Even if there is just 1 in 50 million chance of anything going wrong this scares the life out of me…

I'm going to toss in some perspective here. I'll assume that you live in the U.S.

From: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm (stats are from 2006, I believe)

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

• Heart disease: 631,636
• Cancer: 559,888
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
• Diabetes: 72,449
• Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
• Septicemia: 34,234

Estimated 2006 population was 299 million ( http://www.prb.org/pdf06/06WorldDataSheet.pdf )

So, heart disease killed about 2% of the population in 2006. Cancer about 1.8%, etc. In other words, you have about a 3.98% chance of dying from heart disease or cancer. That's about 1 in 25.

@TheGreatJuju: Please disregard the previous post, it was ment as a response to DeadxNurse. And for what it is worth, I acctually found your post calming, mostly because this gutfeeling I had derived from Rösslers statements. You did indeed put things in a little perspective for me, and for that I am grateful=)

I realized that about the time I got involved in replying. In any case, I'm glad you found the post before of some use. Please note the Phil Plait quote above, also. Cheers.

you will be hit by bus driven by a drunken zombie named Evil Presley, while sprouting wings and spontaneously combusting.

That… sounds… AWESOME! Must try.

Remember kids, don't try this at home.

At any rate, Juju is right.

If Rössler, and several other scientists are even close to being correct in their thoughts on LHC and potential hazzards"

They aren't, so we can worry about other things, such as whether the LHC actually delivers.

I acctually found the analogy made by the LASG team quite disturbing, seing as the conditions during these collisions isn't even remotely close to those observed in space

What is the significant difference, in your opinion?

Ruleing out the possibility of MBH's solely based on that analogy is as close to stupidity a scientist can come.

See above.

only the higher energy outputs (around 13-14Tev)

Which remain a tiny fraction of that occurring in nature on a constant basis.

it's the uncertainty of how those would interact with other materia that got me worried.

Why? The doomsday claims have been refuted.

But since that theory obviously is unproven, I for one wouldn't want to find out that no such thing existed the hard way (i.e. evolving MBH)

The Phil Plait article I linked to above correctly states, "While that’s technically true, they forgot something important: the same rules of quantum physics that make a black hole in a subatomic collision also indicate they would evaporate. So if you’re worried they won’t evaporate, then you shouldn’t be worried they’d be created in the first place."

Even if there is just 1 in 50 million chance of anything going wrong this scares the life out of me

Richard, there's probably a greater chance that you will be hit by a bus driven by a drunken zombie named Evil Presley, while sprouting wings and spontaneously combusting.

Edit:

"The way I see it, the probabilities of being struck by lightning while standing in a mud puddle, naked while singing Kumbaya are higher than any of these scenarios occurring."

I was beaten to the punch. ;)

Life is simple, the only thing that life is bound to is death. If you're going to be paranoid about dying due to a doomsday scenario, then you may as well just become a hermit and not go anywhere because every day that you breathe, you're taking the chance of dying, even if you stay in your house.

Each and every day there are threats ranging from bacteria and infections and viruses to fires, accidents and natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes and even strong winds during a thunder storm.

The way I see it, the probabilities of being struck by lightning while standing in a mud puddle, naked while singing Kumbaya are higher than any of these scenarios occurring.

No one can foresee the future, thus I see no logical reason why anyone should live in a paranoid state over something that's more unlikely than seeing Godzilla hugging a tree.

(Godzilla is a fictional character, by the way)

I also think that it would be better if everyone could sit down, think things through, eat a Poptart, drink a glass of milk, maybe tell a few jokes, perhaps even play some Bingo like little old ladies.

The moral here is to live, not cease to exist because of a few silly claims.

And by the way malfunctions like the one you described has already occured in the LHC complex, which is (I think) the reason for why doomsayers now can add this event to the possible scenarios in 2012/2013 when the LHC will be running at full speed for the first time. That is, if they stay on schedule this time. The test you mention was conducted at half of LHC's designed speed, and you are correct, we are still here=)

But the general concerns doesn't really apply to such "low" energy outputs, only the higher energy outputs (around 13-14Tev) when scientists expect to find the Higgs Boson. At these energy levels some scientists claim that MHB's might be created, and it's the uncertainty of how those would interact with other materia that got me worried. Since the only thing LASG states is that such MBH would disinteregate due to Hawkings radiation. But since that theory obviously is unproven, I for one wouldn't want to find out that no such thing existed the hard way (i.e. evolving MBH)

Even if there is just 1 in 50 million chance of anything going wrong this scares the life out of me (as goes for the rest of the doomsday events, even though they have been debunked). I just can't let go off the feeling that something bad is going to happen in a near future. Even though I know that most claims of an impending doomsday lack any kind of credible source whatsoever this whole silly thing has caught my focus entirely

Well, except one perhaps, the LHC.

