For months on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Wikipedia page a war has been raging between independent physicists and CERN over it's safety, but we have a winner! Wikipedia has watered down the LHC safety issues, banned some veteran members from editing the page, and scrubbed the page history so you can't read it, so to a new visitor clicking on the tab labeled history of the LHC page, it would look like the page was created 7 September, 2008, or whatever date it might be at the time of reading this article since it's continuously being scrubbed, when in reality it was created around 14 January 2004 according to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.CERN insider:
"Wikipedia removing the LHC history doesn't put us in a good light. That's why the edit feature is there, to make changes to the page, so there was no need to erase it's history. Wouldn't be surprised if people think Wiki was strong armed, or bribed to remove the history. Kind of makes me wonder myself."
Yeah, makes us wonder too. Well lets see why the LHC Wikipedia history was scrubbed, shall we. Using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, 8 August 2007, under the topic "Safety concerns" it stated:
| "As with the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), people both inside and outside of the physics community have voiced concern that the LHC might trigger one of several theoretical disasters capable of destroying the Earth or even our entire Universe. Each advance in particle accelerator technology exposes the stability of the very fabric of the universe to more stringent tests. RHIC has been running since 2000 and has generated no major problems; however the Large Hadron Collider is set to create an environment significantly more exotic than realized in the RHIC, and therefore the probability of catastrophe is greater." |
| "We find no basis for any conceivable threat. If black holes are produced, they are expected to evaporate almost immediately via Hawking radiation and thus be harmless." |
The Safety concerns topic ends with a statement by John Nelson, professor of nuclear physics at Birmingham University who is leading the British scientific team at RHIC:
| "it is astonishingly unlikely that there is any risk—but I could not prove it." |
Maybe CERN, I mean Wikipedia, should scrub Brian's page too, completely!
23 comments:
Thank you for this important perspective. I was not even allowed to post references refuting Hawking Radiation because a CERN employee and Wikipedia admin would not allow it.
This is a general patter of censorship and disinformation.
Disinformation includes stating that Large Hadron Collider safety is assured and global danger is not possible (as most people would understand not possible) when in fact safety is disputed by multiple credible sources[1][2] and safety is unknown[3][4].
Disinformation includes stating that micro black holes evaporate without noting that Hawking Radiation is unproven theory disputed by multiple credible papers as fundamentally flawed and may not or does not exist.[5][6][2]
Disinformation and censorship includes directing CERN scientists to affirm no risk in all interviews regardless of personal opinion[7], and attacking the credibility of independent scientists who publicly express concern.
Are scientists more concerned with public opinion and funding scientific experimentation than safety? At the Global Catastrophic Risk conference when Toby Ord estimated a 1 in 1,000 chance that CERN's safety assumptions may be fundamentally wrong, an author of CERN's safety report replied "Jeopardizing the future of scientific research would be a global catastrophe."[8]
The fact is some credible scientists have credible concerns about a potentially credible danger. Senior Astrophysicist Dr. Plaga refutes safety conclusions of particle physicists who conjecture safety based on disputed properties of dense stars (astrophysics) and proposes feasible risk mitigation measures[1]. Dr. Rössler is a an award winning former visiting Professor of Physics famous for inventing Chaos theory's Rössler attractor and founding the field of Endophysics[2], he calculates that micro black holes could be catastrophic to Earth in years or decades. Former University of Berkeley cosmic ray researcher and Nuclear Safety Officer Walter L. Wagner originally discovered fundamental flaws with CERN's safety arguments and filed a US Federal law suit to require reasonable proof of safety[3]. Other physicists, theoretical scientists and risk experts have also expressed concerns both publicly and privately[4].
