SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Cobb, M. D. and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6(4): 395405.
  • Currall, S. C., E. B. King, N. Lane, J. Madera, and S. Turner. 2006. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology 1(3): 153155.
  • Gustafson, P. E. 1998. Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis: An International Journal 18(6): 805811.
  • Hogarth, R. M., M. Portell, and A. Cuxart. 2007. What risks do people perceive in everyday life? A perspective gained from the experience sampling method (ESM). Risk Analysis 27(6): 14271439.
  • Jacquemin, B., J. Sunyer, B. Forsberg, T. Gotschi, L. Bayer-Oglesby, U. Ackermann-Liebrich, R. De Marco, J. Heinrich, D. Jarvis, K. Toren, and N. Kunzli. 2007. Annoyance due to air pollution in Europe. International Journal of Epidemiology 36(4): 809820.
  • Kahan, D. M., P. Slovic, D. Braman, J. Gastil, and G. L. Cohen. 2007. Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental investigation. GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 261. Available at SSRN. http://ssn.com/abstract=968652.
  • Macoubrie, J. 2005. Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Washington , DC : Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and The Pew Charitable Trusts.
  • Maynard, A. D. 2006. Nanotechnology: A research strategy for addressing risk. Washington , DC : Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
  • Maynard, A. D. 2007. Nanotechnology: The next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Annals of Occupational Hygiene 51(1): 112.
  • Medley, T. and S. Walsh. 2007. Nano risk framework.
  • NNI (National Nanotechnology Initiative). 2006. What is nanotechnology? Wilmington , DE : Dupont, and Washington, DC: Environmental Defense (http://nanoriskframework.com). http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html. Accessed 22 December 2006.
  • PEN (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies). 2006. Have yourself a merry “nano” Christmas. Washington , DC : Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
  • PEN (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies). 2007. A nanotechnology consumer products inventory. Washington , DC : Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
  • Royal Society & the Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London : Royal Society & the Royal Academy of Engineering.
  • Schubert, R., M. Brown, M. Gysler, and H. W. Brachinger. 1999. Financial decision-making: Are women really more risk-averse? American Economic Review 89(2): 381385.
  • Siegrist, M., C. Keller, H. Kastenholz, S. Frey, and A. Wiek. 2007. Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis 27(1): 5969.
  • EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) enforcement. http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/civil/fifra/index.html. Accessed 19 February 2008.
  • Woods, J., T. A. Ten Eyck, S. A. Kaplowitz, and V. Shlapentokh. 2008. Terrorism risk perceptions and proximity to primary terrorist targets: How close is too close? Human Ecology Review 15(1): 6370.