Large Hadron Collider buys Black Hole Insurance Policy: Says Lloyds Of London
by Walid
Lloyds Of London Insures all of Northern Europe(London : England) Ucs news International-- Lloyds Of London, insurer of the un-insurable, has issued what it calls the "largest policy in the firms history". The first of it's kind "Global Destruction with Black Hole indemnity" policy was issued to CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research. While the details of the policy are unknown, it will cover the first three years operation of the new Large Hadron Collider located under Geneva, Switzerland

According to Lloyds Of London, the firm has been working with the The LHC Safety Assessment Group. The organizations have been trying for months to prove safety of the Large Hadron Collider without success. CERN scientists and the London members finally agreed to in the words of Chief Scientific Officer, Engelen "cross or fingers and stitch it on".

However Critic such as Professor Dr. Otto E. Rössler , Dr. Raj Baldev and others are warning of a very real, very possible, very present danger to the planet from the Large Hadron Collider. Dr. Rössler predicts that a single microblackhole could destroy the planet in as little and 50 months. His calculations have been released for peer review.

Lloyds Of London is no stranger to risk. The general public knows Lloyd's for some unusual policies it has written. Lloyd's has insured the legs of Betty Grable, Brooke Shields, and Tina Turner, Jimmy Durante's nose, Keith Richards' fingers and Celine Dion's vocal cords. Lloyd's is also in talks with Virgin Galactic to insure spaceflights

 
Rate This Item
 
I Liked It
 
Print
9963 Views
 
Unconfirmed Sources political satire and news story parodies as represented above are written as satire or parody. They are, of course, fictitious.

Your Comments



JTankers wrote:
Could this be prosecutable as insurance fraud?

CERN predicts the creation of up to 1 micro black hole per second in the Large Hadron Collider and references the 1999 RHIC safety study as proof of safety.
(Rebuttal: But the 1999 RHIC safety study only ruled out any possibility of colliders creating micro black holes based on knowledge at that time.)

CERN' predicts that micro black holes will evaporate.
(Rebuttal: But Hawking Radiation has been disputed by no less than 3 peer reviewed studies that found no basis in science for such conclusions.)

CERN' and Steven Hawking state that much greater energy cosmic ray impacts with Earth prove safety.
(Rebuttal: But higher energy cosmic ray impacts with stationary particles have net collision speeds less than the speed of light and send all particles created safely into space, while head-on collider collisions have net collision impact speeds at almost twice the speed of light and are designed to focus all the energy to a single point in space and particles created may be captured by Earth's gravity.)

CERN promised to create and release an new safety report before the end of 2007.
(Rebuttal: CERN's LHC Safety Assessment Group has concluded that particles created by cosmic ray impacts with Earth's atmosphere are safely ejected into space and LSAG stated that they do not assume that micro black holes will evaporate, but CERN never released any safety reports created by their LHC Safety Assessment Group.)

CERN asserts that there is no risk to the planet, even though the Large Hadron Collider will create conditions not seen in nature since the first fraction of a second after the big bang.
(Rebuttal: But the legal action contends a 75% probability of risk with very high degree of uncertainty calculated by a scientist with a masters degree in statistics, and alleges that Chief Scientific Officer Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN asking them regardless of personal opinion to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing CERN's previous assertion of minimal risk.)

Professor Otto Rossler calculates that a single micro black hole could accrete the Earth is as few as 50 months and Dr. Rossler is world recognized as one of the most prestigious, most eminent, award winning scientists alive. Others including Dr. Raj Baldev, director of the Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research, are also warning of a very real, very possible, very present danger to the planet from the Large Hadron Collider.
(Rebuttal?: But CERN has not scientifically refuted his calculations that I am aware of, CERN only promised Dr. Rossler that if they create stable micro black holes that they will stop the experiment immediately. But could that be too late?)

The World might prevent a catastrophy if we delay the experiment until the promised safety studies are completed and peer reviewed.
(Rebuttal?: But then some scientists may not be the first to discover new science and some Nobel prizes may be lost?)

JTankers
LHCConcerns.com
_______________________________


Mohamed wrote:
Allah save us all!
_______________________________


conCERNed wrote:
If they make a black hole, could they make a big one, so it's over quickly? (say, 1-10 seconds?)
_______________________________


Pion wrote:
One of the rebuttals claimed the LHC will produce collision speeds over twice that of the speed of light. This is in direct contradiction with relativity.

for more info, or if you don't believe me check out: http://hyperphysics.phy-ast...
OR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
When dealing with relativistic particle collisions, talking about velocities is meaningless as a high energy beam will practically the same speed as MUCH higher energy beam. This all follows directly from E=MC^2. It is the energy that is important, not the speed.