Of the independent scientists who created detailed safety reviews and rebuttals not employed by CERN or asked to comment as a favor to CERN[9], a common theme is concluded, safety is unknown. Some scientists are very concerned, and that is not misinformation or propaganda.[10]
[1] arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v1.pdf On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders - Rainer Plaga Rebuttal (2008)
[2] www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk, Prof. Dr. Otto Rossler (2008)
[3] www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_legal.php US Federal Lawsuit Filings - Walter L. Wagner (2008)
[4] www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_expertssay.php What the Experts Say (2008)
[5] xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042 Do black holes radiate?. Dr. Adam Helfer (2003)
[6] arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607137, On the existence of black hole evaporationyet again, Prof. VA Belinski (2006)
[7] http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/Sancho%20v%20Doe%20-%20Affidavit%20of%20Luis%20Sancho.pdf AFFIDAVIT OF LUIS SANCHO IN UPPORT OF TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[8] http://www.reason.com/news/show/128492.html A 1-in-1,000 Chance of Götterdämmerung, Will European physicists destroy the world? Ronald Bailey | September 2, 2008
[9] www.lhcfacts.org/?p=72 CERN?s Dr. Ellis tells only half of the story - LHCFacts.org (2008)
[10] www.lhcfacts.com An agument for caution, risk mitigation and an open independent and credible safety conference before high energy collisions begin.
Please delete my prior post "one correction however" which only applies to the article "the Safety of the Large Hadron Collider".
You are correct, the history of the Large Hadron Collider has been deleted prior to September 6, 2008.
Perhaps someone could ask CERN employee and Wikipedia admin Khukrin who edits this page if he has an explaination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_Hadron_Collider&dir=prev&action=history
Know what I'm really worried about? Three mosquitoes, maybe four mosquitoes.
Stranger still in the non-theoretical real world, where CERN defies logic and gravity, see how they're dancing with big media. CERN leads, journalists follow, in "The Black Hand Of Dr Cern", on my blog, The Science of Conundrums.
Great site. Good work.
James, CERNipedia has every right to keep you from editing anything in relation to the LHC. That machine cost 6 billion dollars, and nothing, not even the truth will prevent it from smashing particles. Dammit!
I'm sure CERN and Khukrin have an explanation for the deleted LHC history. Higgs Boson and the Nobel prize in Physics! Ha!
Closedmouth, nice try. What about the history from May 2005 to September 2008?
Alan, if you saw what I saw today, you'll soil yourself. 5 Mosquitoes collided in my backyard! I'm not kidding!
How much you want to make a bet that a good portion of the 6 billion dollars CERN spent goes to PR?
Ben, you mean like Brian? That twat!!!
Right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_Hadron_Collider&offset=20060614013554&limit=5000&action=history
Groundless accusations are fun, huh? Maybe you shouldn't base conspiracy theories on your own inability to click links.
Inability to click links? Closedmouth, let me explain this to you like you're a 2 year old. The Wikipedia LHC page history has been scrubbed, and if you could click links to the page from the article above, you would also see this, genius.
And one more thing, could you please show us the link on the LHC page that leads to your link? For some strange reason, there isn't any.
Oh dear dear me, looks like you are getting your science from the James Tankersely school of non experts. Let me explain it so a 2 year old can understand. When you go into revision history, click on 500 then click on older 500, then click on it again that will take you backwards through the articles history, now if we look at 8th August 2007 what do we have;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_Hadron_Collider&oldid=149932837#Safety_concerns
Well surprise surprise the conspiracy has been resolved, or hang on a minute, maybe it's not a conspiracy maybe you are just inept. Having looked through the Wikipedia article after I came across your blog with "stumble!" seems like your article is also wrong that there are no independant physicists involved in this great conspiracy crusade. There is walter wanger/(oldnoah), james tankersley(jtankers) editing the article, neither of them can be called independant and certainly neither of them can be called physicists, more like the coalition of the clueless.
So I think before you go espousing any more opinions or flexing your journalistic might, you may want to get the basics right, before you make yourself look like an even bigger pillock.
Nice to see Wikipedia added the new link. Always have a back-up plan incase you get caught.
See you didn't deny John Nelson's and Brian's statements. Good move!
ah the old, it wasn't there before honest yer honor, argument. Maybe it's because it was always there and that you were just too plain stupid to find it ?
So now that the miraculous missing history has turned up, what in fact were CERN trying to hide? What earth shattering information is hidden in these history files that will get you your pulitzer prize for investigative journalism? Or maybe it's just more shoddy science that has always been there for all to see (except you), that the guys at wikipedia found to be completely baseless nonsense and removed it within their rules, which I assume they have for unfounded rubbish, much same as your blogg?
