of the laughter of the “ungodly” in a Jack Chick tract. On this thread, (remember, I'm relatively new here) I don't see that his behavior is beyond the pale.
  9. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    If you include the cost of the tunnel [already existent], and other costs originally borne by CERN, then you get to your figure of about $10 to $13 Billion. Likewise, I believe all of the staged injectors are also included in such a figure. Those are factors that will have to be weighed by the Court. Indeed, what about the value of the land? Throw that in, and the US component is even less. However, I believe that the Court will look primarily to the costs dedicated to the actual construction just of the LHC itself [and not the tunnel, injectors, etc.], and not peripheral costs. But who knows. Like I said, I believe the $531 million spent by the US is more than the amounts of all of the cited cases combined spent by the US on those projects, but I'll be checking more into that to verify that. I believe the Court will ultimately conclude it to be a Major Federal Project, both in dollar and scope and time involved. But who knows, maybe they'll decide to establish a "bright line" at 50% no matter what the project. That's what the US Supreme Court is for, to be a final arbiter.
  10. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    I disagree with your reasoning, possibly because I have never seen caselaw to support either your contention that $19 million (Friends vs. Coleman) is categorically different than $531 million or that disagrees with the 10% insufficiency in that case or that overcomes section II C of the ruling. Existing, settled law appears to be the hurdle, not untested law, and I only see weak argumentation based on special pleading.

    At the end of the Analysis, Judge Gillmor refers to the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (1983) which reads, in part:
    which is a rejection of special pleading.

  11. Saxion Banned Banned

    Maybe Read-only doesn't care, but i do, expecially when he is very condescending towards individuals here, so yeh, i don't think i have a baseless opinion, inaccurate or biasm.

    To be quite frank, you should have listened to me earlier when i said its fine to voice an opinion, but so long as its conducted in some adult tone. Except, i used an analogy of children in the play park, only for the reason that this is not the case anymore here...

    ...and don't think i am ''supposed to be niave'' in your theory, because i've been reading these forums for about two years. I've read a lot, and come to base opinions on many people. If Read-Only doesn't like this, i'm sure he'll keep to his non-forth-coming attitude proclaiming he has no emotions.

  12. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    I believe that that shows that simply having a severe harm in and of itself does not determine whether NEPA is applicable. There the court held that psychological impacts do not fit NEPA requirements. It has to fit NEPA requirements to begin with, no matter how severe the harm. However, once it is determined that NEPA is applicable [as I believe it is herein], then the severity of the harm would become part of the jurisdictional test to see whether 10% is sufficient to constitute a Major Federal Action to then confer jurisdiction. And, that case you cite is just one case. As Judge Gilmor stated, each case turns on its own unique facts. Here, the huge dollar amount, coupled with a lengthy time-commitment [7 years or thereabouts], and large potential effect, could quite possibly sway the appellate court to find that, in this case, 10% is sufficient to find federal jurisdiction and NEPA requirements being mandated.

    But as I said, we'll have to see what the court states. Otherwise, we're just speculating as to what other people's opinions might be. I can see it going either way, depending upon lots of other factors; and who knows, it might be a split 3-member-panel decision followed by a full hearing by the full appellate court. If the appellate court in turn has a close split decision, that would auger well for the Supreme Court granting certiorari.

    In the meanwhile, any word on what they're finding out about the Accident? Any magnets damaged by the quench? What caused the massive quench?

    For an interesting [some would say wacko] article by a CERN theoretician and his Yukawa associate predicting the accident, see:

  13. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    And in the ECHR news, here is a pre-print of an article rejecting the very weird Bose-Nova bugaboo.

