Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot More

Two men are pursuing a lawsuit to stop scientists from using a giant particle accelerator, claiming it could create a black hole that may eat up the Earth. Full Story »

Posted by Julian Friedland

See All Reviews »

Review

Francis Scalzi
1.8
by Francis Scalzi - Oct. 1, 2008

Wagner and Sancho are well known as deluded crackpots to the community if physicists and engineers who work at accelerator facilities all over the world. The W & S "resumes" indicate that they have virtually no science in their backgrounds, except that legal beagle Wagner claims he once worked as a radiation safety officer for the VA and Sancho claims he is a "time researcher" of some sort. Yes, and we will believe them if they agree that little white laboratory mice will not likely take over the world. It is evident that they know nothing about how the LHC is constructed or its purpose, how black holes form or of their fates in space, and their warning about the science fiction notion of "strange matter" is worthy only of a laugh. NewsTrust respondents who are concerned that the high energy LHC experiments are somehow dangerous need not fear, since that fear has arisen in their minds out of the ravings of two crackpots who are laughably ignorant of the science involved. Just read the NYT article, a very detailed article in Scientific American magazine in the past year, and dozens of articles in other science sources. If Wagner and Sancho do not jump off the top of the Empire State Bldg out of fright to avoid the spactacle of the horrible cataclysm to come, I will ask a physicist friend of mine to send them a Higgs boson captured in the LHC in the mail so that they may examine it. On the other hand, the offer might frighten them into taking a flight to New York. In any event, they may wish to continue to spend their time viewing the Sci Fi Channel on TV, but they would be better off getting of their butts and getting some exercise.

See All Reviews »

Francis's Rating

Overall
1.8

Poor
from 7 answers
Quality
1.6
Fairness
1.0
Information
3.0
Sourcing
1.0
Context
1.0
Popularity
2.5
Recommendation
1.0
Credibility
3.0
More How our ratings work »