What does the LHC have to do with 2012?

but they didn't really adress the most vital points the opponents of LHC has made (Rössler et al).

Rossler (I'm too lazy to spell his name properly) believes the LHC will create black holes and destroy the world. In what way did the aforementioned articles not address this claim?

LASG bases most of their statements on the asumption that our understanding of physics is sufficient/correct, but what if it isn't?"

It isn't an assumption. Science works by molding theories around observations and testable predictions. Of course it isn't complete, but you incur a rather substantial burden by stating the world might be destroyed when an abundance of evidence and calculation says otherwise.

They assume that if a microscopic black hole where to be created, then it would be in an unstable form and thus cease to exist basicly in an instant «

Again, it isn't an assumption. It's a calculation. Most doomsday claims about black holes don't even bother with that. Rossler did, at least, and has been refuted for his trouble:

http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/NicolaiFurtherComment-en.pdf

(only leaving behind the still-to-be-proven Hawkings radiation). «

Science doesn't deal in "proof." It deals in evidence. The current evidence for Hawking radiation is admittedly not yet a slam dunk, but ancillary observations like the Sokolov–Ternov effect (and possibly the Unruh effect) support the theory. Regardless of this, Rossler's objections are based on bad science, as shown in the CERN EI statement above.

Yeah, it's CERN, but please consider what the authors say rather than just dismissing it as self-serving propaganda. They demolish Rossler's position in a concise four-page paper.

But, they go on saying that even if a stable MBH where to be created it wouldn't pose any direct danger, since it would be either slow-growing or not growing at all.

Actually, "they" are skeptical that the LHC is capable of creating a mBH at all.

Rössler on the other hand seem to think that there is a probability that the MBH could be growing exponentially instead of in an linear way, and that sure as hell wouldn't be good, would it?=)

Good thing Rossler is completely wrong, eh?

…the folks at CERN are frequently hinting at some analogical studies made on cosmic rays interaction with the moon and stellar bodies, pointing at the fact that they are bombarded with cosmic rays with thousand times the intensity of those hypothetically being created in the LHC without MBH's popping up anywhere. This kind of reasoning seems to be a little naive, a bit like the childish saying "if you can't see it, it doesn't exist". «

Actually, it's a bit like saying, "If energy many orders of magnitude greater than anything LHC is capable of doesn't create catastrophic black holes on a daily basis, then it's highly unlikely LHC will create catastrophic black holes."

I mean, even if there is the slightest risk of an rogue MBH being created must be enough to postpone all activity untill it is 100% clear that this kind of science won't cause our entire earth to disappear in a second.

There's no such thing as "100% clear." I don't even know what you think that means in a scientific context. I doubt there's a 100% chance your microwave won't create a black hole the next time you have leftovers. There is, however, no remotely compelling reason to think "the entire earth" will "disappear in a second."

…but I simply can't shake the feeling that this is going to end badly.

You keep talking about your feelings, and I'm truly sorry you feel as you do, but feelings don't make good arguments and aren't something I can address with counter-arguments. I've laid out my understanding of the subjects at hand, and I don't know what else to do. All I'm getting from you at this point is, "I'm afraid because I have a bad feeling," even though you yourself acknowledge the lack of any evidential basis for these fears. Even your worries about the LHC are rooted in the bad science of Otto Rossler (and maybe others, I dunno). Sincerely, I wish I knew what to say in the interest of chilling you out on these matters, but I seem to be at a loss. :|

Best regards.

I would be more-so worried about the fools who are hell-bent on proving that something is going to happen, be it a localized disaster or a global disaster, those who are hell-bent on proving such a catastrophe would most likely go to extreme lengths to prove something, but that wouldn't be a natural disaster, instead it would be a man-made disaster.

In all actuality, we humans are our own biggest threat.

For example…
If you walk down the street, you don't risk getting struck by an asteroid, you don't risk getting struck by lightning, you don't risk being sucked into a black-hole, you don't even risk falling into a crack created by an earthquake that just happened to occur at the exact time that you started to go for a walk- Instead, you risk getting shot by a gun, you risk getting stabbed, you risk getting beaten to death, you risk getting hit by a car.

There are more threats created by us than there are created by mother-nature herself.

The LHC project (to my knowledge) has already been proven to be successful, they've already tested it and guess what, we're still here.

