Ray:
Thanks for your note. I offer the following clarifications:
1. Consensus does NOT require that 100% of individuals agree about a position or an opinion.See Webster's or any other dictionary. What it means is that there is general agreement. Consensus is not quantifiable in the sense that consensus exists if there is 95% agreement but not with 94% agreement. At the conference each conclusion and each recommendation was reviewed and discussed in plenum. Everyone had an opportunity to speak and express his views. After discussion, the group was asked for a vote for approval. In some instances, the conclusion or recommendation was voted for unanimously. In other instances, there were a few dissenters but no more than 7-8 individuals. If consensus is not general agreement, then how do you define the term?
2. A draft copy of the report was sent by e-mail to every participant in February.
See you in Denver.
Best wishes,
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: RadTrain@AOL.COM
To: Ken.Mossman@asu.edu; jmuckerheide@delphi.com; radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Cc: jaworo@clor.waw.pl; rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu; rjohnson@radtrain.com; A121313@AOL.COM; Gdeplanque@AOL.COM; Millswm@AOL.COM; gnrsslr@frontiernet.net; KRK@slac.stanford.edu; mgoldman@ucdavis.edu; rburk@burkinc.com; smm@gr.is
Sent: 5/26/00 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: IRPA 10
Ken:
I share some of Jim's concerns about the meaning of consensus. And I
did NOT
receive a draft copy of the report for review. I did get the final copy
in
the mail today.
Part of my concern was for the format of the conference on the last day
when
conclusions were being crafted. The free-for-all mode was conducive to
those
who are willing to hog the microphone and do their thinking out loud
versus
the more quiet type who prefer to reflect and speak only after
formulating
their comments first. I do not believe the pressure of forcing
conclusions
on the last day necessarily represented the best input of many (most) of
the
participants.
I had offered these views in my Newsletter article, but Gen recommended
removing them, because what I say as President will be read as
representing
the HPS. However, these are my own person views and as President I have
avoided saying anything negative about the Airlie program, although I
have
personal misgivings.
I also indicated to you after the conference, that I had misgivings
about
bringing the 10 rem issue into the conference conclusions. I do not
believe
that was a topic of discussion in this conference and therefore it
should not
have been in the conclusions, whether everyone agreed with it or not.
Again, these are my personal views. On the plus side, the conference
was
very worthwhile and probably represents a milestone in the progress
toward
international harmony on radiation safety. I would like to have
personally
had more productive input, but I am not of the nature to fight for the
microphone in a large audience. I also know that was true for a number
(many) others.
You are to be commended for your work on pulling this together and you
have
my highest regards.
Thanks and best wishes,
Ray Johnson