Actually, an observer falling into a black hole will hit the singularity in a finite (and generally very small) period of time. Someone outside will never see the person ever get in though.
Also, electrical impulses are transmitted at only about 300 kilometres per hour, not kilometres per second. Electricity flows at nearly the speed of light, but impulses in nerves are limited to the speed at which the intracellular and extracellular potentials can be reversed (i.e. how fast potassium ions can get out and sodium ions can get in) and the speed at which neurotransmitters can be released and interpreted.
And as for the "but we're not 100% sure it's safe" thoughts, you guys should get over it already. Really, why doesn't the Sun suddenly disappear, or why doesn't friction simply stop existing and we all condense with the Earth into a sphere(oid) bound only by gravity? Just as we might be wrong about quantum mechanics/particle physics/whatever, we might have a fundamentally wrong view on something much simpler, and it might also spell our death. Empirical evidence however confirms that the laws of the Universe hold with time, and don't just change randomly. If the Standard Model has made consistently good predictions, why should you worry about it failing in favour of something with scarce experimental evidence?
If you're not at ease with an empirical argument, here's a mathematical one. To make a black hole you have to squeeze mass (or energy, one implies the other does it not?) into a VERY small space to achieve conditions that could produce black holes. Specifically, the Schwarzchild radius for a mass of 10 PeV, which is higher than even the lead-lead collisions the LHC is capable of working with, is around 10^-31 m, which is 10 quadrillion times smaller than a proton. There is no equipment on Earth capable of even measuring 10^-20 m currently, and much less operate with those scales. Even if the extremely improbable event of one being formed actually happens, it's probably going to fly through ordinary matter in much the same way a neutrino does, except it might interact with matter even less (neutrinos interact by gravity, since they have been proven to possess mass, and by the weak force, while AFAIK black holes have no weak hypercharge, colour or electrical charge; only gravity would be involved. Granted, the LHC micro black hole would weigh considerably more than a neutrino, and therefore feel more gravitational force, but gravity is so inherently weak at those scales that the Standard Model doesn't even take it into account and yet is a formidably precise theory). And considering you need a wall of lead a light-year thick to block half the neutrinos that pass through it, I'm pretty sure that is saying something.
That's about my take on it, of course. Feel free to criticize.
Edit: Made a mistake in the Schwarzchild radius calculation, so I updated it. |