True Green Energy Group (TGEG) is now a publicly traded company on the Frankfurt stock exchange in Deutschland, Mr. Ronald Shane Flynn (the CEO and founder of TGEG) declared last October 22, 2010.  On the FSE its shares will be quoted. The isin number is ca8724191066 and can be viewed by clicking the following associate as listed on the Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche Bose website of the fse and the trading symbol for the company is tgg.

Below is the website link to view the transparency and market segment of TGEG.

http://deutsche-boerse.com/dbag/dispatch/en/kir/gdb_navigation/lc

TGEG produces sustainable energy such that it tailors to the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to match their needs.  Sources of sustainable energy are considered as renewable sources, in the case of True Green Energy Group since it utilizes Municipal Solid Waste to produce clean green energy.  The system being employed is Global Environmental Energy Corp’s MK-V which TGEG holds a license granted by Global Environmental Energy Corp. (Deutsche BORSE:GLI.F, and OTC Bulletin Board: GEECF, geecfdotru)

TGEG possesses a contract to obtain Biosphere machines from Biosphere Development Corporation allowing it to shell out an operating royalty and profit share to Global for each and every of its deployed Biosphere Systems.   This system will create clean green energy without having harmful emissions, in addition to efficiently recycling garbage of any kind with the exception of nuclear.  Green energy is made by shredding it and then having it pelletized.  When the pellets have been completely made you merely feed the pellets into the Biosphere chamber which creates clean green electricity.  A fuller picture of this could be seen by merely looking into True Green Energy Group’s website at tgegdotasia.

TGEG known as the promoter of world power and green energy technologies and is particularly the majority shareholder of Spectrum Blue Corporation, realized early on that with the amount of new contracts being signed worldwide that it would have to go public so that they can raise the capital needed to comply with its current demands to deploy the Biosphere MK – V and also the Material Recycling Facility.

The present cost to deploy the entire system is “$20,000,000″ Twenty Million United States Dollars.  TGEG/SBS have the prospect to set up significantly more than 180 Biosphere facilities in Philippines and Brazil.  Recently, True Green Energy Group and its associates Voga Brasil travelled to Brazil to discuss with a number of government officials.  The aftermath of these meetings was very successful as MOA have been signed and full contracts to sell and deploy are being drawn up.

The Manufacturing and patent holder of the Biosphere MK – V is the Biosphere Development Corporation that has at present started the process in numerous countries to date.   The specifics driving the first Biosphere to be deployed in San Fernando, Philippines is awe-inspiring and action-provoking because of all its municipal and governmental contracts with local mayors and cities.

Based on the 2000 Census Bureau Report in San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines, it stipulates that it has a population of 221,857 people in 43,649 households which is actually centrally located at 67 kilometers north of Manila, 50 kilometers east of Subic Bay at the Zambales Province, and 16 kilometers south of Clark Field in Angeles City.

The municipality of San Fernando, Pampanga has a contract with True Green Energy Group.  TGEG is to provide clean green electricity to the grid for the city’s progress.  In the current contract, TGEG will receive 80% of the revenue while the City of San Fernando Pampanga will receive 20%.  TGEG and SBS have a binding contract with the said landfill site in the city for twenty five years and will recycle all their garbage and additionally supplying electricity on the power grid, successively after going public.  TGEG had requested ValuCorp; an evaluation firm to provide an assessment of the company and what it’s value is together with its combined historical and probable financial statements in conjunction with the Actual December 31, 2009 tax return, ad estimated through December 31, 2010 as projected through December 31, 2014 and the calculation of fair market value as of September 28, 2010.

ValuCorp Calculation of Fair Market Value expressed an estimation of $$5,235,215,734 which was based from all the information given by True Green Energy Group and Spectrum Blue Steel Corporation plus other sources of information by Voga Brazil that ValuCorp considered to be as an appropriate analysis.  The company revenue was based on the existing sites in the Philippines such as in San Fernando, Santa Rosa, Naga, Dumaguete, Tanjay, and Bayawan City.  Additionally, cities in Brazil such as Goiania, Goias, Cristalina, Rio de Janeiro, Palmas and Tocantins.

