The processes of Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and the setting of Environmental policy have tended to carefully avoid any direct consideration of the value of human life. A criticism is that if we allow some level of risk to persist in return for economic benefits, this is putting a value on human life (or at least health) and that this is inappropriate because a human life is invaluable–its value is infinite. The criticism is indeed valid; these processes sometimes do implicitly put a finite, if un-stated, value on human life.

A bit of reflection, however, reveals that in fact we put a finite value on human life in many aspects of our society. One example is the automobile. Each year, hundreds or thousands of US citizens are killed in car accidents. This is a significant risk. Yet we allow the risk to continue, although it could be substantially reduced or eliminated by banning cars or through strict, nation-wide speed limits of 15 or 20 mph. But we do not ban cars and allow speeds of 65 mph on major highways because we derive benefits, largely economic, from doing so. Hence, our car "policy" sets a finite value on human life.

You can take issue with my car analogy because, when it comes to cars, it is the driver who his taking the risk for his or her own benefit, while in the case of chemical exposure, risk is imposed on some people for the benefit of others. This position, however, is different from saying that a human life has infinite value. This position says that a finite value is acceptable if the individual in question derives a direct benefit from that valuation. In other words, the question is then one of equity in the risk-benefit trade-off, and the fact that we do place a finite value on life is not of issue.

Another way to address this question is to ask, "How much are we willing to spend to save a human life? The following is from the EnviroScan web site. This is clearly an anti-environmental web site, but I would guess that they are being factual in reporting the following numbers. Basically, it's a calculation of how much money is required to implement actions to address a given risk, per human life that is expected to be saved by the action. Keep in mind that this is money that could otherwise be put to more productive use.

Regulation	Cost of saving one life (US $.)
Auto passive restraint/seat belt standards	100,000.00
Aircraft seat cushion flammability standard	400,000.00
Alcohol and drug control standards	400,000.00
Auto side door support standards	800,000.00
Trenching and excavation standards	1,500,000.00
Asbestos occupational exposure limit	8,300,000.00
Hazardous waste listing for petroleum refining sludge	27,600,000.00
Cover/remove uranium mill tailings (inactive sites.)	31,7000,000.00
Asbestos ban	110,700,000.00
Diethylstilbestrol (DES) cattle feed ban	124,800,000.00
Municipal solid waste landfill standards (proposed)	19,107,000,000.00
Atrazine/Alachlor drinking water standard	92,069,700,000.00
Haz waste listing for wood preserving chemicals	5,700,000,000,000.00 (This is not a typo.)

How much is realistic? It seems to me that a line should be drawn somewhere.

In some cases, Risk Assessment is not used for a risk-benefit analysis, but for comparative risk analysis. For example, in the case of water treatment one can ask: is the risk of cancer from chlorination by-products greater than the risk of death by cholera if we do not chlorinate? Similar, if a government agency has only enough funds to clean up one of two toxic waste sites in the near future, it would be prudent to clean up the site which poses the greatest risk. In both of these cases, one is seeking the course of action which will save the greatest number of lives, so this does not implicitly place a finite value on human life. (In the second example, the allocation of finite funds to the government agency does represent a finite valuation, but the use of Risk Assessment on how to use those funds does not.)

[Comment Form]

Return to main Environmental Justice page.