Characterization for Dimensions of openness
| Scope of participation
|| Talvivaara and environmental organizations represents, (neutral?) researchers and experts. Local citizens would also be allowed to participate.
| Access to information
|| Seems that experts and researchers could do measurements and get relevant information regarding state of hazard. Talvivaara and environmental organizations would share their opinion about situation. ----#: . Not sure that Talvivaara would be necessarily willing to share information beyond what is mandated by the law. --Mikko Pohjola 14:57, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
| Timing of openness
|| Not mentioned.
| Scope of contribution
|| Aspects are the mining company's own interest to continue business, ELY and environmental organizations have their aspect and concern of environmental state and peoples health.
| Impact of contribution
|| Specialists, researchers and ELY would probably have most impact, citizens opinions are taken as a note. ----#: . And then another question would be, how much would Talvivaara be willing to take account of what the assessment recommends, unless mandated by the law or required by regional authorities. --Mikko Pohjola 14:57, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
| Quality of content
|| The idea of assessment seems quite exact, maybe needs little forming. Also participants are taken into account pretty accurately, but then the analyses, results and conclusions apparently don't answer to assessment question.
| Applicability: Relevance
|| Updated assessment question is good in relation to the purpose of the assessment. In the "Endpoints" section the intented needs of users are represented, but otherwise they do not come cleary pointed out in assessment process.
| Applicability: Availability
|| There is no description when and where assessment infomation is provided. Thou, information would be provided by ELY researchers, Talvivaara and from environmental organizations. ----#: . Also possible to give 0, if not possible to evaluate. --Mikko Pohjola 14:57, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
| Applicability: Usability
|| Usability would be good in my opinion and even ordinary citizen could understand main points in assessment and on the possible outcome. Well made environmental assessment from Talvivaara's waste water leaks would be very useful to all participants. ----#: . You can also consider if you think the assessment, as planned, would be likely to results in a well made assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 14:57, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
| Applicability: Acceptability
|| Probably the assessment would be accepted by the way it was meant to do by intended users otherwise, but the question for "neutral" researchers doing measurements and how much is citizens opinion valued remains unanswered. Because resuls and conclusions of assessment remain unclear, it is difficult to say if the assumed results would be accepted by intended users. ----#: . Some party may always be unhappy with assessment results, but if the results are well reasoned and all relevant views are explicitly taken into account, it is difficult to oppose them. --Mikko Pohjola 14:57, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
|| I think that assessment would take a lot of effort to get valid results, but on the other hand information regarding waste waters and their risks to environment and peoples health would be very important to have. Expected result would be very useful to intended user and assessment participants. Results would also give additional information regarding possible environmental risks of mining business.