Cuthbert, I see the link your talking about, but why Wikipedia bury the history? Recieved a generous donation from CERN? It doesn't make sense to click revision history, click 500, then click older than 500 if you haven't seen the first 500, or is the first fifty (September's history) 500 to Wikipedia? When you click 500 without going through revision history, all you see is the history for September of this year. Why is that? That revision link and your statements just makes this article credible, specially the statement that the link was added.
The ball is in your court, Perry Mason, I mean Cuthbert. Try not to embarrass yourself any further. :)
OK admit it, who switched your computer on for you, because your far too stupid to have worked it out for yourself.
OK lets do the idiot guide for those that need instructions simpler than 2 year old.
OK copy these links in order, doesn't take lot to do.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
This is the article for the Large Hadron Collider, is everyone in agreement?
Click on the history tab, which will give you
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_Hadron_Collider&action=history
This is the last 50 edits to the Large Hadron Collider article, now if you do an edit to the article, the oldest edit on this page will disappear, it's not been scrubbed, a little CERN gnome didn't come in and delete it, you know where it is. IT'S ON THE NEXT PAGE. So using this einstein level of knowledge we've now gained if you click older 50 it's there, not scrubbed by CERN you little tin hat wearing fool.
So now if you go back to the history page and click 500 guess what it does? Would you believe it, it actually shows the last 500 edits. Now that's truly a feat of magic to the uninitiated. You're coming on great here, don't pass out, go have a drink if you need to cool down and get you brain levels down from it's stratospheric levels it's just been at. Now what do you think will happen if you click on older 500, it's going to show you the next 500 edits, THAT HAVEN'T BEEN SCRUBBED. So you know why on when you clicked on 500 it showed only the revision history for september? Amazingly enough there have been more than 500 edits to the article since September 8th, in fact looking at the article there has been around 600 edits in September in total. Are you OK, no nose bleeds, no spots in front of your eyes? OK now if you continually click "older 500" it will take you all the way back through the article's history and you know what, you get to keep clicking until you want to stop, so how about we stop on the page that shows August 8th 2007, and well screw me chucky we find the miraculous missing information.
Now why is the information not on the page, that you'll have to ask the guys at Wikipedia but as I said before, if you follow the edit revisions through I suspect you'll eventually come across something along the lines of, removed because it's unsubstantiated rubbish.
The ball never returned to my court, you showed you couldn't play tennis, and were still fumbling getting your racket out of it's case.
Did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Cuthbert, you poor thing.
Why didn't Wikipedia just keep it simple instead of burying the history? Click on 20, you see 20 edits, click on 50, you see the next 50 edits, click on 500, and you see all 500 edits. No, you guys had to disable this and make readers go through hoops to find it. We have to click, click, click to older than 500 edits to see the first 500 edits?
Oh, forgot, this is the month the LHC is operating. Can't have an easily accessible history to threaten that.
No I've woken up on the wrong side of bed for the last 54 years, especially when confronted with conspiracy theorists, and idiots, but as you replied politely I will do the same.
The blog article itself is about how CERN have somehow had the article history scrubbed or deleted, not about how information has changed over the years, or how many edits there has been to the article. This blog is patently wrong about that, CERN have got no chance of deleting Wikipedia's history, if they did I know a gentleman in the NYTimes who is usually the first to report on most thing LHC who would love to know about any impropriety on CERNs part. It would also have to have collusion on the part of the Wikimedia foundation. How Wikipedia deals with it's history is again something that should be addressed to the foundation. This is the same system that is used for all articles on wikipedia. Sarah Palin's article for example has had 100's of edits in the last couple of weeks, and all her history is there if you care to look.
As I said the information itself that was on the safety section was most probably deleted as it was incorrect, or just modified and had references added to it over the years, you'll have to ask someone there, Jtankers above his name is all over the article. But to say there is a conspiracy theory, when someone can't work out how the article's history function works is not only wrong, it's misinformation, lies and dangerous. When the media get hold of these lies, it ends up with little kids killing themselves in fear.
