The Precautionary Principle Has Not Been Shown to Be Incoherent: A Reply to Peterson: Response

Thomas Boyer-Kassem

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalRisk Analysis
Volume37
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2017

Cite this

@article{d0f19bb33bd94a35a7faa415f9593cee,
title = "The Precautionary Principle Has Not Been Shown to Be Incoherent: A Reply to Peterson: Response",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Thomas Boyer-Kassem",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/risa.12812",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
journal = "Risk Analysis",
issn = "1539-6924",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "11",

}

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 journalArticleScientificpeer-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 -