Internal Dialogue

The history of LHC Safety is a bit more complicated and theoretical physics is over due for correction such as recognition of Dr. Einstein’s vision of deterministic (Bohmian) quantum mechanics.

Former Nuclear Safety Officer Walter L. Wagner discovered flaws with CERN’s safety arguments. He believes that the Large Hadron Collider could create dangerous particles that might destroy Earth, so he filed a law suit to require proof of safety. [1]

In response, CERN scientists created a safety report in 2008 that argues no real chance of danger. [2]

After review, German Astrophysicist Dr. Rainer Plaga argues that CERN’s new report does not prove safety. Dr. Plaga proposes that CERN follow additional safety procedures to help reduce the danger, including proceeding slowly. [3]

On August 14th, CERN’s Dr. Jonathan Ellis stated that there is no real danger and they will not proceed slowly, collisions will begin in a few weeks. [4]

Another German scientist famous for contributions to Chaos theory and a visiting professor of physics Dr. Otto E. Rössler theorizes that if micro black holes are created in the Large Hadron Collider, they could grow large enough to destroy Earth in just years or decades. [5]

Dr. Rössler requests that an emergency safety conference be held before collisions begin. He is due to meet Swiss President Pascal Couchepin to discuss safety concerns.

[1] http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_legal.php US Federal Lawsuit Filings – Walter L. Wagner

[2] http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/Safety-en.html The safety of the LHC, Web Site – CERN

[3] http://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

[4] http://www.lhcfacts.org/?p=72 CERN?s Dr. Ellis tells only half of the story – JTankers

[5] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma – Otto E. Rössler Safety Counter Arguments

[6] http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19726485.700 Quantum randomness may not be random, New Scientist Magazine, 22 March 2008

”For now, it’ll suffice to say that I’m really happy these people aren’t the ones in charge.“
That’s what a representative democracy if for; keeping the collective of idiots known as the population from exercising direct control. This is why I oppose referenda in general.

Ivan,

I must say I haven’t decided whether I support referenda or not. But in general I do agree that there are so many people out there that clearly can’t make decisions about important things. In this respect, if there had been a EU referendum about the LHC which asked “would you support building a particle accelerator at the cost of a few billion euros?”, I’m positive the result would have been overwhelmingly against.

People fear the unknown. It is natural to be conservative in the face of something you do not understand. It is the media’s fault for creating the perception that there exists some chance at all that the earth will be annihilated. Even the scientists arguably carry some blame for trying to generate interest for their work by making statements that cannot be reasonably comprehended by the larger public. Ever since the scientific conception of black holes, people have been told that they represent a destructive force of unimaginable proportions. They have been taught that these holes grow with every bit of matter they devour. Now suddenly they are told that mini black holes are harmless. That does not compute.

Setting the perceived danger aside, there is still the issue of whether this experiment is worth its costs and how to decide that within a democracy. Obviously, the fact that a minority sees merit in the project, cannot be a deciding factor in itself. In practice it is indeed so that the smartest part of our society gets to decide, in particular with respect to funding of scientific research. People of lower intellectual ability are generally less involved in politics. However, one should be very careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that the smartest people always should have their way, even if they are in a minority. That is how dictatorships are born. It is unfortunate to see the majority in favour of (or against) certain causes, when your deductive reasoning tells you to prefer to opposite. It is, however, the only way a democracy can function. One cannot force reason. The mass does get to decide (most of the time).

After reading the -refined- comment by Matthijs, Michiel and I decided our top ten of policies if we were to become benevolent dictators:

1. Science: The Large Hadron Collider would be built
2. Education: The HAVO would be phased out
3. Justice: Capital punishment for bycicle theft
4. Financial: Natural gas proceeding fund, stop development aid
5. Military: Conquer some more territory
6. Energy: Massive investments in sustainable energy
7. Industry: Recycling society
8. Culture: Nightwish would become the national anthem
9. Infrastructure: Public transportation would resemble OpenTTD
10. Religion: Cancelled*

*= According to the previous comment “One cannot force reason”, so investments in education would suffice.

Matthijs,

You’re right. That’s the only way a democracy will work. As you sort of acknowledged, there are so many things in today’s world that the general public can’t understand. There’s no doubt that a dictatorship is something totally unwanted, but I’m getting a bit tired of today’s society where people who do not understand something try to stop things that has already been approved, vetted, decided upon or even already built.

Obviously it’s a good thing that reason cannot be forced in democracy. I’m actually not really irritated by the fact that certain projects that I would like to see realized get stopped because it’s no in the best interest of the mass to go forward with it. But if something does get decided upon, there are always people who don’t agree with that decision. And in today’s world, with the internet wide open for people to protect, it’s so easy to spread misinformation and pretend you’re fighting for something real even though it’s a complete lie and you’re just afraid of something you don’t understand.

