Abstract
Societal conflicts with regard to risk management are common. The public has different beliefs than many experts and administrators with regard to such issues as the citing of a repository for spent nuclear fuel or whether genetically modified organisms should be allowed to enter the human food chain. As a result, political tensions arise and there may be a skew allocation of resources for risk mitigation. The question raised in the article is if a consensus society is possible and desirable. If views converge on high risk beliefs, the cost would be very high as well. If views converge on low risks, some hazards could be neglected and environmental damage considerable, as used to be the case in the Former Soviet Union and other socialist countries which lacked a free press. A consensus society is neither possible nor desirable. No party has access to the final truth with regard to risks and hazards; diversity is an asset.