from now closed LHC status thread: I had already skimmed this paper as it is a reference in the recently revised Safety Report (In fact that report borrows very heavily from this paper.) I have not put forth the effort to follow its details. (Not sure I could - It has been 42 years since I earned my Ph.D. in physics.) I am not “anti-LHC.”- In fact, I gave three quick simple reasons why in Paul Dixon's thread at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2003401&postcount=1606 is nonsense, so I should not be considered as "typical anti-LHC nut," but I do have a remotely possible concern, which I expect and hope you may be able to kill for me. First, however, I know of the "cosmic ray hits neutron star" argument and it is quite reassuring, but not impossible to negate, I think. Here is what I said on that in post 1524 of Paul's thread: "... the people at LHC, etc. … believe that the existance of neutron stars proves it has never happened as by their calculations even the fast BHs made by cosmic rays would have stopped inside and eaten all the neutron stars; but, many thousands of them, as pulsars, do exist etc. So for Paul not to be a "false profit" we also need either: (a) Even these "Fast (V = ~ C) BHs would be stopped in neutron star" calculations are wrong, Or (b) Cosmic ray production is relatively recent and local in origin and has not had time to find all the neutron stars that originally existed. I.e. some neutron stars ARE being eaten NOW and are seen as Paul's Type II supernovas. Note the recent large Argentine Auger detector of very high energy cosmic rays does show narrow space localization. (Why not a short production time period on cosmic scales also?) PLUS: "Paul not a false profit" needs some strange reason why these type II supernovas all look alike despite the widely different mass of the neutron star that is being eaten. - Perhaps the CR's BH eats a small fixed amount of the neutron star and "belches" the remaining mass out into space? ..." Please look at posts 1566 & 1580 of Paul's thread to see what I think may be a remotely possible, but highly improbable, real concern. See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1976366&postcount=1566 http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1980117&postcount=1580 and even the earlier: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1955247&postcount=1524 from which the above quote in blue was taken. I know nothing about the limits on the production of Tiny Black Holes, TBH, which you seem mainly to be commenting on in your post. I am concerned with those that either are created charged or acquire charge within the Earth. I hope you can tell me in terms I can understand why this is not a concern. Also do you know of any argument that shows that Quantum Effects cannot also stabilize tiny black holes, as they stabilize atoms against electrons radiating and spiraling into the nucleus as predicted by Maxwell’s equations? I.e. how do we know that the “final flash” ending the existence of the TBH is not “quantum blocked,” allowing the TBH to be stable? Personally the best argument I know implying that TBHs are not stable is that time is reversal for these sub-atomic events, so If they can be produced, then they can die by at least the reverse process, if the “final flash” of Hawking’s radiation is blocked by some “quantization effect.” I hope you have a stronger argument. Thank you.