They assume that if a microscopic black hole where to be created, then it would be in an unstable form and thus cease to exist basicly in an instant (only leaving behind the still-to-be-proven Hawkings radiation). But, they go on saying that even if a stable MBH where to be created it wouldn't pose any direct danger, since it would be either slow-growing or not growing at all. Rössler on the other hand seem to think that there is a probability that the MBH could be growing exponentially instead of in an linear way, and that sure as hell wouldn't be good, would it?=)

On the other hand, the folks at CERN are frequently hinting at some analogical studies made on cosmic rays interaction with the moon and stellar bodies, pointing at the fact that they are bombarded with cosmic rays with thousand times the intensity of those hypothetically being created in the LHC without MBH's popping up anywhere. This kind of reasoning seems to be a little naive, a bit like the childish saying "if you can't see it, it doesn't exist". I mean, even if there is the slightest risk of an rogue MBH being created must be enough to postpone all activity untill it is 100% clear that this kind of science won't cause our entire earth to disappear in a second.

I know that the folks at CERN are most competent when it comes to science and all, but I simply can't shake the feeling that this is going to end badly. Again, sorry for my ramble on the subject, just wanted to know if there is some real reason for concern or if it's just all in my head (again)=)

It seems to me that there actually is an increase of earthquakes in that region of the US (the m7.2 pops in to my mind).

There have been increases and decreases in that region, and everywhere else in the world, for as long as reasonable records have been kept and probably for the duration of history. An "increase" in any particular week, month or year is not significant, unless you can somehow show that it is.

it's most likelly the way you guys say, a part of earth's natural cycle.

I'm not saying that there's a cycle. On the contrary, I'm saying there's no reason to think there's any cycle at all. To call earthquake prediction spotty is an understatement. Even if there is a cycle, nobody has figured it out yet, and this year's numbers so far are not statistically unusual. See this link provided by Alene in another thread:

http://geology.rockbandit.net/2010/03/01/has-there-been-an-increase-in-earthquake-activity/

But all this stuff still scares me quite a lot

Why? I know that may not be entirely within your control, but exactly which point have you raised that has not been addressed sufficiently to allay your fears?

even those crazy ideas about the LHC and its part in the doomsday (even though I'm fairly confident that the scientist at CERN knows what they are doing).

What specifically concerns you regarding the LHC? The black hole mess? If so, those claims have been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/01/science-debunks.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/29/no-the-lhc-wont-destroy-the-earth/

As I said before, my rational side has dismissed this whole hysteria a long time ago, but some side of me still grasps for strains of evidence of an impending doomsday. I personally don't know why I'm so keen on proving myself right on this matter but this whole thing has become an obsession that goes well beyond my own comprehensionabilities.

As far as the numbers I've got, they are indeed from the USGS site: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/graphs.php

I also managed to find out where another thread author of this site got his/hers numbers from: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/california-sees-increase-in-earthquake-sesimologists-fight-twitter-rumors.html
The last link was regarding the increase(?) of m4 earthquakes in the California region that was mentioned in another thread, which seems to be somewhat correct. It seems to me that there actually is an increase of earthquakes in that region of the US (the m7.2 pops in to my mind).

I'm not saying that this goes as evidence for the doomsday, it's most likelly the way you guys say, a part of earth's natural cycle. But all this stuff still scares me quite a lot, even those crazy ideas about the LHC and its part in the doomsday (even though I'm fairly confident that the scientist at CERN knows what they are doing).

If you have read our page on Nancy Lieder and still believe anything she says, you might as well be looking for her Pumpkinhead or Chicken Man aliens as for Nibiru.

I simply can't get it to add up.

What doesn't add up?

which is somewhere around 18 in average per month.

Bad stats. Just because the average so far might be ~18 per month, that doesn't mean there were actually 18 quakes in that magnitude range per month. Many of those quakes were likely aftershocks that occurred in the days following larger quakes. Taking that dubious average and multiplying it by 12 is an ad hoc "prediction" with no discernible connection to reality.

That would give an total of 216 +-for this year

No, it doesn't. But even if true, why is that significant?

But perhaps it is impossible to calculate earthquakes by averages?

I don't know what you mean by "calculate earthquakes." If you're referring to the number of quakes, the only way to calculate that is to count them.

Could there be some kind of cycle when it comes seismic activity, when we could expect to experience more/less activity?

The number of quakes fluctuates from year to year. So far, geologically speaking, 2010 has been unremarkable.

As of today (more or less) there has been a total of 73 registered magnitude 6 - 6.9 earthquakes world wide, which is somewhere around 18 in average per month. That would give an total of 216 +-for this year, when the total for last year was around 142 (I think). But perhaps it is impossible to calculate earthquakes by averages? Could there be some kind of cycle when it comes seismic activity, when we could expect to experience more/less activity?

