At the request of the government, the National Academy of Sciences did a study of arsenic in drink water and recommended the levels be lowered to keep the potential cancer risk at or below the EPA mandated rate. The lin

The ?statistical lives? argument is a hotly debated one. Dr. John(?) Graham of Harvard, on tap as the new OMB Regulatory review chief, is one of its main pr oponents. He believes in equating the cost of regulations to the life- years lost and making the decision based on that analysis.

One argument against the theory seems to be that down-plays ignores quality of life issues. At the extreme, the idea could be used to argue that air pollution levels should be lowered enough to reduce the risk of lung cancer but reducing it to combat asthma and emphysema might not be cost effect becasue it didn?t impact ?statistical lives?, just life quality. It's not like you can't give them oxygen bottles. Probably covered under a government program, too.

Unanswered (so far as I can find on a cursory search) is why the WHO supports the stricter standard. The search continues.

Regards

John