USLegal's Blog
Home » Environmental Law

Archive for the 'Environmental Law' Category

Large Hadron Collider: United States Answers Lawsuit

Wednesday, June 25th, 2008

I wrote earlier about the Large Hadron Collider particle physics funpark in (under) France, and the lawsuit filed in Hawaii by two scientists with concerns that turning the LHC on could Destroy the Earth.

The United States filed its response today, as reported on Alan Boyle’s “Cosmic Log” (MSNBC). The Government’s main objections are fourfold: (1) the statute of limitations has run, (2) the Federal Courts lack jurisdiction to block the LHC’s activities, (3) the plaintiffs have no standing, and (4) the court cannot provide any effective relief because the LHC would go on without US funding.

Um, what about the part about it being safe!?

Kidding. There’s a new safety report too.

The government is requesting summary judgment, but a hearing is not yet scheduled.

Meanwhile a petition is circulating the Interwebs:

Typically such momentous scientific achievements are inaugurated with profound words, such as Neil Armstrong’s “One small step for man, one giant leap for all mankind”, or when Oppenheimer famously quoted from the Bhagavad Gita upon the first test of a nuclear weapon. No doubt the Directorate of CERN will have prepared something similar to match this historic event.

However, we the undersigned feel something simple will suffice. Upon activating the LHC for the test, we advocate the opening words be “Commence Primary Ignition!“, a call back to the 1977 movie “Star Wars” when the villains destroyed the planet Alderaan with their Death Star. 

B

Soon: the Heller gun case!

Personal Electric Airplanes: Green Transport of the Future?

Friday, May 2nd, 2008

From Green Tech Blog, a story too good to pass up on inspiring little planes. There is a tenuous legal hook for this post, but mainly I was just wowed by these works of avionic art and wanted to share.  Don’t miss the gallery.

Light, electric powered planes built from carbon fiber are advancing to the point of initial economic viability ($77,000, $133,000 and $300,000 models are mentioned), but FAA rules are very restrictive on personal light aircraft.

However, FAA rules could change, possibly within the next year. The Experimental Aircraft Association announced Saturday that it has filed a request for the FAA to change how it classifies electric aircraft. If the group’s petition succeeds, the U.S. market could open up for other electric craft on the horizon.

Commenters to the article are not optimistic, citing the inability of most of us to navigate (drive) without mishap in two dimensions. Still, it’s a pretty dream.

B

Large Hadron Collider: Front Row Seat to the Big Bang?

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

On rare occasions, the disparate worlds of “the law” and “particle physics” collide (pun intended). Now is such a one.

This summer, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) will begin experiments with its Large Hadron Collider (LHC), an incredibly complex circular tube 27 kilometers long through which atoms and bits of atoms will be accelerated (in opposite directions) to a reported 99.9999991% light speed under the French/Swiss countryside. Upon attaining such speed, the particles will be smashed together head-on, and the resulting debris will be documented by sensors.

Wikipedia lists the following as some of the questions to be investigated (just breeze through):

To which I, a devout man of science, reply: “Have we solved world hunger yet?” There, it’s been said — whether tongue-in-cheek… I, even I, can’t immediately decide. That dilemma however, is far from the point. Back to the collision of disparate worlds, and forward to the explosion of them.

Turns out, there are safety concerns:

Michelangelo L. Mangano, a respected particle physicist who helped discover the top quark in 1995, now spends most days trying to convince people that his new machine won’t destroy the world.

“If it were just crackpots, we could wave them away,” … “But some are real physicists.”

Mangano and his colleagues are pretty sure the device is safe. Among other comforting nuggets, they say that cosmic rays have been impacting at LHC-type speeds in the vicinity of Earth’s moon for eons, and the moon is still there.  

Luis Sancho, a noted physicist and author, isn’t so sure. So concerned are Sancho and fellow physicist Walter Wagner, that they’ve — no joking — filed suit in the US District Court for Hawaii to block the start-up of the LHC until a detailed safety review has been completed and peer-reviewed. The two are irritated that a 1999 review for a less powerful collider in the United States is the only safety review posted by CERN for LHC, when a fresh review had been promised by Jan 1, 2008. 

