Sorry, but that your point is so obviously wrong, it went right over my head. Even Giddings and Mangano say that the wrong kind mBH could be potentially problematic on timescales of 10⁵ years. They at least give lip service to environmental ethics and agree that destroying the Earth in 300,000 years would be a bad thing. Maybe you think that's not a bad thing. You'd be wrong.

That's why Giddings and Mangano do the whole white dwarf and neutron star song and dance. They wouldn't have to if their calculations showed that all conceivable mBH's producible by the LHC would not potentially gobble up the Earth on time scales shorter than the predicted future lifetime of the Solar System.

Plaga, of course, gives plausible reasons for thinking that a mBH could grow to the size of a kilogram in a fraction of a second. Yes, G&M, in their rebuttal say that Plaga's calculations were off by 23 orders of magnitude. But it turns out that Plaga wasn't using the equation they said he was. So where does that leave us?

And the white dwarf argument is not without problems. I reproduced here the equation in G&M that's supposed to constrain the theoretical variation in cosmic ray produced mBH's stopping lengths within white dwarfs with weak magnetic fields (it turns out that the vast majority of white dwarfs are protected from cosmic rays by powerful magnetic fields). There is a term (D - 5) in the denominator, implying that the whole equation blows up when D = 5 such that the stopping lengths of 5th dimensional mBH's (the most dangerous kind) within white dwarfs are completely unconstrained. This is such a glaring hole in G&M's argument, I thought for sure that I must be massively wrong somehow. Yet who has stepped up to the plate and showed me the error of my ways?

There are other potential problems with the astrophysical argument as well. I refer you to my earlier posts since you don't have the time or inclination to read the primary literature.

No. It is not me that is doing the ignoring around here.

To return to the topic of the day, and keep the thread moving in a noncircle, I'd like to return to Master Neverfly's contention that physics is not on the verge of a Kuhnian paradigm shift:
As the paper was saying: something's got to give--either in particle physics or in astrophysics. Either dark matter and dark energy will have to be brought out of the cold and somehow fitted into our theories of ordinary matter and energy--which will require a revolution in particle physics--or else dark matter and dark energy will have to be done away with altogether--which will require a rewriting of the laws of gravity. Either way, that's a huge source of uncertainty. The theoretical core of modern physics is rotting out. That does not bode well for arguments that purport to guarantee the safety of the LHC. We need to be as certain that the LHC will not destroy Mother Earth as that Warren Platts will not win the Nobel Prize in physics tomorrow. I think the latter is more certain; that's not right.