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

Thomas Boyer-Kassem

doi:10.1111/risa.12812

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

Thomas Boyer-Kassem

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

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 language	English
Journal	Risk Analysis
Volume	37
Issue number	11
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12812
Publication status	Published - 1 Apr 2017

Access to Document

10.1111/risa.12812

http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/risa.12812

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 = apr,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/risa.12812",

language = "English",

volume = "37",

journal = "Risk Analysis",

issn = "0272-4332",

publisher = "Wiley",

number = "11",

}

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

SN - 0272-4332

VL - 37

JO - Risk Analysis

JF - Risk Analysis

IS - 11

ER -

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

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this