    Bugaboo: Bose-novas and other high-energy events in superfluid helium.
    Unpublished paper rebutting it: Malcolm Fairbairn and Bob McElrath "There is no explosion risk associated with superfluid Helium in the LHC cooling system" http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4004
    Competent, Published Paper addressing it:
    Competent, Published Paper rebutting it:
    Competent response:

    And in magnet news, there hasn't been enough time to warm up the section yet. There have been no new details.
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2008
  14. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    If the case had not been dismissed on September 26th, then October 14th would have been the day for a hearing on Default Judgement versus CERN. This did not happen.
    About 11 days remain. I am doubtful that this case will ever be about physics, although if Wagner and Sancho should win the appeal, then the judge could get around to talking about "standing" which is about the hypothetical injury Wagner and Sancho describe and "mootness" which is a basic physics issue, in a way.
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    LHC news:
    One month ago: 9kW glitch, arcing, fire, loss of vacuum -- but plenty of spare parts to wire it up for another go.
    Press Release
    Technical Report

    It worked fine at 7000 A, but failed near 8700 A on the way to 9300 A, a process which was scheduled to take about 4 minutes. Wierdly, the other seven of the 3.3 km sectors have been tested all the way to 9300 A before. I'd hate to be the guy who installed that particular failed piece.
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2008
  16. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Some news as text and video on the web.

    Bendy twisty statements in that last one, conflating "in existence" with "observed". Complete ignorance of all work ever done on strangelets. Conflates the "occurrence" of black hole creation not being ruled out with the issue of if they are dangerous. Where's this "work in physics" he starts with?
    "Centuries or millenia or longer" -- like longer than the sun will be our friend. The US involvement is less than 10%, so if the bright line is drawn at 10% it cannot help this suit. Ends with pure conspiracy theory trying to say CERN has a PR budget on the order of $10 billion. He talks about cryptic "other actions" to pursue -- do you think he means a) prayer, b) terrorism or c) filing multiple lawsuits in multiple districts like he did with the RHIC?

    It's just Microsoft Marketing 101 (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) but no product (i.e. no science). And what we haven't seen yet is the appeal. So I bring to you, the Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho case round two, an appeal has been filed -- this past Monday.


    And it looks deficient! Rather than carefully present themselves as people who care about the rules of the appellate court, they invent procedures on the fly.

    1) Once again, Luis Sancho has not signed the Notice of Appeal. Wagner is not Sancho's attorney. Yet the document is in plural. FRAP 3 (c) (1) (A)

    2) They fail to notify anyone WHERE the appeal is being taken to. FRAP 3 (c) (1) (C)

    3) Now, as long as this appeal was filed on time, the Appellate court is not forced to dismiss it. But they have that option for any breach of the rules. FRAP 3 (a) (2)

    Boy, I would be mad if I were the person I saw on some forum saying they had given you $2k to pursue this case.

    Reproduced here is my approximation of the filing (omitting the 26 pages of attached decision which appears in an earlier post).

    Link to the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) Home Page
    Links to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure:
    http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/appel2007.pdf (PDF with forms)
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/ (HTML)
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2008
  17. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    On US Appeal Scheduling:

    October 20, 2008 -- Notice of Appeal
    up-to-10 day break for Wagner's decision to order transcript or a statement of the issues for appeal
    Possible up-to-10 day break for US Government and other defendants to request partial transcripts
    Possible up-to-30 day break for court reporter to prepare the transcript
    Then in the district court clerks own good time, the record is forwarded to the appellate court.
    Possible up-to-40 day break for Wagner to file the appellant’s principal brief
    Possible up-to-30 day break for US Government (etc.) to file the appellee’s principal and response brief
    Possible up-to-30 day break for Wagner to file the appellant’s response and reply brief
    Possible up-to-14 day break for US Government (etc.) to file the appellee’s reply brief

    I'm not a lawyer, and I'm reading these rules for the first time, but it looks like the US case has 6-months of pseudo-life in it. And the district court hasn't even ruled on other parts of the US's first motion to dismiss. Sigh. When are we going to be able to the the (lack of) physics at the heart of this case?
  18. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Somewhere, in the legal interstices between United States ex rel Mayo v. Satan and His Staff[sup]/1[/sup] and Tyler v. Carter[sup]/2[/sup], this case exists.

