2008년 하와이 법원을 상대로 낸 Wagner의 ``(블랙홀 생성으로) LHC가 세상을 멸망시킬 수 있으니" 가동을 중단할 것을 요청한 소송이 기각되었다는 소식 (Symmetry breaking)
판사의 판단은 과학적 근거에 비추어 보아도 타당하기에 소송 기각을 환영합니다.extrad, Aug 2008
예전엔 John Ellis가 했던 "LHC가 인류에게 위협이 아닌 것은 확실하다. 하지만 인간이 LHC에 위협이 아닌지는 모른다"는 걱정이 다행히 이번 소송에선 좋은 결과로 나타난 셈이죠.
기각 사유는 크게 두가지 입니다.
**해악에 대한 위협(credible threat of harm)을 증명하지 못했고,
**CERN이 LHC에 대한 소유권, 관리권 그리고 운영 책임을 모두 지고 있다
다시 말하면 피해 혹은 그 위협을 입증하지 못했고, 또 소송 상대를 잘 못 선택 (^^::)했다는 거죠.
영어 판결문을 읽어보는 것도 재밌을 것 같아 전체 본문을 옮겨놓습니다. [via Symmetry Meagazine]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
Helen Gillmor, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 17, 2010
Before: B. FLETCHER, PREGERSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Walter L. Wagner (“Wagner”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claim against the United States Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation (collectively, “the U.S. government”), and others. The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, which we repeat here only to the extent necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
This court can affirm on any ground supported by the record. Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th Cir. 2008). We review questions of standing de novo, Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2010), and factual findings for clear error. Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2009). To establish standing, Wagner must demonstrate (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of” that is not attributable to “the independent action of some third party not before the court,” and (3) a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
Wagner cannot demonstrate that he has standing. A plaintiff alleging a procedural injury, such as Wagner, must still establish injury in fact. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t. of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003). Injury in fact requires some “credible threat of harm.” Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 950 (9th Cir. 2002). At most, Wagner has alleged that experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (the “Collider”) have “potential adverse consequences.” Speculative fear of future harm does not constitute an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing. Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 970.
Even if Wagner has demonstrated injury in fact, he nevertheless fails to satisfy the causality or redressability prongs set out in Lujan. The European Center for Nuclear Research (“CERN”) proposed and constructed the Collider, albeit with some U.S. government support. The U.S. government enjoys only observer status on the CERN council, and has no control over CERN or its operations. Accordingly, the alleged injury, destruction of the earth, is in no way attributable to the U.S. government’s failure to draft an environmental impact statement.
CERN maintains total ownership, management, and operational control of the Collider. CERN has never been properly served, and is not a party to this case. Even if this court were to render a decision in Wagner’s favor, such a decision would have no impact on CERN or Collider operations, and would not afford Wagner the relief he seeks. [[Because our determination of standing is not dependent on the identity of the Appellant, we need not address whether Luis Sancho is a party to this appeal.]]