[User] wrote:… I can’t even begin to explain why. This is patently ridiculous that someone would be “anti-safety”

Let me help explain. On another forum I posted the following in response to a safety argument:

[user] wrote:

http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf

Thus, the currently accepted “safety net“ can be described as having 4 levels:
(i) the miniholes may fail to appear;
(ii) the overwhelming majority will leave the earth immediately;
(iii) all will evaporate;
(iv) if not, a long period of linear growth – “1 quark per week eaten“ – lets them be
pussycats since it will take at least a million years before they “eat the earth“ [3,4].

What if there’s a level (v)?

The problem is we don’t know the answer to any of the questions above, they are not safety net, they are simply unknowns.

(i) miniholes may appear at a rate of 1 per second as CERN predicted;
(ii) one stable mbh could accrete [destroy] the planet, and most multi-proton mbhs might have velocities too slow to escape Earth;
(iii) evaporation may be a myth as Professor Belinski argues;
(iv) linear growth may be myth as Dr. Rossler argues;

Recall the management argument before the last launch of the shuttle Challenger “What risk? 300% safety margin, launch!”

JTankers
LHCFacts.org

I agree, I also agree with Dr. Raj Baldev who writes:

“ … the scientists are fully aware that it is not a project without a grave risk to the life of the Earth.”

(Dr. Raj Baldev is Director of the Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research)

LHCFacts.org