{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03155339805825243, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01699029126213592, 'mean_word_length': 5.395348837209302, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The precautionary principle and risk–risk tradeoffs: a comment

We are pleased that Hansen, von Krauss and Tickner (2008) (hereafter ‘HKT’) found our risk–risk framework helpful in their analysis of 33 case studies of alleged instances where efforts to reduce a target risk contributed to a countervailing risk. If the concepts of risk–risk tradeoffs and risk-superior solutions (Graham and Wiener 1995; Wiener 1998) have brought this general problem to the attention of advocates of precautionary regulation, we count that as a success, even if there will always be debate over particular cases. In this reply, we distinguish HKT’s prescriptive/normative views from their descriptive/empirical observations. We agree with much of their normative recommendations for policy, but disagree with many of their empirical claims.