I would classify a supposedly scientific paper that "sat on figures" and "was instructed about the desired conclusion" as a fraud. If you would prefer "whitewash" (a word you did use) instead of "fraud" I would be happy to change in the future.

just think it is funny that an official LHC risk assessment paper presumably designed to reassure fails to come up with any probabilities - and just says: "it's safe".To someone like me, that makes it look as though it is primarily a PR exercise.

But the paper was quite a bit longer than "it's safe," seemed quite correct (though particle physics isn't my field), and indeed gave you enough information to calculate approximate probabilities yourself if you wanted to. So to me it looks like you're judging on only a tiny part of the information you actually have.