Luckily others can use the same methods to disprove such claims, though in most cases I think it’s better not to pay too much attention to people/groups like this.

Ivan,

Thank you for putting together that comprehensive list. Though I think point #1 can be updated, that thing is already here. Perhaps building a transatlantic tunnel built is a good alternative.

And as for phasing out HAVO: what about VMBO?

“And as for phasing out HAVO: what about VMBO?”
Well let me first explain why I want to get rid of HAVO. For starters I see no use for it next to VWO. The level of education is similar. VWO differs because there’s more material; it takes an extra year. So what reason have student got to go for VWO? Easy, a free entrance card for university. HAVO students are not allowed go to a university, based upon -in my option- nothing.

Kids who get send to a VWO-only high school (gymnasium) basically get a free ticket for university when leaving elementary school. Let’s sum up a couple of general facts:
- You can sign up directly for most universities
- You’re grades don’t matter.
- There’s no entrance exam.
- A university study will cost you next to nothing.

If there’s one thing common in the dutch education system it that it’s almost purposely trying to promote mediocrity.

There are millions of reason why people end up in HAVO, but I can tell you most of them don’t have anything to do with the students potential. There should be a fair system based upon competition, high school grades and entrance exams. Don’t get me wrong, I’m satisfied with my bachelor education. But the system simply isn’t right and doesn’t promote excellence.

I honestly believe I could have done a better job improving high school education than the 2e fase-committee. But I will stop here because there’s too much I want to say.

Now back to your question. Unlike the HAVO and VWO, I have little experience with VMBO. But one of the reasons I want to get rid of the HAVO is for the sake of the VMBO. I would mandatory combine all VMBO and VWO schools. Let me explain why:
VMBO has a very short duration, I believe 4 years. This means the average age in the last year is about 16 years old. So we’re talking about 16 year old lowly educated kids in the middle of their puberty setting the example for the rest of the school. I’ve seen videos of VMBO school yards; as you can imagine it’s not comforting to watch, to say the least.
Now what if VWO and VMBO schools were to be combined? VWO students in the last year are young adults, and behave as such. Being the oldest and highest ranking in the school hierarchy, they set the example for the rest of the school. I believe this alone will have a huge impact on the VMBO.

Ivan,

It’s quite a complex issue. I don’t think I’m qualified to objectively judge the entire system of education here in the Netherlands, but I certainly won’t be last to say that things could be a lot better. I agree that the entire so called 2e fase was a huge disaster. But I’m not sure that phasing out HAVO would be such a good idea. Although the level in education is comparable, VWO is without a doubt a lot more intensive then HAVO. The fact is that certain people can’t cope with the amount of work and attention VWO requires. Also, not everyone learns equally fast.

I’m not saying that the current situation is fair, however. A while ago there was a debate about the judging of a kids potential during the last year of primary education. A lot depends on just this single CITO exam, and you’re right in saying that if you get send to a VWO-only school, you’re basically already allowed into a university. I don’t know the statistics, but I doubt every VWO student ends up at a university. Though, if you don’t get send to a VWO-only school, your options are still open. Many high schools have combined HAVO/VWO classes during the first (two) year(s). This means that if you work hard enough, you can still transfer to VWO, even if you received a HAVO advice from your elementary school.

But again, I don’t think I know enough to form an educated opinion about this subject. I’m not even sure if you have to follow the advice you get after your CITO exam; it could be that if you really wanted to send you kid to a VWO school, you can. But I’m not sure about this.

Finally, I think you might be right in saying that putting VMBO students in the same school as VWO students might do the former a lot of good. I myself was in a HAVO-VWO bridge class, and it was the VWO kids that set the standard. There were still differences, of course, but a lot of ‘HAVO-kids’ worked harder because the standard was higher; me included.

Michiel,

“Although the level in education is comparable, VWO is without a doubt a lot more intensive then HAVO.”
In my opinion HAVO and VWO are at a more or less equal level. People tend to say VWO is harder, but it’s just as likely to be easier!

To illustrate my point:
* A history teacher of my brother told him that the HAVO history course was tougher than the VWO course, because the subject was more difficult
* I studied both Physics 1 and 2. In my opinion and doing both courses is easier that taking merely Physics 1.
* Economy 1&2. In my opinion and that of the teacher as well, it’s easier that taking Economy 1.
* The first couple of exams of a subject tend to be hard. Then it gets easier. Because VWO has more exams, there is also more opportunity to compensate a single failure.
* The books are basically the same.

In my opinion VWO is not harder than HAVO, maybe even easier. It’s overrated at least.

