The CERN Safety Report was completed as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was under construction and concluded that LHC operation was unlikely to bring harm to planet earth. The LHC now is in operation and no harm has come. I should think that the current safety assessment should be adequate unless (1) there are indications of unexpected  occurrences during LHC operation that were not anticipated in the original report or (2) there are fundamental changes in design such that the energies of the colliding particles were to be increased beyond the limits described in the exisiting safety report. As long as these two conditions are met I see no need for a new safety report.

I firmly believe that formal extensive safety analyses certainly are warranted for endeavors such as the LHC. But just because the original report was prepared years back does not seem reason enough to prepare a new one. 

Symbols always tell the truth and CERN's logo is at least questionable about its meaning. A simple google search gave the linked results.

Of course we cannot accept everyone's opinion (internet is full of monstrous theories), but, don't you agree that such a logo is ... strange?

Another issue is the gift from India (mine italics)

http://cds.cern.ch/record/745737

"...In the Hindu religion, this form of the dancing Lord Shiva is known as the Nataraj and symbolises Shakti, or life force. As a plaque alongside the statue explains, the belief is that Lord Shiva danced the Universe into existence, motivates it, and will eventually extinguish it."

Thus the symbol of creation and destruction plus a pure apocalyptic symbol are something like 'trade marks' of CERN.

Quite interesting indeed...

https://www.google.gr/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cern%20logo

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-a-Nataraj-statue-at-CERN

So I conclude - perhaps prematurely? - that none of my colleagues on ResearchGate is opposed to my call for a renewal of the safety report LSAG of the most Big-Bang-like endeavor in the cosmos after a gap of  8 1/2 years?

The Shiva statue is a gift from India to CERN : it could indeed be a kind of warning coming from a very ancient culture known for its prudence. Something like : "You, big heads of the world, don't play too much with your LHC and devote more time to the risks of destruction of the planet !". And maybe CERN was happy to receive the gift independently from the subliminal message with Shiva because the ambassador bears the same name as the great astrophysicist and Nobel prize Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (same family ?),

Anyway destruction is certain. The question is WHEN ? What interests us is when on human scales. But for Shiva, the question could rather be when on terrestrial scales (which is much longer, 5 Gyrs) or even on cosmological scales (20 Gyrs or much more ?). But, I agree : it is always to our advantage to take account of serious warnings. This is what responsible people are used to do already for a long time n Erth (in industry, hospitals, etc...) : preventive and predictive maintenance rather than corrective actions (when it is sometimes too late ...).

So, take preventive actions is certainly a good option. But, they should be proportionate to the risk ....And thus the open question is : what are the actions proportionate to the risks of destruction of the Earth ? 

The CERN Safety Report was completed as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was under construction and concluded that LHC operation was unlikely to bring harm to planet earth. The LHC now is in operation and no harm has come. I should think that the current safety assessment should be adequate unless (1) there are indications of unexpected  occurrences during LHC operation that were not anticipated in the original report or (2) there are fundamental changes in design such that the energies of the colliding particles were to be increased beyond the limits described in the exisiting safety report. As long as these two conditions are met I see no need for a new safety report.

I firmly believe that formal extensive safety analyses certainly are warranted for endeavors such as the LHC. But just because the original report was prepared years back does not seem reason enough to prepare a new one. 

Personally I'd prefer a more positive symbol, like caduceus of Hermes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduceus

https://www.google.gr/search?q=caduceus+of+Hermes&espv=2&biw=1536&bih=783&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqlv-Vl6POAhVIB8AKHT1eCckQsAQILg

Why should CERN have as logo either the triple 6 or the God of creation and destruction? (If destruction was not among the tasks, those symbols do not fit its scopes and purposes...)

Pardon me, but what has CERN's logo have to do with safety with which I believe the question is conCERNed? (Pun intended!)

Anyway, even if they had in mind to try and play with destruction scenarios, the fact that after so many years of operation they have produced null results means that:

• The alleged 'black holes' simply do not exist, so how can they be created and threaten life in Earth?

Thank you, Demetris, for your important question.

I proved in 2008 that black holes do not Hawking evaporate and are uncharged. Both findings taken together imply that the hoped-for success of CERN's has become no less probable than originally anticipated by CERN as one of the major motivations of their many billion dollars heavy experiment.

Second, owing to the undiscoverability of the minimonsters if implanted, they can - and will - grow exponentially inside earth. This fact implies a predictable delay of several years up to a few decades. So the apparent invisibility up until now is in no way a counterargument against their presence or against the riskfulness of the continuation of the experiment.

All of this was discussed at length with CERN supporters for years on the web in the blog Achtphasen.net, but this forum was unfortunately closed in 2011, but it could of course be re-awakened with some effort.