cdc-coteauxdegaronne
» » Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law
eBook Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law ePub

eBook Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law ePub

by Kenneth R. Foster,Peter W. Huber,David E. Bernstein

  • ISBN: 0262061562
  • Category: Medicine and Health Sciences
  • Subcategory: Other
  • Author: Kenneth R. Foster,Peter W. Huber,David E. Bernstein
  • Language: English
  • Publisher: The MIT Press (June 4, 1993)
  • Pages: 469
  • ePub book: 1581 kb
  • Fb2 book: 1843 kb
  • Other: azw lit mbr doc
  • Rating: 4.8
  • Votes: 947

Description

Magazine article Risk Management. Related books and articles.

Magazine article Risk Management. Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law. By Foster, Kenneth; Bernstein, David; Huber, Peter. Magazine article Risk Management. In pointing to the need to weigh conflicting scientific evidence and to debate interpretations of data, we often return to two major themes. The first is the difficulty of inferring cause-and-effect relationships from epidemiologic evidence. The second is the difficulty of inferring risks to humans from high-dose animal experiments.

Foster, Kenneth R; Bernstein, David E; Huber, Peter W. (Peter William), 1952-.

The Law and Economics of Post-Civil War Restrictions on Interstate Migration by African-Americans", 74 Tex. L. Rev. 781 (1998). "Bernstein, David - Scalia Law School".

Phantom risks are risks whose very existence is unproven and perhaps unprovable, yet they raise real problems at the interface of science and the law. Phantom Risk surveys a dozen scientific issues that have led to public controversy and litigation - among them, miscarriage from th. . Phantom Risk surveys a dozen scientific issues that have led to public controversy and litigation - among them, miscarriage from the use of video display terminals, birth defects in children whose mothers used the drug Bendectin, and cancer from low-intensity magnetic fields, and from airborne asbestos. It presents the scientific evidence behind these and other issues and summarizes the resulting litigation.

If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation. More services and features.

Start by marking Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law as Want to Read: Want to Read savin. ant to Read.

Phantom Risk: Scientific. has been added to your Cart. Phantom Risk is a much needed antidote for the hysteria overlow-level insult that pervades and debilitates our society

Find all the books, read about the author, and more. ISBN-13: 978-0262561198. Phantom Risk: Scientific. Phantom Risk is a much needed antidote for the hysteria overlow-level insult that pervades and debilitates our society. Alvin M. Weinberg, Distinguished Fellow, Oak RidgeAssociated Universities.

Phantom risk: scientific inference and the law. KR Foster, DE Bernstein, PW Huber, PW Huber. Expert witnesses, adversarial bias, and the (partial) failure of the Daubert revolution. Philip Sober Controlling Philip Drunk: Buchanan v. Warley in Historical Perspective. Iowa L. 93, 451, 2007. Lochner era revisionism, revised: Lochner and the origins of fundamental rights constitutionalism.

The Science of The Total Environment 142(3): 235-235. 1016/0048-9697(94)90341-7.

Foster, Kenneth R. and Huber, Peter W. (1997). Related Items in Google Scholar. Весь DSpace Сообщества и коллекции Авторы Названия By Creation Date Эта коллекция Авторы Названия By Creation Date.

Phantom risks are risks whose very existence is unproven and perhaps unprovable, yet they raise real problems at the interface of science and the law. Phantom Risk surveys a dozen scientific issues that have led to public controversy and litigation - among them, miscarriage from the use of video display terminals, birth defects in children whose mothers used the drug Bendectin, and cancer from low-intensity magnetic fields, and from airborne asbestos. It presents the scientific evidence behind these and other issues and summarizes the resulting litigation. Focusing on the great disparity between the scientific evidence that is sufficient to arouse public fears and that needed to establish a hazard or its absence, these original contributions probe the problem of scientific ambiguity in risk assessment, and the mayhem this creates in the courtroom. Although the authors are clearly optimistic about the use of science to detect and evaluate risks, they recognize the difficulty of inferring cause-and-effect relationships from epidemiological (observational) evidence and of inferring risks to humans from high-dose animal experiments, the two major sources of evidence. The final chapter reviews the exceptionally difficult problem of how the legal impact of disputes about phantom risks can be reduced.