So unless CERN miscalculated their energies (which is unlikely) this rebuttal doesn't stand scrutiny.
_______________________________


iooi wrote:
Open letter to Professor Hawking part 1

Dear Professor Hawking

The safety of micro black hole(mBH) production in the CERN LHC accelerator, operating in COLLIDER MODE, has not been properly addressed.

Six LAYERS OF PROTECTION for the Earth and all its inhabitants have been ASSUMED and discussed during the last decade or so:

[I’ll briefly outline the first five, and then explain a FATAL MATH ERROR in the sixth]

1. NO BLACK HOLES WILL BE PRODUCED.

Ten years ago we were assured that mBHs could not be produced by any conceivable accelerator on Earth. The Plank Energy 10 ^ 19 GeV was supposedly required to produce a micro black hole. This would require an accelerator thousands of light years across.

Today CERN and others are assuring us(if that's the right word!) that the LHC will be a "BLACK HOLE FACTORY”, operating at only about 10 ^ 4GeV. Thus people believe a certain version of string theory with extra dimensions, and it is now thought that mBHs are 10 ^ 15 times easier to produce. And can be produced in an accelerator 10 ^ 15 times smaller in diameter than the hypothetical galactic version.

A revision of 15 orders of magnitude should make people more modest about the certitude of their pronouncements. According to CERN:

PROTECTION #1 NEVER EXISTED, for sufficiently high energy collisions, but dont worry, they are absolutely certain of the next layers of protection, just like they used to be absolutely certain about #1..(1)
2. BLACK HOLES WOULD EVAPORATE TOO QUICKLY TO INTERACT WITH THE EARTH.

The 5 x 10 ^ 3GeV mBHs they are confident of producing would have a lifetime of around 4 x 10^ -86sec according to what was believed a decade ago and more ago. Since this is about 42 orders of magnitude smaller than the Plank time(5.4 X 10 ^ -44sec), not surprisingly, mBHs of that mass were deemed impossible.

Now their lifetime is supposed to be in the order of 10 ^ -26sec, because of higher dimensions at small scales.

So we're supposed to REVISE THE LIFETIME OF AN mBH UPWARD by a whopping 60 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, and SUPPRESS HAWKING RADIATION (HR)by the same amount. To put things into perspective, the ratio between the Plank time 5.4 x 10 ^ -44sec and estimated age of the universe is about 10 ^ 62. We could hardly be more unsure of the actual mBH lifetime, in a quantitative sense, since the predicted values are so dependent on the “flavor of the month” version of string theory.

Even if we are confident that a mBH must decay by Hawking Evaporation(HE):

PROTECTION # 2 INVOLVES MAGNITUDES THAT ARE TOO WILDLY SPECULATIVE TO RELY ON. The fact that HAWKING RADIATION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED in cosmic ray showers, suggests a process too slow to save us, even if it occurs.

Purely from the HEALTH AND SAFETY point of view, we must assume therefore

THAT PROTECTION # 2 DOES NOT EXIST..(2)

3. PERSISTENCE OF EARTH, MOON, AND OTHER BODIES IN SOLAR SYSTEM PROVES SAFETY OF mBH BOMBARDMENT.

False analogy. Natural fission has been going on in the Solar System for Eons, without ever causing nuclear explosions(exponentially growing reactions). By changing the GEOMETRY of the experiment, TRINITY, the first atom bomb test, succeeded first try.

ALL mBHs produced by bombardment by high energy cosmic rays are NECESSARILY RELATIVISTIC. The CENTRE OF MASS VELOCITY of the collision is relativistic, and this is CRUCIAL TO THE SAFETY OF THE EARTH, Moon, Sun etc,.

These mBHs would cross the full diameter of the Earth in 0.042sec, Jupiter in 0.46sec, and the Sun in 4.6sec. Because of the small size and enormous speed, they would fly through like very heavy neutrinos, and have plenty of time to decay in the vastness of space. They would NEVER BE CAPTURED, AND SO WOULD POSE NO THREAT.

Operating the LHC in COLLIDER MODE, ensures that the centre of mass velocity of the collisions are distributed about zero, and not just under the speed of light. It CHANGES THE GEOMETRY of the experiment. This guarantees that some of the mBHs produced by the LHC IN COLLISION MODE would be GRAVITATIONALLY CAPTURED IN THE BULK OF THE EARTH, something UNPRECEDENTED in its history.