Cuthbert, do you work for Wikipedia? Why should we trust a companies theories, CERN, which haven't been proven and theories of others which haven't been proven either? Wikipedia taking sides doesn't look good, and I don't mean this in a bad way, but others seeing you using profanity to defend Wikipedia isn't helping.
Burying the history about theories against experiments at the LHC to please CERN who has theories for it looks shady. One would conclude, Wikipedia was paid off, which might not be the case, but seems logical with your frantic defense with profanity.
I'm sorry if this offends you, Cuthbert. Just stating what it looks like.
No problems at all. No I like alot of people use Wikipedia as my first port of call if I need to know something.
And for the profanities (which I don't consider them to be), but please accept my apologies if it offended your sensibilites, but it seemed to be the done thing on this blog calling people at CERN/Wikipedia or who general don't follow the conspiracy theory line twats, etc. So it's just responding like with like, and as soon as the guy Closedmouth who seems to be involved in the article as well as jtankers, tried to point out where the information was he was insulted as well.
I can't see how the information has been buried, it's an article that recieves alot of attention, and hence gets alot of edits so to try find something from over a year ago, one may have to wade through a number of edits. This isn't just true for the LHC just look at george bush, Hurricane Ike, or any thing in the news at any given time you will see hundreds of edits, it's not about hiding information.
I have my own beliefs about CERN, but that's not what this blog is about. If I were you ask wikipedia why the information has changed instead of skulking round in backwater blogs inventing shady reasons. Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider#Article_biased_towards_safety.3F
this is where someone asked a similar question, didn't take me long to find it. Ask them there why the information has changed or why it's not on there anymore, might be better in the long run, than getting mixed messages in my opinion.
I found the history, but why the hoops to read it? Taking one side and burying the other when both are based on theories is never a good idea. Both sides should be given an equal playing field.
To an average person, and even some brains, the history looks to have been scrubbed if they don't know where to dig.
Cuthbert, the profanity T--t which is stated on this blog is a joke in reference to Brian Cox use of the word. This was his school yard tactic to defend the LHC. Maybe C.W. should have referenced Brian's language with a link.
Do you edit the LHC wiki page? If not, I don't see why you've taken an interest to defend a buried history.
I think it's more about I have personal interest in things like astronomy and infact all things "sciency". Being an American (though I do live near Geneva) I like to see what's going on on my door step and I like many followed the CERN startup watching their success. While blog stumbling reading the worlds take on it, I began to see more and more spin doctoring, not just from the high profile anti-LHCist like James above but also random John Doe off the street, who had already cast judgement on it as a bad thing. Then I stumbled here, which made my blood boil, things like CERN spending lots of money I can understand people taking exception to, but unproven ideas about conspiracy theorists trying to silence the masses when someone can't understand the basics of a history function is just downright dispicable in my opinion. People will have come here, doing the same as I have done, read that and not know any better now believe the evil Wikipedia/CERN empire is deliberatly hiding the truth. When with a small amount of investigation the truth can be revealed. That's what makes me sad, and thats why I dispair when I see what is written on the internet as facts. Anyway, I think those who read this blog will now realise how this article is wrong, I will continue on my meandering way. Bye.
I don't see how this article is wrong, Cuthbert. Wikipedia, or an editior buried the history, so to some it would seem it was scrubbed.
I think the world is safe, but others have the right to express their opposing views without being swift boated Rove style, specially in this case, when both sides views are based on unproven theories, and for a person to side with CERN who keep stating that they don't know what will happen, like physicist Brian Cox repeatably states, is irresponsible.
Now I'm going back to my life, spending quality time with the family, but keeping an open mind without blindly hurling insults since all is unproven until after the collisions. And if we are still here after the collisions, which I feel we will be, that doesn't prove safety, or a slow growing black hole. Lets hope for the best.
Get with the winning ground? It's winning crowd!
Anonymous, please go back to school.
Cuthbert, I'm sure this article was made in good faith. The history is suspiciously buried, and if you don't know where to look for it, it will seem to have been scrubbed.
Post a Comment