✦ LIBER ✦

Response to Wolpoff's Comment

✍ Scribed by Charles A. Lockwood; John G. Fleagle

Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
Year: 2000
Tongue: English
Weight: 36 KB
Volume: 113
Category: Article
ISSN: 0002-9483
DOI: 10.1002/1096-8644(200010)113:2<277::aid-ajpa10>3.0.co;2-t

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES

Response to Rankin's comments

✍ Gaalen L. Erickson; Jazlin V. Ebenezer 📂 Article 📅 1997 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 16 KB 👁 1 views

Rankin's comments on our article, "Chemistry Students' Conceptions of Solubility: A Phenomenography," are organized around three very different concerns which he has described in somewhat succinct and, we might add, provocative subheadings of: "Nothing New," Two Different Perspectives of Conceptions

Response to editorial comment

✍ Lau, Kean-Wah ;Hung, Jui-Sung 📂 Article 📅 1995 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 115 KB

Letters to the Editor ## Response to Editorial Comment We are writing to express concern over the misinterpretation by Dr. Feldman in his editorial comment [ 11 regarding our balloonsizing method in Inoue mitral commissurotomy [2]. In the aforementioned article, we extended the observations in ou

Response to editorial comments

✍ McLeod, David G. 📂 Article 📅 1997 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 83 KB 👁 1 views

Response to Comment on Valič et al., 200

Response to Comment on Valič et al., 2009

✍ Blaž Valič; Peter Gajšek; Damijan Miklavčič 📂 Article 📅 2009 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 29 KB

Valic ˇet al. [2009] suggest that the presence of an intramedullary nail in the femur can mean that the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) basic restriction for the general public is exceeded even when the reference level is met. As someone who (a) is responsible

A response to Bell, Lederman, and Abd-El

A response to Bell, Lederman, and Abd-El-Khalick's explicit comments

✍ Bruce Palmquist; Fred Finley 📂 Article 📅 1998 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 10 KB

Bell, Lederman, and Abd-El-Khalick's (1998) major concern is that we based our main conclusion on an assumption rather than on what they felt was "substantial direct instruction" (Bell et al., 1998(Bell et al., , p. 1058)). In fact, there was little direct instruction about the nature of science. Du

Response to “Comment: BEMS, WHO, and the

Response to “Comment: BEMS, WHO, and the Precautionary Principle”

✍ Ben Greenebaum 📂 Article 📅 2007 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 41 KB

The WHO EMF program would do well to acknowledge recent biological research and promote forward looking policies in the spirit of the Precautionary Principle, rather than continue to insist that the status quo is just fine. Our environment is changing rapidly, both in the power frequency range, but