TGEG-SBS and Voga Brazil will be signing over thirteen international contracts this November with government officials of Brazil for the high priority deployment of the MRF and Biosphere MK-V.  Voga Brazil Director, Thiago Marques Dos Reis declared, “. . . that he believed that Voga would sign a minimum of 42 biosphere contracts by November 1, 2010″.

TGEG; a Canadian Corporation with offices in the Philippines, Sweden, Seychelles, Hong Kong, London and Brazil has its corporate headquarters in the Philippines which is located in Makati and Clark, Pampanga.

Dr. Reza Arabpour, an Economics and Management PhD holder told, “That as a financial advisor for TGEG and a man who has lived in the Philippines for more than 30 years, he believed the report by Michael Gilburd was fair and accurate. However from what has recently transpired in Brazil and of course, the new listing on the FSE the value should be much higher”.  Michael Gilburd holds degrees as an ASA, MST, CPA and as an Accredited Senior Appraiser and trusted member of the American Society of Appraisers valucorpdotcom and has sent in his resume to TGEG as a potential candidate for C.F.O.

TGEG has employed the “Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 under the Republic Act No. 9136 to build a new green energy power corporation.  R.A. No. 9136 is the law which mandates the restructuring of the electric power sector and the privatization of the National Power Corporation.

This “Green Energy Option” will allow consumers to choose renewable energy in meeting their energy requirements on their Utility Electrical grid or on the grid.  Likewise, local governments and provinces have become partners with Spectrum Blue Steel in order to accelerate the Biosphere deployment in 2010.  The National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) pursuant to Republic Act 9136 will be accountable for the planning, construction, and centralized operation and maintenance of all the high voltage transmission facilities, including grid interconnection and ancillary services.

A feed-in tariff system for electricity generated from biomass was mandated to hasten the development of TGEG – Spectrum Blue Steel’s emerging renewable energy resource.  Concerning this, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) in alliance with the National Renewable Energy Board (NREB) created under Section 27 of the Act formulated and promulgated a feed-in tariff system. SBS/TGEG now have priority connections to the grid for electricity produced from the emerging renewable energy resource consenting the Biosphere power plants and certain territories and cities to be owned by Spectrum Blue Steel and True Green Energy Group for the next 25 years with the right to renew the green energy agreements for an indefinite period.

A feed-in tariff system for electricity made from biomass was mandated to accelerate the expansion of True Green Energy Group — Spectrum Blue Steel’s burgeoning renewable energy resource.  Regarding this, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) in consultation with the National Renewable Energy Board (NREB) created under Section 27 of the Act formulated and promulgated this feed-in tariff system. TGEG/SBS now have priority connections to the grid for electricity produced from the emerging renewable energy resource allowing Biosphere power facilities and certain territories and cities to be owned by Spectrum Blue Steel and True Green Energy Group for the next 25 years with the right to indefinitely renew the green energy agreements.

In fact, most responsible people are going green in vehement effort to salvage the planet.  Imagine the impact of the British Petroleum Oil spill, the gulf area will have to live with that oil even after the beaches have been cleaned.  Several residents are infuriated that BP has been discarding greasy waste in their landfills.

After BP crews lift or serve out the oil off Gulf beaches, the waste is transferred to Mississippi’s Pecan Grove landfill.  Though they have protective suits, gloves, shovels, rakes, and anything else that touches oil is buried there.

Harrison, Mississippi’s Board of Supervisors made an announcement stating that they wouldn’t want any BP waste in their community but there is minimal they can do.  BP has made a deal with Waste Management, owners of the landfill said.   They counter to the state instead of local county government.

President of the Board of Supervisors; Connie Rocko told CNN’s Randi Kaye, “We don’t want it.  It is valuable landfill space and hazardous to our citizens.  Take your waste somewhere else or please find an alternative.”

Bottom line is True Green Energy Group is the perfect option and our company will be more than happy to take all the harmful waste from the BP and properly dispose it by using the biosphere gasification process.

