Copyright by notepad publishing, Switzerland, 2010
All rights reserved
This is a interview with Professor Otto E. Roessler by notepad
publishing senior investigative journalist Armin Albarracin.
notepad publishing is a non-profit news agency domiciled in
Switzerland. We have visited Professor Otto E. Roessler in his
home town in Tuebingen, Germany, to talk with him about the 
CERN LHC. Hello Professor Roessler and welcome.
It's my pleasure. 
Professor Roessler, how are you feeling today, especially in
regards to the Large Hadron Collider, which has been turned
on again?
I'm worried, frankly speaking. Because the safety of the 
experiment has leaks.
When we started reporting on the CERN LHC in April 2008, we
looked everywhere for information about the largest and most
expensive machine ever build by mankind. You where the only
critical voice we found. Today there are many critics 
worldwide. Are you aware that you have awakened a lot of 
people to the dangers of the CERN LHC and how does this feel?
It's nothing to feel comfortable about. Dangers are never
something that you feel good when you dissipate them. So a
warning is always something you do because you feel pain 
and you want to be relieved not just of your own pain but
to prevent pain ... to prevent pain from affecting other
people. So it's a medical kind of activity of mine. I
started out as a medical doctor. And so I feel sometimes
doctors have to speak out if there is a safety leak 
somewhere.
So this is a bit like if you have a patient and he has
cancer and you have to tell him?
Exactly. If there is a treatment - and you can propose it.
To not let it happen but do something about it.
Yes. Like surgery. It might be a little bit painful to say
please stop something but in the End it is worth doing for
everyone.
At some point we felt that your position on the CERN LHC
was under a lot of attack. We even read articles and posts
mentioning that your theory about the creation of a stable,
black hole that would ultimately destroy the Universe or
the World has been proven false.
It's only about the Earth at the moment. And as far as I
know no proofs have ever been given that there was a
mistake in what I have presented.
Yes. That was what I was surprised about too. Because on
one side there was this, let me call it kind of CERN 
propaganda, saying no, his arguments have been defused
... are wrong, we have shown that, and on the other side
I couldn't find that information.
Right. To the best of knowledge my hard arguments have
not been defeated, but of course I'm a stupid person.
Maybe I said something stupid also somewhere. But my
theorem which proves that the danger exists is valid
as far as I can say to the best of my knowledge.
When the CERN was turned on the first time in September
2008, before the serious accident and the long break
required for reparation work, newspapers around the World
and especially here in Switzerland were reporting in a 
very sensationalist manner. They did finally mention the
danger of a stable black hole and they often in a mocking
way mentioned the danger of the End of the World induced
by the LHC. We were pleased to see reporting on the LHC
but we were unhappy how the press - with some exceptions
- handled it. How did you experience the media coverage
in 2008?
I was not too disappointed in 2008. There were quite a
few TV stations who reported about the alleged dangers
that I had been talking about - and I was not the first
of course - Walter Wagner must be mentioned. He started
almost 10 years ago and he has different concerns than I
have - but it's the second stage of the experiment with
lead nuclei rather than protons being smashed against
each other that he is warning off. I admire him. 
So you were saying that Wagner- who made the lawsuit
in Hawaii, the first lawsuit, I think, against the CERN
LHC - Wagner sees the danger in a later stage in the 
experiments than you.
Exactly. So we are kind of dividing the territory
between the two of us.
That is practical!
Yes. (Laughter).
It also makes us seem a little bit bigger. One thing I
find interesting is that in the meantime - I mean in the
2 years that have passed since I first learned of the
danger you where mentioning - many other theories have,
or some other theories have been published some are quite
serious and quite plausible others are a bit more
extravagant. What's your position on this ? I personally
think that your theory alone would warrant at least a
new security conference and to make sure that the danger
is handled before we go on with the CERN. But there are
now many other theories. What does that make?
I mean in principle it's nice not to be alone, especially
if you think you are right. And anyone who is on your side
is a great help. But some times of course some theories
are just a little bit possible so that the probabilities
attached to theories are different. And the one with the
worst probability (or the highest probability) is the
one that should be focused on. Because otherwise interest
will be lost if it turns out that some of the arguments
are not very valid when considered.
I agree with that. 
