Citation

Evans L. Risk Anal. 1986; 6(1): 103-107.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1986, Society for Risk Analysis, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00198.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

My paper had two conclusions, namely, that the risk homeostasis throry should be rejected because: 1) there is no convincing evidence supporting it; and 2) there is much evidence refuting it. Although offering many conmments on my paper, Wilde does not address the first conclusion. Thus, after more than a decade of advocacy, he still offers no convincing evidence in support. Instead, he criticizes the evidence I presented and interpreted to refute his claims. His criticisms are in some cases that the data are too uncertain to mane any inferences, while in other cases the inferences appear to be accepted, but various ad hoc artuments are offerec to explain why results, which on face value certainly seem to contradict his claims, are nonetheless not incompatible with them....

Language: en