|
DarkSteven -> RE: EPA says life is worth less today then before (7/11/2008 6:12:57 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hisannabelle
quote:
When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule. The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution.
kind of disturbing if you ask me.
Why?
Insurance companies have it down to a pat science. So much for a limb, so much for loss of work capability, so much for a life.
I have done environmental analyses of alternative remediations. They had different costs, and different levels of effectiveness. Then you look at it from a cost/benefit POV. While this may be "disturbing", I see no alternative.
That said, this is another example of the laziness in the current administration. There are numerous valid ways that the analysis could be legitimately rejiggered, but that would involve understanding that's being done, which the Bushies aren't about to do...
For example, the ground assumptions in analyses I did was that a child is born in a house on contaminated land. He/she lives his/her entire life there, eating 10 mg of contaminated soil each day, while the family raises their own food, including milk from a backyard cow, and the child eats it. Ridiculous assumptions.
|
|
|
|