Any such mBH can never escape, and if it starts to absorb nucleons before it has time to evaporate, then it constitutes an EXISTENTIAL DANGER to the Earth. The only thing that matters then, is the TYPICAL DOUBLING TIME T2, analogous to T 1/2, the half-life for radioactive decay.

Such mBHs would have all the time in the world to grow exponentially. And "all the time in the world" might be very short.

PROTECTION # 3 DOES NOT EXIST IF LHC OPERATES IN COLLIDER MODE.(3)
4.THE VASTLY HIGHER ENERGIES OF SOME COSMIC RAYS STRIKING EARTH ARE PROOF OF SAFETY.

All the mBHs produced by such very high energy particles are relativistic, and are harmless, for the reasons described above. OPERATING THE LHC IN COLLIDER MODE REMOVES THIS PROTECTION IMMEDIATELY, so:

PROTECTION # 4 IS TOTALLY BOGUS(4)
_______________________________


iooi wrote:
Open letter to Professor Hawking part 2

5. THE COLLISIONS HAVE LESS ENERGY THAN A FEW FLYING MOSQUITOS, so must be safe.

False analogy. The energy of the neutrons that triggered the exponential process in the TRINITY ATOM BOMB TEST 1945 in the New Mexico Desert was many orders of magnitude less than this, but STARTED AN EXPONENTIALLY INCREASING PROCESS. During the short time the U235 is explosively brought to a supercritical state, EVEN ONE SLOW NEUTRON causing fission is sufficient. Doesn’t take much energy to LIGHT A FUSE.

[Of course a relativistic neutron produced by cosmic rays, that zipped thru the core of an A-bomb with no chance to cause fission, would be pretty harmless]

PROTECTION # 5 IS BOGUS.

PROTECTION #2-5 are constantly quoted by CERN, whose attitude to RISK ASSESSMENT is really about PUBLIC RELATIONS and not the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE..(5)
CERN is so blase about the weakness of the arguments for the PROTECTION #2-5, because even if they are rubbish, they think the next protection is surely a clincher:

CERN quote a mBH with a mass equivalent to 5000 nucleons, which might be typically produced, which absorbs one nucleon per hundred hours(which appears to be an underestimate, and probably should be amended to about one whole IRON ATOM with 56 nucleons absorbed in a few hours, say an initial rate of at least 5 nucleons per hour).

6.EVEN IF THE PREVIOUS PROTECTIONS FAIL, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DANGER BECAUSE:

[At that rate, even if one did not take into account the fact that each black hole would slow down every time it gobbled up a proton, and thus suck down matter at an even slower rate, "about 100 protons would be destroyed every year by such a black hole, so it would take much more than the age of universe to destroy even one milligram of Earth material](6)

Let's see now, one mg contains about

M/u nucleons, where M=10 ^ -6 kg and u = 1.67 x 10 ^ -27kg

So number of nucleons to be destroyed is

N = 6 x 10 ^ 20 (ie Avogadro's Number divided by a thousand, as we would expect)

So divide this by 100 to get a time to destroy that many nucleons of

T = 6 x 10 ^ 18 years, much more than the age of the universe.

Note the AMAZING ASSUMPTION OF LINEARITY. This must be the BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC BLUNDER IN HISTORY, and the most EXPENSIVE, if it literally costs the Earth.

A classical mBH accretes exponentially even as it slows down.(7)

Speculative extra dimensions reduce the rate until the effect of the extra dimensions is no longer noticeable. On coming to a halt at the centre of the earth, material is forced towards the entire AREA(think N-squared) until conservation of momentum forces accretion to occur along the equator. So we could get a brief period of asymptotic growth, followed by exponential. In the exponential process N = No e ^ kt, the e time is less than 60 years, revised to about 0.12 years, using my accretion rate! We cannot observe the minutae of the actual processes within the Earth. And extra mBHs are being added, presumably with variable starting masses and accretion rates, which depend on the size. The overall result is similar to that for analogues in the Economy. The growth of an investment portfolio for example, but one in which the individual investments cannot ever lose, cannot stay still, and after the initial settling period, cannot increase as slowly as a linear rate. ALL BOOM, and NO BUST. Such investments grow exponentially, until something runs out..in this case, the EARTH ITSELF.
_______________________________


iooi wrote:
Open letter to Professor Hawking part 3

It is easier for mere mathematical mortals like me to understand it in terms of something like the growth of an investment. With CERN’s initial rate, he period is 100 hours, and the rate is .02% COMPOUND INTEREST. That approach is familiar to non-scientists in business etc, and this is an open letter. The best way to do the math then is in terms of the DOUBLING TIME T2, the time to double the investment. Even wild fluctuations in the rate, can be accommodated by corresponding reductions in T2. It still only takes a certain number of doublings to consume the Earth.

