[tinwhiskers] Re: The compliance with EU materials dictates and the precautionary principal
- From: Rod <rod.dalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:34:15 +0100
On 23 Jun 2009, at 19:06, John Burke wrote:
In effect the result is a complete unknown as there is no math in
the world
that you can run the numbers on without making all of the
assumptions about
the outcome of the experiment - and if the outcome does not fit the
math it
will be ways too late to go back over the numbers.
Like I said originally - what happened to the precautionary principal?
You sound like one of those who advised Columbus not to risk falling
off the edge of the (flat) world. Come to think of it, if the same
had been said of the wheel, we might have saved millions of deaths on
the highways.
You do not need mathematical analysis. Every day there are countless
cosmic rays striking the earth, which are far more powerful than the
LHC. What the LHC brings is control, and number of similar events, so
that they can be measured accurately. If powerful impacts caused
black holes, we would have seen them over and over.
There have been legal challenges to the operation of the LHC, which
has been assessed and dismissed in courts.
As I wrote: This discussion is off-topic, straying into areas in
which you may not be competent, and threatens to undermine the
credibility of the main tin-whiskers issue, in which I believe strongly.
regards, Rod (FInstP)
rod.dalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
