home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!ncrlnk!ncratl!mwilson
- From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
- Newsgroups: sci.environment
- Subject: Re: Valuing the health benefits of clean air
- Keywords: Stop the Orygun Chainsaw Massacre, etc, etc.
- Message-ID: <2320@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
- Date: 13 Aug 92 16:25:35 GMT
- References: <41213@ogicse.ogi.edu>
- Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
- Lines: 33
-
- >increased risk of death due to PM10 (particulate matter, 10 microns) exposure
- >is 1/10,000. (For contrast, the risk of dying in a car accident is 2 in 10,000,
- >and the risk of job related death is 0.5 in 10,000)
-
- >They estimate the annual economic value of avoiding these effects at 9.8
- >billion dollars, and that attaining air pollution standards may save 1600
- >lives a year.
-
- How many lives could be saved if that 9.8 million would be applied to say
- cancer or aids research. And *please* don't tell me that we should have
- enough money to spend on both.
-
- Saving lives is a very noble goal. At the same time why don't we try
- to get the maximum bang for the buck.
-
- 6.1 million dollars per life saved does not seem very cost effective.
-
- Note: Their have been recent studies that seek to show that decreased
- economic growth is also bad for potential health. That is, basically.
- A wealthier economy has more money to spend on health. Both health
- services for citizens and more research. The studies I have heard about
- put a figure of 7.5 to 20 million dollars per extra death per year.
- These studies are still controversial and not excepted by all.
-
- The lower figure of 7.5 million per extra death is getting awful
- close to your figure of 6.1 million per life saved.
-
- The field is complicated, and getting more so by the day.
-
- > Jim
- --
- --Mark
-
-