“Many high schools have combined HAVO/VWO classes during the first (two) year(s). This means that if you work hard enough, you can still transfer to VWO”
I had straight VWO grades the first year, in the second year my grades dropped because I hung out with some underachiever. Though I obviously had VWO potential, I got send to HAVO. The focus is too much on language and mediocrity; the number of high grades don’t matter. If I was in a VWO-only class I would have passed VWO. If I was in a VMBO/HAVO class, I would have likely gone to VMBO. It’s really hard to get to the next level, and it’s often acquired by sliming teachers to get better grades. I think it’s pathetic.

“I’m not even sure if you have to follow the advice you get after your CITO exam”
Not likely, though teachers do have a saying in the final outcome. The moron teacher of my brother gave him a VMBO advice, it took years to recover that mistake in private schools. Besides, the CITO exam is a flawed concept. It only measures the performance at a single point. I had a lower than VMBO score at my CITO-like test (ISI test). Only because of the determination of my parents I was given a second shot. My result was VWO, highest score of the class. My grades in the last year of elementary school we’re pretty good as well. Off course the messed up educational system gave HAVO/VWO instead of VWO as final advice for reasons unknown. It didn’t really matter for me because at our school there is no VWO-only option, but still. Without my considerate parents I would not have gone to a HAVO/VWO class!

“a lot of ‘HAVO-kids’ worked harder because the standard was higher; me included.”
Exactly. I also think you could notice a difference with VMBO at our school and VMBO-only schools.

If I understand Ivan right, he is basically saying: “If you know more, subjects are easier. Since the students do more studying at VWO level, they have it easier, or at least not harder than HAVO students.”

From the previous point he deduces that, since VWO and HAVO are more or less equal in his view, there is no fair competition for entry to a university level education.

I would suggest that admittance to and completion of the VWO level is the competition. This is the test that decides if a student is up for the level of knowledge absorption that is required for university. The test does not definitely shut people out at an early point, since everyone who has completed the HAVO exam is allowed to continue with the VWO level.

In my view, it is not intelligence that is the most important factor in deciding one’s aptitude for following a university level education, but eagerness to learn and the ability to absorb knowledge. There is variation between studies, but in general they all require you to process and absorb enormous amounts of information in a short time. Students who are not up for that, will fail at university.

Having said this, I do not believe our system of education is perfect. It is indeed possible that the separation of HAVO and VWO students takes away incentives for the HAVO students. However, I am not convinced that merging them into a single level would create a better system. Part of the VWO students might be discouraged to excel in an environment where ‘the average’ is the norm. I doubt that considerably more students would succesfully complete a university level education.

Thanks for your reply Matthijs,

I would suggest that admittance to and completion of the VWO level is the competition. This is the test that decides if a student is up for the level of knowledge absorption that is required for university

I understand some sort of testing is required. You say “eagerness to learn and the ability to absorb knowledge” is in your view the most important factor deciding one’s aptitude for following a university level education. I’d say the goal is to determine if a person is likely capable of completing the university subject of his/her choice. In my opinion ‘eagerness to learn’ is something the educational system should try to motivate, not test. I agree the ability to process and absorb large quantities of information should be one of the deciding factors as it’s required for any proper university education, though I’m not sure if you think passing VWO demonstrates this or not.

Let me try to illustrate a problem with using VWO as an admittance test with a common situation: Should a student in a combined HAVO/VWO class fail admittance to the VWO because he or she failed physics, despite being the best in history? Currently the student would fail on a subject the student considers not interesting and would never pursuit. The focus will shift towards the subjects the student is not very capable in, again resulting in demotivation and overall mediocracy. A trend which once accustomed too, will likely prevail when in higher education.

I understand the need for a broad spectrum of courses in high school, and I’m not in principal against this, but in my opinion it does not qualify as the admittance test for university. Though there might be a minimum ‘universal skill set’ required for each university course, this is certainly not what’s being tested for VWO. What’s being tested is a selection of tests, mainly favoring students excelling at languages for example. Math grades, a chess competition and a running exercise could have been used as well, which would favor my skill set. There’s little relation between VWO requirements and the requirements for the final university education of someone’s choice.

“Part of the VWO students might be discouraged to excel in an environment where ‘the average’ is the norm.”

But ‘the average’ is already the norm. There are no minimum requirements for less popular studies like engineering, so grades don’t matter. One of the reasons to disband the HAVO is to give more students the possibility to go for a university study. If university demand exceeds the number of available places, selection of the best students can occur. This will motivate students to perform above ‘the average’.

“I doubt that considerably more students would successfully complete a university level education.”

If students are allowed to study the subject of their interest at the level that suits them best and have to compete for a spot, I believe more students are able to complete a university level education.