The biosphere system can suitably be recycled and get rid of garbage with zero emission like Municipal Solid Waste, Automobile and Truck Tires, Petroleum and Polychlorinated, Biphenyl (PCB) Waste, Agricultural Surpluses, Animal Waste, or Animal Parts Waste and effluents, additionally Industrial Waste, Sour or Wet Natural Gas without refining, Soil-contaminated Waste, Land Fill Reclamation, Traditional Fossil Fuels, including sulfur, contaminated coal and untreated Shale oil, Petroleum drilling waste such as oil-contaminated Top Soil, Drill Cuttings and Oil-contaminated Ground Water from the ocean.

The approach of TGEG/SBS is to “de-carbonize” the electric power generation industry by changing to non-fossil fuel-based energy sources, specifically energy-from-waste. This goes by the American Energy Policy Act of 2005 which confirmed energy-from-waste is renewable, and the Philippine Renewable Energy Law (RA 9513) of the Philippines.

True Green Energy Group and Spectrum Blue Steel are domestic corporations lawfully registered under the Philippine laws and holds a license to the Biosphere Technology from Global Environmental Energy Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: GEECF).  Global is a fully incorporated energy company whose interests include electrical power generation, oil and gas exploration and production, clean coal and waste management technologies.

This press release includes highly-developed information within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of the 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and is subject to the safe harbor created by those sections.

Safety and Travel tips for a trip to INDIA

There are some important things to remember when you travel to India. If you follow my advice you will not get sick and you will be safe.

Always be sure to bring YOUR OWN bottled water. The water supply there can not be trusted to be germ free and sanitary. You can pack bottled water from home in your checked bag.

Always be sure to bring plenty of canned food. Restaurants do not always have the best sanitary conditions when preparing your food in India.

Be sure not to drink anything with ice for the same reason you bring bottled water (the ice came from their water…).

Be sure not to brush your teeth with the running water in your hotel room. It is best to use the bottled water to rinse your mouth out.

Be sure to always bring a bacteria killing sanitizer such as Purell. Rub it on your hands frequently throughout the day. Another good idea is to rub that sanitizer on the toilet before each use.

Hire a driver to take you to your destination. The taxis with three wheels are not safe so you should try to avoid them if at all possible.

Do not trust bottled water that you may purchase in India. It is not safe and may be no different than drinking their running water.

Do not leave food out in your room as the monkeys will take it away… I know that sounds funny but I’m not kidding.

You will be faced with panhandlers constantly so be prepared.

If you are traveling to Mumbai I suggest you stay at the Grand Hyatt.

On the positive side of traveling to India…

The people in India are very well educated.

Most of the people there speak English which makes things much easier in any country.

Most of the people are hard working and want to be successful.

I have a couple of folks in India that I call my friends.

On the way to India, which is a 20 hour trip, I suggest you stop in Frankfurt Germany.

If you travel to India in December there is a Christmas Festival in Frankfurt with outdoor shops, crafts for sale and some of the best beer and sausages you can imagine.

I suggest you stay at the Frankfurt Marriott if you decide to stop over in Germany.

In the same way that 1 kilogram is always 1 kilogram and 1 hour is always 1 hour, risk can be measured, and a certain risk is always the same risk. Is it really like this? An object of 1 kilogram on earth has another weight on the moon. According to Einstein, even time is relative. For a young sportsman 1 kilogram is nothing, for an old lady 1 kilogram is heavy. Sometimes, for example when one is totally absorbed in something, an hour passes very quickly; another time, for example when one forces oneself to do something, one has perhaps the subjective feeling that the hour is endless. Also, risk is dependent on the reference system. Moreover, there is no objective physical measure for risk. Risk is a subjective construct and thus highly dependent on differences in individual perception and judgement.

Is it possible for people to be rational about risk? To be rational about something basically means that one handles it in an analytical and logical way. For that reason risk should be quantified and there should be a logarithm to calculate it. There should be an agreement about the rules of the measurement. It should be free of emotional issues or different world views. Do people handle risks in an analytical and logical way? Is there an agreement about the conceptualisation and the measurement of risk?

I will answer these questions in demonstrating firstly how the meaning and the use of the term ‘risk’ have changed with time. Secondly, I shall try to explain why it is difficult to give an ultimate definition of ‘risk’. Thirdly, I will illustrate how people perceive and judge risk differently from normative solutions. Obviously, social processes and mechanisms also influence the risk perception.  At the end, the conclusion will discuss as to how far it is possible to be rational about risk, even if this is difficult.

