That's the main issue I have with the safety report, the assumption that:

"cosmic rays do not produce such black holes, and hence neither will the LHC" -Quote from the new LSAG safety report.

This new report appears to provide evidence that when a stray cosmic ray particle collides with Earth or a Neutron star, dangerous black holes are not produced.

Of course neutral black holes would exit Earth at relativistic speeds and it seems dubious that an electron could be gravitationally captured but not consumed while traveling at relativistic speeds, making the micro black hole charged. I would also like more support for the assumption that a micro black hole would necessarily become charged or otherwise grow rapidly in a neutron star as opposed to Earth which might provide very different feeding material, but I am still studying the report and still asking questions.

My primary concern however is the that the report appears to not adequately address the safety of colliding thousands of tightly packed anti-matter particles head on against thousands of tightly packed matter particles at 99.9999991% of the speed of light with powerful magnets and exactly opposing momentums to focus the energy. Conditions that might create dangerous black holes at rest with respect to Earth.

This report asks us to make one heck of an assumption I think, that a single cosmic ray particle impact with Earth or Neutron stars will produce the same results as colliding thousands of anti-matter particles head on against thousands of matter particles with powerful magnets and exactly opposing momentums to focus the energy produce non-relativistic results. We are asked to accept that these conditions must create the same results, without scientific explaination to support what appears to me to be a rather questionable assumption "hence neither will the LHC".

I am very interested in what the world's scientists conclude after examining this report in detail.
I for one would prefer to take what ever time is necessary to assure reasonable safety before collisions begin.

LHCFacts.org

Find the answers you seek at LHCFacts.com...

...Three strongly disputed assumptions may mean the difference between Life or Death for Earth… Micro Black holes (MBH) are created or not, MBH decay or not, MBH grow extremely slowly or not. Collisions Scheduled to begin late 2008.

"Cosmic rays with much higher engeries hit the Earth all the time. The LHC will not do anything that hasn't already occurred on Earth many times before, but in case you haven't noticed... we're still here!"

CERN's own LHC Safety Assessment Group has long ago rejected that theory... it is still used as public calming propaganda, but that is all.

Hint: Results of cosmic rays exit through the planet at relativistic speeds, fly right through it... no danger from cosmic rays... Head-on collisions create slow moving results, like a factory that can not dispose of its toxic waist...

LHCFacts.org... "...then nothing..."

How much time might be required before analysis of GLAST data might indicate proof or rejection of Hawking Radiation theory?

This could be critical in determining the safety of the Large Hadron Collider, due to begin collisions later this year.

Unlike what CERN tells the public, the Large Hadron Collider Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) writes that current safety arguments are not valid proof of safety. Micro black holes might be created by the Large Hadron Collider, they might not evaporate, they might grow quickly and we have not been damaged by cosmic rays because cosmic rays pass harmlessly through Earth. CERN also tells the public that a new safety report has been completed, but so far the final report has not been released for review by world's scientists.

The legal complaint before US Federal Court in Hawaii demands 4 months to review this safety report and a permanent injunction if safety can not be assured to within reasonable industry standards. First hearing is scheduled for June 16, 2008.

Learn more at LHCFacts.org

2008 ... this prediction is not without its problems... no very good responses to these concerns... completely alters the picture drawn by Hawking... [arxiv.org]

2008 ... Max-Plank-Institut fur Astrophysik: The results indicate that on average, "low mass" black holes of less than a hundred million solar masses are still growing at a significant rate. [www.mpa-garching.mpg.de]

2004 ... it may be a long time before we have sufficient knowledge of quantum gravity to be able to calculate the correct answers for the logarithmic terms in the entropy. [arxiv.org]

2004 ... 9.9% average doubt, ranging from 0% to 50% doubt by 15 physicists polled: [www.lhcconcerns.com] even before much of the peer reviewed credible rejection of Hawking Radiation was published

2003 ... Yet this prediction rests on two dubious assumptions... no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes: [arxiv.org]

1900s ... Albert Einstein's theories require that black holes only grow, they never shrink, not even light can exit a black hole

JTankers
LHCConcerns.com

JTankers
LHCConcerns.com

Have you see the Dilbert Oops article?

And who exactly ran the numbers to decide it wasn't that risky? After all, the whole point of the Large Hadron Collider is to create conditions that are not predictable. If someone already predicted what would happen using nothing but his laptop and Excel, and determined it was safe, I don't think we're getting our $8 billion worth.

I can't see the management of this project spending $8 billion, realizing it was a huge boner, and then holding a press conference suggesting it be turned into a parking garage. I'll bet a lot of people in that position would take at least a 5% risk of incinerating the galaxy versus incinerating their own careers. I know I would.

However, cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, and Hawking Radiation is disputed ([arxiv.org]) and contradicts Einstein's highly successful relativity theory. Collider particles smash head on like a car collision and can be captured by Earth's gravity, and relativity predicts micro black holes will not decay (Hawking called Einstein doubly wrong, yet it is Einstein who is repeatedly found to have been correct in his theories). There is currently no reasonable proof of LHC safety, LSAG (LHC Safety Assessment Group) has been trying for months to prove safety without success. I hold the minority opinion that it may not be possible because it may in fact not be safe.

Cosmic Rays from the legal complaint.

…any such novel particle created in nature by cosmic ray impacts would be left with a velocity at nearly the speed of light, relative to earth. At such speeds, …, is believed by most theorists to simply pass harmlessly through our planet with nary an impact, safely exiting on the other side. … Conversely, any such novel particle that might be created at the LHC would be at slow speed relative to earth, a goodly percentage would then be captured by earth's gravity, and could possibly grow larger [accrete matter] with disastrous consequences of the earth turning into a large black hole.

If this thing is so safe, why aren't CERN scientists allowed to express any personal fears they might have about this Collider?

Alleged in the legal action: Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of 'minimal risk'.

(Statisticians generally consider minimal risk as 1-10%).

However, cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, and Hawking Radiation is disputed ([arxiv.org]) and contradicts Einstein's highly successful relativity theory. Collider particles smash head on like a car collision and can be captured by Earth's gravity, and relativity predicts micro black holes will not decay (Hawking called Einstein doubly wrong, yet it is Einstein who is repeatedly found to have been correct in his theories). There is currently no reasonable proof of LHC safety, LSAG (LHC Safety Assessment Group) has been trying for months to prove safety without success. I hold the minority opinion that it may not be possible because it may in fact not be safe.

Cosmic Rays from the legal complaint.

…any such novel particle created in nature by cosmic ray impacts would be left with a velocity at nearly the speed of light, relative to earth. At such speeds, …, is believed by most theorists to simply pass harmlessly through our planet with nary an impact, safely exiting on the other side. … Conversely, any such novel particle that might be created at the LHC would be at slow speed relative to earth, a goodly percentage would then be captured by earth's gravity, and could possibly grow larger [accrete matter] with disastrous consequences of the earth turning into a large black hole.

If this thing is so safe, why aren't CERN scientists allowed to express any personal fears they might have about this Collider?

Alleged in the legal action: Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of 'minimal risk'.

Sincerely, JTankers LHCConcerns.com