To answer your question as to whether I would attach the infinite weight you attribute to it, the answer would be No — but I do believe the report needs to be revisited — and updated.

Is it too much of a nuisance if I ask you to answer my point above rather than referring to a maximally complicated and not yet very enlightening set of texts that in part are said to have been removed violently?

Making simple statements is required in cases of an un-disproved danger. Such statements I tried to make in the above updated text. Please, say where you disagree.

Even better: Please, use your good contacts to Giddings and Mangano to entice them to write an update on their for 4 years un-updated safety report? The whole planet is waiting as you know. Their firm’s continuing without any public justification given is nothing the public can accept.

Time is running out. Please, be so kind as to help us all, Otto

Otto — no I do not assume charged black holes — I assume uncharged back holes as this is the criteria you set. Please read my paper which references your concerns linked above — it is just five pages excluding the appendices.

About the first point — G&M derive the stopping distances within WD, caused by both a Coulomb effect where collisions result in a particle scattering and by accretion slow-down where the MBH absorbs particles, to be inversely proportional, not to the capture radius, but to the mass density near the capture radius. Therefore debating a smaller size MBH radius does not change the proposed stopping distance unless you can also find a weakness/oversight in the G&M derived eq for MBH stopping distances (see second half of G&M paper section 5.2.3 page 33).

The second point also deserves clarification to be integrated into the above text.

The third point is intriguing. I happen to believe in a new source for cosmic rays existing — black hole mergers. Here the unfinished smaller one’s infalling particles would be “recycled” through the formation of a “separatrix in spacetime” near the horizon of the larger one inside the latter’s Reeb foliation in spacetime (unpublished work with Dieter Fröhlich).

So the possibility of a sub-population in cosmic rays of ultra-fast neutrons is not entirely excluded so far, I feel. Cosmic-ray observatories should soon reveal whether identifiable “straight sources” exist apart from gamma ray sources.

Also I should clarify that I believe the case of WD safety assurance is more concerned with the magnetic field estimates of distant WD, not of the MBH size.

As for uncharged CR, it is my understanding that these would not have been accelerated to sufficient energy levels to compare with LHC energies, or at least not have a known sufficiently high flux, to be considered in the safety debate — though if you know of some research which suggests otherwise please let me know, as it would endorse the safety assurances — in overcoming said magnetic field concerns.