The term ‘risk’ was used for the first time in the Italian commercial language of the 19th century (Rammstedt 1992: 1045-1050). The etymological roots point to the Greek language, whereby it can mean both root and also cliff : it means those cliffs around which a merchant ship should sail. The closer the ship sails around the cliffs, the faster it reaches the harbour, which certainly represents a gain. If the ship goes too near the cliff and is wrecked, then there is a loss. Up until the 19th century, the time of the developing industrial society, risk was understood as opportunity costs for the creation of prosperity and wealth (Dake 1992: 21-37). Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was the first to describe how to measure probability. The risk theory of Laplace (1816) especially had a crucial influence on the risk conception and on the emerging insurance industry. The simple formula

risk = harm x probability

suggests a predictability and thus a controllability of the risk. Until the end of the 60′s of the 20th century, a very limited risk concept was predominant. An extension and a differentiation of the term ‘risk’ seemed to be unnecessary due to a nearly unrestricted trust in the possibilities of science and technology.

Since the 70′s the term ‘risk’ has gained substantially in meaning and also in complexity. On the one hand, the obvious negative consequences of technology were certainly a reason for this development. On the other hand, the conception of the human was changing from a full rationality to a bounded rationality (Simon 1957). It became clear that humans can not be fully rational like a computer, the cognitive capacity is limited, human beings make mistakes and they use simple heuristics, which are different to normative solutions (Kahneman & Tversky 1982: 3-20). This change of the conception of the human could also affect the unlimited trust in science and technology and therefore the concept of the risk. The risk concept is quite popular in today’s society. Some authors (e.g., Ulrich Beck 1986) call the post-modern society even the risk society. In fact, the change of the meaning of risk and the risk conceptions and their dependency on cultural change and historical events make clear that risk is a subjective construct and not an objective given fact (Douglas & Wildavsky 1993: 113-137).

It is not that easy to come up with a clear definition of risk. Of course, it can be seen as the product of probability and harm. But it could also be defined by different logarithms. A risk function could focus on the probability of loss, the size of the loss, the maximal loss, a product of probability and loss, the variance of the consequences, the semi-variance of all possible losses, and so on. Some experts even use a second order probability. This is the probability, in the sense of uncertainty, in how far the proper probability is correct. But a definition of risk only based on a formula might be not sufficient. Different scientific disciplines and different industries work with different conceptualisations of risk. Risk is a widely used, disputed and multifaceted concept. The concept might include qualitative aspects, e.g. economic, psychological, social, cultural, environmental, or philosophical aspects. One might want, for example, that only the negative consequences are defined as a risk, or one may also include the favourable aspects in the risk definition. The former is called pure risk and the latter is called speculative risk (Brachinger & Weber 1997). However, it is easier to give a definition of the risk situation than of risk itself. A basic or minimal risk situation in the sense of a decision structure has always an alternative. At least one alternative has at least two outcomes. It is not sure what the outcome will be by choosing the alternative, but one might know the probability (Scholz & Tietje 2002: 176).

Some difficulties can be experienced in judging probabilities (Hansson 1989: 107-112). There are cultural differences in the perception of probabilities. Asian people such as the Chinese, Indonesians, and Malaysians think less in terms of risk and uncertainty than people of western countries do (Philips & Wright 1977: 507-515). Asians are more non-probabilistic thinkers. They either know or they do not know, for them an event will either occur or it will not. People in western countries are more probabilistic thinkers. They express their uncertainties in terms of probabilities. This is a cultural effect and not a cognitive deficit.

In general, people tend to underestimate high probabilities and overestimate low probabilities, as is postulated in the Cumulative Prospect Theory (Kahmeman & Tversky 1992: 297-323). The Prospect Theory also postulates an individual reference point, which determines if an outcome is perceived as a loss or as a gain (Kahnemann & Tversky 1979: 263-291). Depending on the cognitive framing of the situation consequences are either perceived as a gain or as a loss. Thereby, the gain function is different from the loss function. The utility function for gains is concave and the utility function for losses is convex. The prospect theory as an example of a subjective utility theory is a descriptive theory, which is based on empirical findings. It shows that people act differently from the normative solutions. Nevertheless, the fact that it is possible to describe decision making behaviour with a mathematical function proves that people use some rules and do not behave irrationally.

