I agree if the sentence is to be taken as implying that G&M did in fact use 'conservative or "worst case" assumptions' in the sense that they replaced some or all of their uncertainties with conservative assumptions or they replaced some or all of their uncertainties with "worst case" assumptions, or they replaced some or all of their uncertainties with assumptions that are both conservative and "worst case".

So I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, and chalk up that little "or" to a simple typographical error or a benign Freudian slip of the tongue that shouldn't be given too much weight (as perhaps was Praga, who bent over backwards to be respectful of G&M).

But I guess you are right, Jim, and I am wrong. Because otherwise, why would G&M go to the trouble to point out two missing letters?

But if that's the case, think about what that implies: that G&M did not in fact use "worst case" assumptions to replace all of the uncertainties they encountered. And that in turn implies that their analysis is not in fact entirely based on "worst case" assumptions. Therefore, their claim that the LHC will be harmless is in fact uncertain--by their own admission!

How disingenuous of them to say there is no risk!

All the more reason to not trust what CERN's paid flacks have to say. . . .