Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Risk Analysis |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Apr 2017 |
Cite this
}
The Precautionary Principle Has Not Been Shown to Be Incoherent: A Reply to Peterson : Response. / Boyer-Kassem, Thomas.
In: Risk Analysis, Vol. 37, No. 11, 01.04.2017.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - The Precautionary Principle Has Not Been Shown to Be Incoherent: A Reply to Peterson
T2 - Response
AU - Boyer-Kassem, Thomas
PY - 2017/4/1
Y1 - 2017/4/1
N2 - In this journal, I have objected to Peterson's 2006 claim that the precautionary principle is an incoherent decision rule. I defend my objections to Peterson's recent replies, and I still claim that the precautionary principle has not been shown to be incoherent.
AB - In this journal, I have objected to Peterson's 2006 claim that the precautionary principle is an incoherent decision rule. I defend my objections to Peterson's recent replies, and I still claim that the precautionary principle has not been shown to be incoherent.
U2 - 10.1111/risa.12812
DO - 10.1111/risa.12812
M3 - Article
VL - 37
JO - Risk Analysis
JF - Risk Analysis
SN - 1539-6924
IS - 11
ER -