N = No(2 ^ n) where n is the number of doublings each taking T2.

No = 5000, then with dN/dt starting at 1 per hundred hours(2.8 x 10 ^ -6 nucleons per sec), the mBH doubles in 40 years, and gobbles the earth in just under 160 such doublings, or about 6400 years.

AT A RATE OF 5 NUCLEONS PER HOUR INITIALLY, the doubling time T2 is just under a month, and we have under 160 months.

( the factor is 2 ^ 160 = 10 ^ 48 approx, and we started with 5 x 10 ^ 3.)

There is another huge problem:

A classical mBH of mass about 5GeV has a radius of approx 10 ^ -50m, so much under the PLANK SIZE, as to be pretty meaningless. No wonder it used to be thought that such mBHs were impossible.

The SAME mBH is now supposed to be around 10 ^ -19m. ANOTHER WHOPPING REVISION, 31 MAGNITUDES!

So the CROSS SECTION, and ability to interact with matter is INCREASED by about 62 MAGNITUDES. And no-one at CERN is modest enough to say WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THE HELL WE ARE DOING!

In view of the wild variations in the order of magnitude of the cross-section, depending on the particular model, we should note that if the mBH starts accreting at one nucleon per hour, the Earth has only 64 years, and if we start with 100 nucleons per hour, the Earth has less than 8 months, the last of which would be horrific in the extreme.

Even if the size of the mBH is correct, CERNs initial accretion figure seems to be wrong. Probably it should be revised to at least 5 per hour. The mBH should cut out a volume about the size of a typical IRON ATOM, in under 10 hours. Only if the doubling time is long in Geological terms, EONS, is the COST to the Earth negligible..(8)

Yet CERN have an AMAZING FAITH that:

A black hole absorbs only one nucleon per hundred hours or roughly 10 ^ 2 per year indefinitely.........IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW BIG IT GROWS

When it is a million times, or a billion times, or a trillion times more massive, the mBH still gobbles only one nucleon per hundred hourseven when it grows from N = 5000 to N = 6 x 10 ^20, and presumably even when it grows to 3.6 x 10 ^ 51(the number of nucleons in the Earth). In a linear model, this sure would take a long time. Let's restate it:

CERN BELIEVE THAT ACCRETION OCCURS AT A CONSTANT RATE, INDEPENDENT OF SIZE AND MASS.

WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM.

dN/dt = a constant for a black hole in the Earth.

This constant is INDEPENDENT OF THE MASS AND SIZE, an astonishing state of affairs. At just what scale does this break down?

A 10 ^ 9 solar mass black hole in the nucleus of a Quasar perhaps? The density of space in the central region of a Galaxy near a SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE is nowhere near that in the interior of the Earth. And as we have seen, the people at CERN think that SIZE DOESN’T MATTER! I believe that Astronomers, if they actually thought about it, would LAUGH THEM TO SCORN.

But this is TRAGIC COMEDY:

If CERN was a Bio Weapons Lab, just imagine the assurance about an accident: “Since the Plague Vector infects one person per week, it would only infect 52 people per year, a small village in decades! Wed all the time in the World to take countermeasures“. But what really happens is that two people infect two per week, four infect four, etc. So in only 20 weeks, a million. If the whole population were available to infection, and not immune, then in 26 weeks the Plague could infect everyone in France, and in 33 weeks could infect everyone on Earth(since 2 ^ 26 is about 64 million and 2 ^ 33 is around 8 billion, so room to spare).
_______________________________


iooi wrote:
Open letter to Professor Hawking part 4

To apply a CERN type RISK ASSESSMENT to the TITANIC would find that it could not possibly sink, since the rate of taking on water would be independent of the size of the hole, so tearing a 100 meter long gash would do no more harm than drilling a millimeter diameter hole. How could it possibly sink? FORGET THE LIFEBOATS!

After all, starting with a microscopic hole, it should be possible to cut it to any arbitrary larger size without increasing the rate at which water is entering! I suppose we could cut away the entire ship, which is what they may succeed in doing with our Spaceship Earth. We might be tempted to laugh at the idiocy of all this. But that would be like whistling in the cattle cars trundling down the track towards Auschwitz.

And it would be unfair to compare the new LHC GAMBLE to the launch of the TITANIC, because:

The designers and operators of TITANIC were optimists but CERN


1. Did not seek out dangerous objects like icebergs.

2. Had credible detection methods for potentially dangerous objects. Foghorns and echoes. Men with binoculars on watch.

3. Had credible methods of detecting damage, and if not too severe, of effecting temporary repair. Sound of collision, crew reports of shipping water, plates and braced beams etc.