People also use systematically some heuristics or biases in their decisions, which are also in conflict with the normative solution and are insofar not rational. The availability heuristic and the base rate fallacy are examples of such biases (Kahnemann & Tversky 1973, 207-232). For example, following an aeroplane crash, the risk of travelling by aeroplane is rated higher because the negative event is still in mind and available. People regularly ignore the base rate in their judgements, which contradicts the Bayes theorem (Scholz 1987). In some cases, for example when the decision has to be made within a short time and not all the necessary information is available, heuristics can be a quite good strategy (Gigerenzer 1997, 107-125). People act in an adaptive way which is, from an evolutionary point of view, “rational”.

Besides the quantitative description of risk as a product of probability and harm, people also use qualitative characteristics such as voluntariness, controllability, or catastrophic potential in their risk perception and judgements (Slovic et al. 1985). A risk source is perceived as being less risky if people are exposed to it voluntarily, feeling they have control over the risk, or they do not see the possibility of a catastrophe. In a factor-analytical approach – also called the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research – these qualitative characteristics could be reduced to the two main factors “dread risk” and “unknown risk” (Slovic 1987: 280-285; Slovic 1992).

Emotions can also play a role in decision-making and in risk perception (Schwarzer 2000: 433-440; Finucane et al. 2000: 1-17) as well as motivation (Lopes, 1995: 29-50). Worry, particularly, increases the perceived risk (Sjöberg 1998: 85-93). However, positive emotions may also have an influence on risk judgements (Lerner & Keltner 2000: 473-493). Thus, if emotions influence the risk judgements it may be difficult for people to be rational about risk.

On the social level there are processes which determine the social impact of a risk. Even small risks (judged small by experts) can have a strong social impact. According to the theory of the social amplification of risk (Kasperson et al.1988: 177-187) individual or group reactions may lead to ripple effects which may affect even the whole society. One example is the case of “Three Mile Island”. Although the problem of the nuclear reactor did not result in any casualties, the case became more and more important and led to consequences which were timely, spatial, and thematically far away from the case “Three Mile Island” (Jungermann & Slovic 1993: 89-107).

In conclusion, it is difficult to be rational about risk. Formulae about risk may give the impression that it could be treated objectively and rationally. But one should be aware that risk is a subjective construct. There are different conceptualisations about risk. People do differ in the way they perceive or judge a risk. They have different interests, different reference systems, they take different qualitative aspects into consideration. Firstly, human behaviour is generaly adaptive as it is discussed with the concept of bounded rationality. Furthermore, rationality can be improved by giving instructions, defining methods, and using decision supporting instruments. Thirdly, different conceptualisations of risk and individual differences in risk perception must be considered.

To be rational in the context of the Modern Portfolio Theory, for example, means to accept that people differ in their risk aversion. Thus, client advisors specify the risk profile of the client and develop investment strategies in line with the profile. People can make better assessments of probability if they learn to think probabilistically and break down the situation in simple events. Changing the information format from a probability to a frequency format can reduce even the base-rate fallacy (Gigerenzer & Hoffrage 1995: 684–704). It is advantageous to present the information with visualised frequencies of possible events rather than stating abstract probabilities. There are also methods and instruments to improve the decision-making process, e.g. cost-benefit analysis or multi-attributed utility theory analysis. Concerning risk communication, when the risk affects persons other than the decision-maker, then it is necessary to start a risk dialogue. To optimise this risk dialogue all the affected acting persons must be involved and differences between them have to be accepted (Covello & Allen 1988; Jungermann et al. 1991). If people do so then they might act rationally – although it is difficult to be rational about risk.

Aumann, R.J. (1997). Rationality and Bounded Rationality. Games and Economic Behavior, 21, 2-14.

Bazerman, M.H. (1997). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Brachinger, H.W. & Weber, M. (1996). Risk as a primitive: A survey of measures of perceived risk. OR Spektrum, 18 (4).

