Although I have already mentioned a recent technical note on the application of Astronomical Observation to LHC/Collider Safety in comments to other posts here and there, I have not posted specifically about it until now. So finally, a short mention:

The technical note follows on from a modest paper I wrote in 2012 (Discussions on the Hypothesis that Cosmic Ray Exposure on Sirius B Negates Terrestrial MBH Concerns from Colliders), which concerned micro-black hole (MBH) production and the white dwarf safety assurance. There I demonstrated that not only are most white dwarf stars not suitable as a safety assurance, but that those hand-picked for the 2008 safety report had magnetic field strength measured to just 99% confidence within the range for safety assurance. That is not to say that the LHC safety argument was only 99% reliable — just that one of the cornerstone assurances was. The affirmation of these measurements was needed for a safety assurance to LHC p-p collisions based on astronomical observations – as a safety assurance that is not based on Hawking Radiation theory — but based on verifiable measurement. The technical note captures the official LSAG (CERN) response on the matter after internal review at CERN in late 2012, which had remained archived from email discussions until recently, when those conclusions were formalised into this technical note:

Link to the technical note: http://environmental-safety.webs.com/TechnicalNote-EnvSA01.pdf

That conclusion was fortunately, as expected, one of safety: significant progress had been made on the accuracy of B field measurement technology since the original 2008 safety report — and after a survey of latest literature, one finds that there are now extensive examples of WD with fields measured with uncertainty ranges within the 1–100 kG range required for assurance. However — despite an eventual conclusion of safety on this one matter (MBH concerns from p-p collisions) I would like to reiterate a point that I made back in 2008, that there is an obligation on industry to keep safety debate open and honest. We are not likely to see credible argument on any of the other concerns to LHC operations (strangelet production, magnetic monopoles, de sitter space transitions and vacuum bubbles, and so on), but these discussions do illustrate that re-visitations can be necessary.

Whilst onwards we strive to find new understandings to the universe, and to engineer new ways of being, we need to stand back and take a look at where we are, lest we get lost.