Sancho fears that either a microscopic black hole, or an ultra-dense ”strangelet,” (both of which are expected to be produced in the LHC by its proponents) could destroy Earth. LHC proponents claim that any black hole produced would instantly dissipate due to (theoretical) ”Hawking radiation” and any strangelet produced would be both unstable and wrongly charged to pose a threat, also dissipating in a virtual instant. Sancho notes that Einstein’s theories contradict the notion of Hawking radiation, and Einstein has mainly been proven right, eventually.

James Gillies, a CERN spokesman, told New Scientist magazine that fears were overrated:

The lawsuit’s claims are “complete nonsense.” “The LHC will start up this year, and it will produce all sorts of exciting new physics and knowledge about the universe,” he said, adding: “A year from now, the world will still be here.” 

The world will still be here, unless they’re wrong, as Sancho notes in his affidavit:

As Nobelist Frank Wilczek, the author of a ‘safety document’ for the far less powerful RHIC collider, said at a conference at MIT:

“It was easy to make the report because if something goes wrong then … (‘shrugging his shoulders and laughing’)” …

Obviously meaning that neither he, nor CERN could be blamed, since the planet and all courts and citizens that might retrospectively judge their foolishness would be gone.

Here are some choice tidbits from Sancho’s affidavit, filed in support of his motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.

As of today, the exact probability of a possible runaway reaction that converts the Earth into strange matter, or converts the Earth into a black hole, is unknown, and is entirely dependent on alternative theories, which are still disputed. Those theories convert those experiments in probabilistic events similar to the toss of a coin: If theory A is right or Parameter C has certain unknown value we will become annihilated.  If instead, theory B is right or Parameter C has a different unknown value, we will survive without any adverse consequence. …

CERN chooses selectively only those theories about black holes and dark matter that favor the position of ‘no risk’.  It is for that reason that it promotes and affirms as an ‘absolute truth’ the outdated 1974 thesis of black hole ‘evaporation’ postulated by Dr. Hawking, explained in the previous paragraphs.  Indeed, CERN bases all its hopes of human survival in its report of safety on 6 words:  “Black holes will evaporate via thermal radiation”; 6 words that seem enough for CERN to calm mankind. Yet Thermal Radiation, the so-called “Hawking radiation”, is quite disputed, since there is not a single proof whatsoever that has shown that black holes will evaporate once created. …

Thus, we come to the conclusion that CERN will cause 2 events [creation of a stable black hole or a stable strangelet] that can destroy the planet, each with approximately a ±50% chance of occurring, as there are equally respectable, alternative theories and parameters in both cases for which no certain estimates can be made.  On that basis, a simple calculation of probabilities shows that the real risk of these proposed experiments can be as high as 75% when we combine 2 possible events, each one with a 50% chance. …

In ethical, moral and hence legal terms (as I believe The Law is the practical expression of human ethics), it is self-evident that even a reduced possibility, as those initially considered by CERN, of a 1-10% chances of extinguishing the Earth, would create a “theoretical potential” 6 billion x 1-10% = 60-600 million potential legal holocaust victims, still the biggest genocide in the history of mankind.  It would be also the biggest environmental crime of history, far more harmful than Global Warming, as it could mean the destruction of all life forms on this planet.

Ever heard the canard that our lack of evidence of other advanced civilizations in the galaxy could be due to their consistently obliterating themselves once their particle physics experiments reach a certain level? Makes you wonder.

What would it be like, to be sitting at your desk as the world is converted into strange matter or crushed in an expanding black hole in a matter of hours or minutes?

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened. — Obi-Wan Kenobi, sensing the destruction of Alderaan

Supposedly (at bottom), there is an initial hearing scheduled before a magistrate judge in Hawaii on June 16. I will try to discover what info is available thereafter. Though I sympathize with their contrarianism, I figure Sancho and Wagner are probably wrong, and the Earth is safe. But it will be interesting to see how the court handles such heavy science. Let’s hope these guys don’t have to update their website. Like the old Chinese proveb says, you can bask in the glow of being right, or you can just bask in the glow.

