Eq. , one finds that: $$\label{eq:xi2}
\xi_{ij}t\simeq (7.33 \times 10^{-36} \text{s$^{-1}$eV$^2$}) \frac{t}{E^2} \,.$$ Here we have taken the largest possible squared mass difference $m_1^2c^4-m_2^2c^4 = 7.59 \times 10^{-5} \text{eV$^2$}$ [@deltamass], where $m_1$ and $m_2$ are respectively the first and the second mass eigenstate and we have considered the ultra-relativistic approximation $E_{i}^{\left(j\right)}=\sqrt{\mathbf{p}_i^{2}c^{2}+m_j^{2}c^{4}}\simeq p_ic\equiv E$, and the same approximation for $E_{i}^{\left(k\right)}$. The energy $E$ and the time $t$ are free and depend on the nature of the neutrinos under study. Neutrinos detected in laboratories have mainly three origins: cosmogenic, solar and those produced in labs. Table I displays the typical values for the energy and time of flight (for simplicity, we assume that neutrinos travel at the speed of light) for these three types of neutrinos. The magnitude of the damping of the oscillations, as predicted by the mass proportional CSL model, has been evaluated using Eq. . As we can see, in all three cases the CSL damping effect on neutrino oscillations is very small. The main reason is that the masses here involved—those of neutrinos—are very small, thus hampering the collapse mechanism.

To conclude we compare the effect of the CSL model for the oscillation formula with the error embodied 