what scale? you are right that the issue is the degree. once again, just what is that degree? I'd like to know what the actual risk assement is here.
Exactly.
....when has there even been such a consensus on anything? My point is that we have never been consulted on this or anything else. I'd love it if we were, but I don't think this is the straw to break the camels back and make it happen.
To make what happen? Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Of course they are not required to knock on your door and ask you individually what you think of it...That is not what we are talking about.
Yes, in the real sense. It happens all the time. If an agency intends to do something that is going to have an impact on another group of people or country, it does enter the global arena.
If there is not a thorough enough review process, legal challenges will arise.
Are these necessary discussions completely successful all the time? No.
But that is an argument
for increasing efforts to have a proper objective review not
against it. We should not say, things haven't been done correctly in the past so lets throw our hands up in despair and continue to allow them to be handled improperly.
Two months of public review of the safety findings is not enough.
To have a safety report reviewed by a committee selected by the agency itself that is submitting the safety report does not appear to be an entirely objective process.
http://dsu.web.cern.ch/dsu/of/csspc.html
To say that there is "absolutely no risk" is irresponsible.
I am not saying that it is certain the risk is large.
I am saying that it is not "no risk".
There are currently at least two legal challenges pending.
1) The European Court of Human Rights will rule on allegations that the experiment violates the right to life under the European Convention of Human Rights
and
2) There is a court order sought in the state of Hawaii that would force the US government to intervene. (not sure what would happen after that)