[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: IRPA 10
Dr. Mossman, et. al.,
Our organization (Rocketdyne) has done quite a bit of
training in "consensus building" as part of our team
building efforts. While I agree with the definition you
cite from the dictionary, our working definition of
consensus has an element which I don't think the
dictionary captures.
Consensus does not require 100% agreement. It has an
element of "voting" in it, but it is not necessarily a
democratic process in that the results of voting define
a consensus. In our usage, a consensus has been reached
where a large majority of the participants have agreed
on a course of action, and those that do not agree with
the majority have no strenuous objections to the
majority view (we call this the "I can live with it"
criteria).
Based upon the descriptions that I have seen here on
RadSafe, it appears that there was a group of
individuals at the proceedings that did not seem to be
able to live with the outcome of the issue under
discussion, thus in our organization's definition,
consensus would not have been reached. It appears that
you could say an overwhelming majority agreed, or you
could actually publish the results of the polling that
was taken, but I don't see a consensus under the
definition that I mentioned above.
I offer this not as a comment on the merits of the LNT
vs. hormesis debate, rather as a comment on what
consensus constitutes under the definition that I am
used to using.
James Barnes, CHP
Radiation Safety Officer
Rocketdyne/Boeing
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
> this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
> --Boundary_(ID_K/SwBKrYBiXI43eeY7b+tA)
> Content-type: text/plain
>
> 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
>
> --Boundary_(ID_K/SwBKrYBiXI43eeY7b+tA)
> Content-type: text/html
> Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3DUS-ASCII">
> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
> 5.5.2651.75">
> <TITLE>RE: IRPA 10</TITLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2> Ray:</FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks for your note. I offer the following =
> clarifications:</FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>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?</FONT></P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>2. A draft copy of the report was sent by e-mail to =
> every participant in February. </FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>See you in Denver.</FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Best wishes,</FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ken</FONT>
> </P>
> <BR>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: RadTrain@AOL.COM</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Ken.Mossman@asu.edu; jmuckerheide@delphi.com; =
> radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>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</FONT></P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: 5/26/00 5:17 PM</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: IRPA 10</FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ken:</FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I share some of Jim's concerns about the meaning of =
> consensus. And I</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>did NOT </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>receive a draft copy of the report for review. =
> I did get the final copy</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>in </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the mail today. </FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Part of my concern was for the format of the =
> conference on the last day</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>when </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>conclusions were being crafted. The =
> free-for-all mode was conducive to</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>those </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>who are willing to hog the microphone and do their =
> thinking out loud</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>versus </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the more quiet type who prefer to reflect and speak =
> only after</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>formulating </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>their comments first. I do not believe the =
> pressure of forcing</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>conclusions </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>on the last day necessarily represented the best =
> input of many (most) of</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>participants. </FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I had offered these views in my Newsletter article, =
> but Gen recommended </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>removing them, because what I say as President will =
> be read as</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>representing </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the HPS. However, these are my own person =
> views and as President I have</FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>avoided saying anything negative about the Airlie =
> program, although I</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>have </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>personal misgivings. </FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I also indicated to you after the conference, that I =
> had misgivings</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>about </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>bringing the 10 rem issue into the conference =
> conclusions. I do not</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>believe </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>that was a topic of discussion in this conference =
> and therefore it</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>should not </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>have been in the conclusions, whether everyone =
> agreed with it or not. </FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Again, these are my personal views. On the plus =
> side, the conference</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>was </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>very worthwhile and probably represents a milestone =
> in the progress</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>toward </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>international harmony on radiation safety. I =
> would like to have</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>personally </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>had more productive input, but I am not of the =
> nature to fight for the </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>microphone in a large audience. I also know =
> that was true for a number </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>(many) others. </FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>You are to be commended for your work on pulling this =
> together and you</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>have </FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>my highest regards. </FONT>
> </P>
>
> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks and best wishes,</FONT>
> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ray Johnson</FONT>
> </P>
>
> </BODY>
> </HTML>
>
> --Boundary_(ID_K/SwBKrYBiXI43eeY7b+tA)--
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html