    /1 54 F.R.D. 282 (1971)

    /2 151 F.R.D. 537 (1993)
  19. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/index.htm#United States v. Satan


    Thank you for bringing these to my attention.
  20. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Well, watching legal deadlines come and go is about as interesting watching paint dry (apologies to physical chemists who do just that....). But I was wondering where Walter Wagner has gone off to. (Not for the first time, and I remain disappointed that we may never get to read the transcript of his argument for Judgment of Default versus CERN.)

    Circa October 20, he was busy on a cluster of apparently closely networked blogs where the subject was Wagner's representation of his own credentials as given to this court and elsewhere. The response has not been very positive.

    Now, I'm interested in researching WLW's W-L record in court. I think his greatest legal victory was walking away with an acquittal when charged by the Monterey D.A. with contempt of court. But he lost both the lawsuit he filed in retaliation and the appeal, whereupon I learned of it. Far from being a vindication, the appellate court suggested the D.A. erred in undercharging WLW. Ouch! The biggest problems in compiling a W-L record include that there's no National ID to quickly and uniquely identify which Walter Wagners are our Walter Wagner and that even in the Federal Court system, PACER is not an all-seeing eye. Like the internet itself, the PACER database is weak when it comes to the world that existed before Google and there are non-federal courts which don't seem to embraced the spirit of PACER at all.

    Of Luis Sancho, I don't know what to think. He seems to have left all the work to WLW, including the drafting of most motions and the notice of appeal. When it comes to pro-se Plaintiffs, two heads did not seem to fare significantly better than one.

    This thread was created and allowed to exist on the premise that at some point we were going to get to the physics of the claims, something that WLW indicated little interest in doing out of court in this thread. But as the US Goverment moved and the district court agreed, it would be a waste of time for Federal courts to examine the facts of a case where Federal law doesn't give the court power to do anything. I'll try to remember to check back on Tuesday to see if anything's changed.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2008
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    That link was a nice find. I hope that Saxion, with his smug and self-righteous attitude toward my characterizations of Wagner (fraud, liar, charlatan cheat) will read everything in that link. If he does, he should be able to see why I class Wagner that way.

    Wagner has made strong claims concerning his credentials. Yet, after having been given dozens of opportunities (even in court and these very forums) to back up those claims by presenting them, he has every single time, without fail, ignored those requests and side-stepped them entirely.

    Any individual with credientials has no problem in telling what school issued them and on what dates. Wagner will not. Therefore, I and many others, have formed a strong opinion that they do not exist.

    That should be proof enough to anyone who isn't half brain-dead that Wagner clearly IS a liar and a fraud!
  22. udarnik Registered Senior Member

    Hey, I resemble that first remark. :bugeye:

    Glad we in the UCF could be of service. I'm curious - has Wagner pointed to any original science of his own? From what we could tell, all he has done is point to Plaga and Rossler, and made oblique references to someone who appears to be a proto-crank from the NSF of all places, named Paul Werbos.
  23. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    I was unclear if Paul Werbos supplied any physics to the discussion. His letter which gets reposted seems in need of much editing. http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_experts5.php

    There's a paragraph at http://www.werbos.com/space.htm but there's no physics there. It's just commentary on some arxiv papers. (Actually, just one paper by A. Helfer is cited to indicate that black holes might not radiate!) Like many others, the contention that black holes might not radiate is glued onto the possibility that black holes might be created at the LHC which is glued onto the naked assertion that all contemplated black holes must be as dangerous at the object depicted in the Disney movie The Black Hole. As I tried to point out in post 4 of this thread, these things they lump together as "black hole" come from distinguishable physical theories and are not of a single type.

    //Added after review:
    Yokoso e kono homupeeji
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2008

Share This Page