B

Energy Independence: Legal and Technological Notes

Friday, September 14th, 2007

On September 12th the U.S. District Court for Vermont released a 240 page opinion ruling against an alliance of auto manufacturers (and related entities) challenging Vermont’s enactment of laws mirroring California’s recent adoption of strict auto-emission standards.

When I first heard of this case, I thought “Commerce Clause” - that part of the Constitution through which Congress exclusively regulates interstate commerce. If cars driving over state lines were suddenly subject to more strict emissions standards than in the state they had just left, how could this NOT be an impediment to interstate commerce?

More technically (if that’s possible), I should have thought “Dormant Commerce Clause,” the much-debated idea that states are prohibited by the Commerce Clause from passing laws impeding the free flow of commerce between the states. And indeed, the opinion revealed that the Plaintiff auto manufacturers pled violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause in their complaint - but mysteriously dismissed this count prior to the sixteen day bench trial conducted this past spring. I do not know why.

Instead, the Plaintiffs relied on the principle of Federal Preemption of state laws. If a federal statute covers an activity, then any state law covering the same activity is preempted and nullified.

Section 502 of EPCA [Energy Policy and Conservation Act] directs the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to set fuel economy standards for new passenger vehicles and light trucks. 49 U.S.C. § 32902. Section 509 of EPCA preempts any state laws or regulations related to fuel economy standards. 49 U.S.C. § 32919(a). Because there is a relationship between decreasing carbon dioxide emission from the tailpipe of a motor vehicle and increasing its fuel economy, Plaintiffs challenged Vermont’s regulations as preempted by EPCA, among other contentions. (Opinion, p.4-5)

The District Court rejected the preemption claims, relying on the recent SCOTUS ruling in EPA vs. Massachusetts that “EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions and NHTSA’s authority to set fuel economy standards overlap but do not conflict, and that the agencies have the duty to work together, particularly with regard to emissions standards that affect fuel economy.” The District Court went on for 100 or more pages thoroughly rejecting every possible configuration of the preemption argument.

Provided the EPA grants the requisite waivers, the strict emission standards adopted by California, Vermont and at least ten other states to date will become part of the law of the land, and auto manufacturers will be forced to respond with appropriate technology.

In other major developments:

A Pennsylvania chemist discovered (you gota read this) that salt water could be burned if exposed to a certain frequency of radio waves. Called the most remarkable discovery in water science in 100 years, the frequency forces the separation of the hydrogen atoms which burn like a candle at the surface of the water. The 3,000 F temperature of the flame represents an incredible energy output and could be extremely significant. Fill er up with salt water anyone?

The stroke of uber genius I had upon hearing this news? Everyone run pump hoses into the ocean. As global warming pushes up sea levels, we suck it right down again fueling our salt water combustion engines. My patent is pending.

Also of extreme note:

500 mile round trip on a $9 electrical charge? You need an ultracapacitor in as for your engine. This mindblowing piece of tech is under development by a Austin-based startup EEStor.

“It’s a paradigm shift,” said Ian Clifford, chief executive of Toronto-based ZENN Motor Co., which has licensed EEStor’s invention. “The Achilles’ heel to the electric car industry has been energy storage. By all rights, this would make internal combustion engines unnecessary.”

Capacitor technology has been around for a while, but this one is supposedly 400 times more powerful/efficient than existing technology. You must read the article. Pretty incredible stuff. Is it legit? Check this out:

The deal with ZENN Motor and a $3 million investment by the venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which made big-payoff early bets on companies like Google Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., hint that EEStor may be on the edge of a breakthrough technology, a “game changer” …

Who do I have to mug to get a place in line for the IPO?

B



USLegal Eagle Icon

Customer Comments

  • "It is very nice to be treated to such a great customer response... unusual now days!"

Save Money

  • Before you sit down with an attorney, organize your legal matter and save hundreds on legal fees. Learn More!
Reporter Home Link

© 1996-2007 USLegal, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.