4. Had watertight compartments to contain flooding, if not too severe.

5. Had some lifeboats, so that at least some people would survive.

6. Had radio communication, to call in outside help.

7. Had the whole world outside the ship to be rescued to.

8.There was no conceivable way for the rest of humanity to go down with the ship.

1. Gleefully seeking to operate BLACK HOLE FACTORY.

2. No detection of mBH that doesn’t evaporate harmlessly.
3. No detection of damage, until it is terminal for the Earth. No repair.


4. No containment of mBH that doesn’t evaporate harmlessly.

5. No escape.
6. No rescue from E.T!
7. Nowhere to go.
8. We’re ALL IN THE SAME BOAT.

Is there not a single DEFENSIVE PESSIMIST at CERN? THEY HAVE NO PLAN B,
_______________________________


iooi wrote:
Open letter to Professor Hawking part 7

(8)
A very slow mBH will just fall through the floor of the Collider to the centre of the Earth, with an acceleration at any point R from the centre of

a = -[G(4/3)pi D R ^ 3]/ R ^ 2

Where the square bracket represents the mass of Earth inside the radius R, and D is the density.

So the acceleration is

a = -[4/3)pi G D] R

therefore SIMPLE HARMONIC MOTION, where

The angular velocity w is given by

w ^ 2 = (4/3) pi G D = (4 pi ^ 2)/T ^ 2

The period T = (3pi/GD) ^ is therefore 1.4 hours, taking 0.7 hours for a single traverse of the Earths diameter.

T is constant, irrespective of the fact that the amplitude Rmax decreases directly as the velocity, and hence inversely as the mass. Thus when the mBH absorbs 50 nucleons, Rmax is only reduced by 1%, as is Vmax(at the centre of the Earth).

The diameter of the Earth is 1.27 x 10 ^ 7 meters, so taking it as 10 ^ 7, a rough order of magnitude calculation for the VOLUME CUT OUT BY THE mBH:

[ (10 ^ - 19) ^ 2] x 10 ^ 7

That’s 10 ^ - 31 meters cubed.

Iron atoms are pretty small, in the order of [(10 ^ -10 ) ^ 3] or 10 ^ - 30.

So about ten traverses of the earth does the business, taking 7 hours.

If we round everything to an order of magnitude:

One complete atom, typically iron in the Earth, gobbled every 10 hours, 56 nucleons per first 10 hours, roughly 5 nucleons per hour. Even when the mBH has doubled in mass, and is executing SHM with only half the amplitude(but the period is still 1.4 hours), it is oscillating in the much denser, iron rich region of the Earth’s bulk, and it is relentlessly growing in diameter.
In the last 20 doublings, the mBH goes from being one millionth the Earth’s mass to gobbling it up. 2 ^ 20 = approx 10 ^ 6.

In the last 10 x T2, the mBH gobbles the last 999/1000 of the Earth.

Survival time is insensitive to initial number of mBHs absorbed in a short time, if belated prudence sets in and the machine is switched off. Thus a thousand mBHs shorten the life by about 10 x T2, say from 6400 to 6000 or with the revised accretion figure, 12.8 years to 12, since 2 ^ 10 = 1024, or approx a thousand. So PERVERSELY, even a single mBH is almost as dangerous as a whole lot of them. It just gains us a little extra time towards the end.

Survival time is of course proportional to the typical or average doubling time T2, which could be longer than a month, or a year, or 40 years, but is wildly uncertain.

(9)
A closed letter would be thrown into the bin, or would disappear into a bureaucratic black hole!
Or some secretary who doesn’t know a hadron from a haddock would keep it on file until after the LHC is fully operational, so as not to upset the boss

(10)
Perhaps all civilizations in the Galaxy are like us, and find it easier to switch on a LHC in collider mode, before they have self-sufficient space colonies which would allow them to avoid total extinction. Hence the answer to the question, “where the hell are they”?
_______________________________

Add Your Comments

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

Comments must be approved before being published.

 

In case You Missed Them...

Palin Rips McCain's Judgment in Keating 5 Case Sarah Palin Blasts John McCain for Keating 5 Fiasco

Should we just stop killing Moslem People? TSA Announces New Comprehensive Airline Security Regulations:

Farrah is one of the three Jenkins couldn't care less about. South Carolina Man Couldn't Care Less About Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett or Mark Sanford

 

Recently in the News