The connection to the LHC safety issue, made here in addition, could portend that the question posed becomes as tabooed as today holds true for the question of whether CERN’s refusal to update its safety report for 4 years deserves any scientist’s or the media’s attention.
Or the other tabooed question of whether CERN can produce black holes — which was once one of the founding reasons for the LHC.

Please, dear colleagues: Do take this serious scientist’s question seriously irrespective of its connection to the LHC.

Hello, please, my intention in this blog here
is only to put a single questioning -
may be, there will be an anwer.

What about the existence of small stellar or planetary mass-like
black holes in double star systems where one of the companion is not
watchable because his light does not exist or is too faint ?

How to exclude that these cases of double stars
do not contain a (small stellar mass-like) black hole,
when there is no matter for accretion ?

In other words:

Please, to my opinion
not all relevant astronomical observations are
thoroughly investigated til today concerning
the existence of stellar black holes.

What about of stars which are changing their radial velocities
and where no companion star is watched ?

Is there a list of these cases ?

What about to derive from these astronomical data
an upper bound of danger (looking for all side effects
and put these into account)? — How to exclude small
planetar mass-like or small star mass-like blackholes, if they
have no matter for accretion and therefore cannot emit
x-rays ff ??

I regret that I have no knowledge about such analysis.

: end of Off-topic)

add “/comment-page-1” or “/comment-page-2” to the above url

Anyone interested in following this long thread in its entirety has to add these phrases to the url to get earlier comments.