A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.You're here, you've consented. If you don't like it, go read some other goddamn blog. It's not as if you're paying me.
6 comments:
I see that the GLAST telescope has been successfully launched!
How much time might be required before analysis of GLAST data might indicate proof or rejection of Hawking Radiation theory?
This could be critical in determining the safety of the Large Hadron Collider, due to begin collisions later this year.
Unlike what some public spokes persons tell the public, the Large Hadron Collider Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) writes that current safety arguments are not valid proof of safety. Micro black holes might be created by the Large Hadron Collider, they might not evaporate, they might grow quickly and we have not been damaged by cosmic rays because cosmic rays pass harmlessly through Earth. CERN announced that a new safety report has been completed, but so far the final report has not been released for review by world’s scientists as promised by CERN in writing in 2007.
The legal complaint before US Federal Court in Hawaii demands 4 months to review this safety report and a permanent injunction if safety can not be assured to within reasonable industry standards. First hearing is scheduled for June 16, 2008.
Learn more at LHCFacts.org
(Let me guess, you did a blog search for any mention of GLAST)
Explain to me how a court in Hawaii has jurisdiction over a scientific experiment being conducted by CERN in Switzerland and France.
Without knowing a damn thing more, this smacks of "forum-shopping" and when that goes on, I tend to incline towards assuming that the parties bringing the case know they are shaky ground, both factually and legally.
Legally the details will be available shortly, after the Judge makes some initial determinations Monday.
However factually, you are correct, most people assume shaky ground, until they research beyond the public relations stories which are not supported by credible evidence.
The physicists and risk experts on the plaintiffs side are able to strongly support risk probabilities in 3 coin flips range (12.5%). But if opposition experts are correct, we could actually be using a two sided coin, and some credible experts assert that the least favorable outcomes may be the actual outcomes that natures laws determine.
(The outcome may already be gareenteed to be negative, but we can not currently determine with any confidence, neither can CERN, but they promise to release proof of safety soon, of course they have been promising to release such a report in writing since 2007...)
I you want a credible argument, read the discussion page of the Wikipedia article on the Large Hadron Collider.
I want to know by what rationale do they bring an action in a Hawaiian court to try and stop an experiment being conducted in Europe. I want to know by what means can a court in Hawaii enforce an order against CERN.
I notice that those are questions you are not answering, JTankers.
The legal issues are represented by co-plaintiff and Nuclear Physicist Walter L. Wagner, his web site is at LHCDefense.org, and copies of the legal complaint and affidavits are available at LHCFacts.org
Your nonresponsiveness is noted. I feel no obligation to do research to support what you are alleging. You're the one making the argument that the LHC is unsafe; telling me to go read an anti-LHC website as a foundation for your argument is both dishonest and lazy.
(Self-serving affidavits usually prove nothing.)
I'm done with you.
Post a Comment