Burns, W.J., Slovic, P., Kasperson, R.E., Kasperson, J.X., Renn, O. & Emani, S. (1993). Incorporating structural models into research on the social amplification of risk: Implications for theory construction and decision making. Risk Analysis, 13, 611-623.

Covello, V.T. & Allen, F.W. (1988). Seven cardinal rules of risk communication. Washington: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis.

Dake, K. (1992). Myths of Nature: Culture and the Social Construction of Risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 21-37.

Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. (1993). Risiko und Kultur. In: Krohn, W. & Krücken, G. Riskante Technologien: Reflexion und Regulation (113-137). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. & Johnson, S.M. (2000). The Affect Heuristic in Judgements of Risks and Benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.

Fischhoff, B. (1994). Acceptable risk: a conceptual proposal. Health, Safety and Environment, 5, 1-28.

Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychology Review 102: 684–704

Gigerenzer, G. (1997). Ecological intelligence: an adaption for frequencies. Psychologische Beiträge, 39, 107-125.

Hansson, S. O. (1989). Dimensions of Risk. Risk Analysis, 9(1), 107-112.

Hastie, R. & Dawes, R.M. (2001). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jungermann, H., Rohrmann, B. & Wiedemann, P.M. (1991). Risikokontroversen: Konzepte, Konflikte, Kommunikation. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Jungermann, H., Slovic, P. (1993). Charakteristika individueller Risikowahrnehmung. In: Bayerische Rück (Hg.), Risiko ist ein Konstrukt. München: Knesebeck, 89-107.

Kahnemann, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biasis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 582-591.

Kasperson, R.E., Slovic, P., Renn, O., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X & Ratick, S.(1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177-187.

LaPlace, P.-S. (1816). Essai philosophic sûr les probabilités 1. Paris.

Lerner, J.S. & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14 (4), p. 473-493.

Lopes, L.L. (1995). On modeling risky choice: Why reasons matter. In J.-P. Caverni, F.H. Baron & H. Jungermann (Eds.), Contributions to decision making — I (S. 29-50). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Luhmann, N. (1993). Risiko und Gefahr. In: Krohn, W. & Krücken, G. (Hrsg.). Riskante Technologien: Reflexion und Regulation (138-185). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Phillips, L.D. & Wright, G.N. (1977). Cultural differences in viewing uncertainty and assessing probabilities. In: H. Jungermann and G.D. Zeeuw (Eds.). Decision Making and change in Human Afairs, p. 507-515. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Phillips, L.D. & Wright, G.N. (1983). A theoretical perspective on heuristics and biases in probabilistic thinking. In: Analysing and Aiding Decision Processes, P.C. Humphreys, O. Svenson, and A. Vari (Eds.). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Plous, S. (1993). The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making. New York: McGraw Hill.

Rammstedt, O. (1992). Risiko. In: J. Ritter (Ed.). Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, 8, 1045-1050. Basel: Schwabe.

Renn, O. (1998). Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. Journal of Risk Research, 1 (1), 49-71.

Rohrmann, B. (1998). The risk notion: The risk notion: Epistemological and empirical considerations. In: M.G. Steward & R.E. Melchers (Hrsg.): Integrated risk assessment: Applications and regulations: Applications and regulations (39-46).Rotterdam: Balkama.

Scholz, R.W. (1987). Cognitive Strategies in Stochastic Thinking. Reidel:Dordrecht.

Scholz, R.W. and O. Tietje. (2002). Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative Knowledge. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Schwarzer, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14 (4), 433-440.

Simon, H.A. (1957). Models of Man. New York: Wiley.

Sjöberg, L. (1998). Worry and Risk Perception. Risk Analysis, 18 (1), 85-93.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science 236, 280-285.

Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: D.

Golding & S. Krimsky (Hrsg.). Theories of risk (117-152). London: Praeger.

Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan Publication Ltd.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. (1985). Characterizing perceived risk. In: Kates, R.W., Hohenemser, C. & Kasperson, J.X. (Hrsg.). Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology. Boulder: Westview.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-132.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 3-20). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.