Over a month ago, I was asked to be a surprise guest over on Paranormal Radio with Captain Jack. And what was the discussion? Walter Wagner was on air discussing his “Doomsday Suit” against the US partners of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and I had the great opportunity to put some questions to him. Critically for me, at about 99 minutes into the three-hour show (as I make my entrance), I ask Walter about his previous attempts at suing other particle accelerators (such as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider – RHIC – back in 1999). From that point on I believe the validity of the current LHC lawsuit seemed purely academic, but it certainly made for some great discussion.
- Download and listen to the whole Walter Wagner show (.mp3 from Black Vault Radio)
- Or, go to the Paranormal Radio archives to select the show you want to listen to
Walter put across his views in a coherent and knowledgeable way and I made a point that scientists need to be challenged so the LHC can be fully justified (but I did also point out that filing a lawsuit might have pushed it a little too far). Although enjoyable, Walter didn’t convince me to change my views…
(Listen out for how many times I say “speculative”…)
2 thoughts on “Listen to the July 29th Discussion with Walter Wagner on Paranormal Radio”
I listened to the interview and enjoyed it very much.
I read an interesting brief interview with James Hughes, the executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies who writes at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/09/07/a_talk_with_james_hughes/
“The argument that I found convincing was that the nature of the risks of the Hadron Collider creating a catastrophe was on the same level at which you’re driving down the road and having your car spontaneously turn into a horse through simple quantum fluctuation.”
It is difficult to have a discussion when one side convinces the public that their is nothing to discuss.
CERN is categorizing the risk as wild fantasy when arguments on both sides are unconfirmed conjecture, in fact this is biased opinion at best and purposeful misinformation at worst.
Dr. O’Neill, I though your position was fair and enlightened. I’m not sure what the answer is, but at a minimum the arguments need to be open and honestly addressed in a non-biased manor.