Furthermore I came to think of one thing last day, that isn't really linked to seismic activity but more to the whole 2012 phenomena. If there was a planet heading towards earth, and arriving late 2012, wouldn't it be visible to the naked eye by now, even in the day? I know Nancy Lieder stated that planet X (or was it Nibiru?) was/is about 4 times as big as the earth. Such a big object must be quite visible by now, wouldn't it?

Finally, why is it said that an oncomming planet would increase seismic activity here on earth? Is it thanks to the gravitational pull from the other object, or are there some other factors that would contribute to the increase? I'm thorn between on the one hand accepting the whole planet x/nibiru saga as the gigantic fraud that it most likely and on the other just spend my days watching the sky for signs of an fiery ball comming towards us (which is part of my OCD I suppose).

I'm sorry that this post turned out to be quite long, I just had to get all the questions out of my system for now=)

I think that I've seen it at one point, but I'm not 100% sure. I definitely haven't seen it recently.

1). The History Channel's former series called "MegaDisasters: Yellowstone" talked about Yellowstone's magma chamber had entered the red zone; however, I don't recall seeing another source concuring with this statement. More than likely, it's either inaccurate or outdated information. In either case, it's an incorrect and unsubstantiated statement.

2). As to records being broken, I would like to double check this.

The statement of this clip is that Yellowstone has entered the red zone of seismic activity (according to Lawrence E Josephs, author of apocalypse 2012) and could have a violent eruption any day now.

Here is a link to the clip, but most of the clip is Swedish (except the previously mentioned authors comment in around 0:50): http://www.aftonbladet.se/webbtv/nyheter/tema/article6996260.ab

This statement is quite confussing to me, since there is no indication of such an alarming seismic activity on USGS site. So, why even bother to lie about something that so easilly can be checked for certain? But again, thank you for taking the time to answer even the silliest questions. This site has been a blessing for me, partly because I suffer from OCD/anxiety over this subject, and this site is almost the only thing that calms my mind when I get stuck in "doomsday thinking".

The most likely type of eruption at Yellowstone per the USGS is steam. The most likely type of volcanic eruption would be lava flows.

There are so many real things that are far more likely to kill you, such as heart disease and auto accidents. People are spending far too much time worrying about things that they will never see in their lifetimes. The world has had natural disasters for billions of years and will continue to do so for a few billion more.

As the summary said, is there anybody that have seen this "documentary" on Discovery Chanel (2012 apocalypse)?"

I have not seen it, but I don't watch much TV.

It seems like there is acctually some factual basis behind the statements in the program

Which statements?

They are talking about a gigantic tsunami being created if one of the super volcanos under water where to erupt. Could this acctually happen or is it a fictual event.

I suppose that's entirely possible, but it also might happen at any time, just like massive coronal mass ejections, thunderstorms and other phenomena. Or it might never happen. In any case, what does it have to do with 2012?

Yellowstone does seem to be more active then before (judging by USGS volvano survey there has been some kind of record broken this year).

Do you have a link? It must be a Yellowstone-specific record, because no volcano records for the earth in general have been set this year so far, that I'm aware of. Even if there is some record, what does it have to do with 2012? What about all the other years in which records were set?

Is this something that acctually might become a real danger in the near future?

The earth is geologically active. I'll tell you the same thing I tell the killer solar flare crowd —- if you're going to be afraid, you should be prepared to be afraid for the rest of your life, because the universe doesn't operate according to human hoaxes like the 2012 doomsday. It's much more productive to simply accept that things happen, but life has been here for 3.5 billion years and is still going. There's no more reason to think something catastrophic is coming now than yesterday, nor do I anticipate any more of a reason in 2012 than now.

Could anyone here look at the program and tell me wheter it present any real evidence of an impending apocalypse.

Despite not having seen it, I'm guessing "no." ;)

As the summary said, is there anybody that have seen this "documentary" on Discovery Chanel (2012 apocalypse)? It seems like there is acctually some factual basis behind the statements in the program, etcetera the consequenses if Yellowstone for example where to have an eruption (or some of the other super volcanos for that matter). They are talking about a gigantic tsunami being created if one of the super volcanos under water where to erupt. Could this acctually happen or is it a fictual event.

Perhaps this "documentary" shouldn't be taken to seriously, being that most of the videomaterial is taken from Roland Emmerich's move 2012. But then again, Yellowstone does seem to be more active then before (judging by USGS volvano survey there has been some kind of record broken this year). Is this something that acctually might become a real danger in the near future? Could anyone here look at the program and tell me wheter it present any real evidence of an impending apocalypse. I would be forever grateful if someone could calm my worried mind. Btw, sorry for the poor spelling, I'm from Sweden=)