Abstract
Critical comments by Palm and Slovic on a previous article of mine (L. Sjöberg, Consequences of perceived risk: demand for mitigation, Journal of Risk Research 2, 129-149) are discussed. Palm's arguments are largely based on misreading of my article, and her own studies, which she described in detail, are largely irrelevant in the present discussion. Slovic's arguments are met by pointing out that the many references he cites in favour of his standpoint are mostly quite misleading and irrelevant. Furthermore, I present two new studies where the riskiness of activities was investigated, as well as the risk of unwanted events caused by such activities. All results very clearly support the conclusion that seriousness of consequences is a more important determinant of demand for risk mitigation than risk or probability of unwanted events, or riskiness of activities that can lead to such events.