Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Social and Behavioral Sciences

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Journal

Values

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Scientific Facts Vs. Political Values, Thomas G. Field Jr. Jun 1997

Scientific Facts Vs. Political Values, Thomas G. Field Jr.

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Professor Field takes exception to a recent Science editorial.


Comparing Risks Thoughtfully, Adam M. Finkel Sep 1996

Comparing Risks Thoughtfully, Adam M. Finkel

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Dr. Finkel argues that comparing risks is neither impossible nor immoral - but is nonetheless very difficult. He then discusses two major pitfalls of making such comparisons, one commonly cited and one routinely ignored, before sketching a framework for improving them.


The Separation Of Facts And Values, Arthur Kantrowitz Mar 1995

The Separation Of Facts And Values, Arthur Kantrowitz

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Dr. Kantrowitz maintains that much modern pessimism derives from failure to separate what is from what ought to be and urges that scientific conflicts be resolved as value neutrally as possible.


Perceived Risks Of Emfs And Landowner Compensation, Linda J. Orel Jan 1995

Perceived Risks Of Emfs And Landowner Compensation, Linda J. Orel

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Although public concerns about EMFs may eventually prove groundless, they can nevertheless depress the market value of residential property near powerlines. Ms. Orel argues that the scientific truth, as courts increasingly recognize, should play no role in determining whether or how much landowners should recover.


Acceptable Risk: A Conceptual Proposal, Baruch Fischhoff Jan 1994

Acceptable Risk: A Conceptual Proposal, Baruch Fischhoff

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Challenging the "de minimis risk" concept, Dr. Fischhoff argues that risks ought not to be considered apart from a particular technology's benefits. He argues, too, that the acceptability of particular kinds of risks should not be determined without considering the views of all persons who may be exposed. Finally, building upon the "reasonable person" construct, he suggests ways those goals might be achieved.