JTankers,

First let me apologize for taking so long to approve your comment. Your post got caught in the spam filter. apparently because of the amount of links. Unfortunately, because there’s so much spam I don’t check on that often enough, so it took a while for me to notice it.

Secondly: thank you for your comment. I’ll be sure to read through the links, although I must admit that I don’t expect I will be totally convinced. But once I’ve done so, I’ll probably post another response.

JTankers,

Thanks once again for your comment and links. All in all I must conclude (with the help of someone else) that certain links do contain a few valid points. However, I’m still far from convinced that the LHC poses a real threat. I cannot believe that this threat exists, simply because none of the thousands of scientists working on this project have protested against the LHC. Countless reports have been written – and I’m not going to link them because I’m sure you’ve read them yourself – which state that there is no danger whatsoever. I know that I lack the knowledge to judge this situation fairly, but I’d rather believe the scientists who actually worked on this for years and years instead of a fairly unknown minority.

I admit that my initial judgment might have been a bit harsh (I’ve learned several new things), but I’m still of the opinion that this whole crusade against the LHC is rather pointless. In the end we’ll see who is right and who wasn’t, but even with my severely limited knowledge I have little doubt that the LHC won’t pose any threat.

Hi Ivan,

I do think that passing the VWO demonstrates a student’s ability to process and absorb large quantities of information.

The students are not required to ace all subjects, they just need to pass them. They can even fail one subject and they still receive the final certification. I do recognise that students differ in their abilities and interests. That is why they are allowed to choose between subjects/profiles.

Exactly because students’ abilities and interests differ, it is good that the exact grades (mostly) do not matter after completing the education. However, it is reasonable that a bare minimum skill is required across all subjects that the student has chosen. If the ability to absorb knowledge depends solely on his interest in the subject, we must still question his ability to complete a university level education. Here’s why:

In my experience, within every subject there is once again a broad spectrum of sub-subjects that will generate different levels of interest with the student. I have never encountered someone who found all topics within his study equally enjoying. If a student is not capable of passing subjects that have little personal interest to him, then, in my view, we must doubt his ability to complete a university level education.

Finally, it is not the case that HAVO students are completely shut out of the opportunity to participate in this level of education. They can continue with VWO after their HAVO exams, they can first obtain their HBO propedeuse, or they can apply for a ‘colloquium doctum’. Having some barrier to entry is by itself not discriminatory, but both natural and practical. In partical since the barrier can be taken by diverse means.

Matthijs,

“I do think that passing the VWO demonstrates a student’s ability to process and absorb large quantities of information.”

To a certain extend I have to agree with you. In general, VWO students possess the abilities required for university. Requiring top grades would have been a valid selection method as well, though both methods are too specific (or selective) in my view as motivated in the next section:

“I do recognise that students differ in their abilities and interests. That is why they are allowed to choose between subjects/profiles.”

Except that the profiles are downright discriminative towards more technical oriented students. I chose the profile containing Math, Physics and Chemistry. I had to pass a minimum of thee languages as well. Let’s compare the opposite by introducing the language oriented profile ‘Culture and Society’. It contains a minimum of four languages. The only technical subject is math A1 which is mainly statistics. After I finished high school, math was scrapped as a mandatory subject all together for the C&M-profile. This never seemed fair to me. Ever wondered why there are more woman than men graduating from university, with their female language and communication skills?

“If a student is not capable of passing subjects that have little personal interest to him, then, in my view, we must doubt his ability to complete a university level education.”

It agree every student should be able to face obstacles he/she doesn’t like. But high school is currently the other way around: Passing loads of subjects you don’t like, and treasuring the few subjects that are actually of interest. There are already obstacles within the subjects of interest: I didn’t like some math subjects, and didn’t like chemistry all together. This amount of obstacles is already more in relation with the amount of obstacles in a related university study. Though some subjects should be mandatory for all students as well.

“Finally, it is not the case that HAVO students are completely shut out of the opportunity to participate in this level of education.”

I have to agree with you here, a lot of flaws in the early stage of high school selection can be overcome with a detour later on. Though the ‘take VWO after HAVO’ route means wasting (carefully chosen word) another two years in high school, so it’s obviously very unpopular. Privately owned school have also gained in popularity.

So in the end there is limited damage using VWO as a primary admittance test for university. Note that if I was in command I would still disband HAVO for a variety of other reasons. I would also apply a huge number of changes based on my ’street-smart’ experience. Though I would like to make even more drastic changes, the number of variables in the equation would make it too big of a risk. It may be better to fix a broken system, than creating a new one. This may be why top-down approaches like the ‘2e fase’ fail. It’s too hard to foresee all consequences.

Overall I’m pleased with the educational system. Smart people can usually take care of themselves and pass the hoops. The real problems are in the lower levels of education, but I guess that’s a totally different story.