Perhaps a story that has no sports angle at all ... but one that you're going to have to read over and over again before deciding just how much of a die-hard fan you can afford to be for one team: By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer WASHINGTON -- The government has decided that an American life isn't worth what it used to be. The "value of a statistical life" is $6.9 million in today's dollars, the Environmental Protection Agency reckoned in May -- a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago. The Associated Press discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years. Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences. 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. Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted. Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing the value to avoid tougher rules -- a charge the EPA denies. "It appears that they're coo ...
Anytime
Perhaps a story that has no sports angle at all ... but one that you're going to have to read over and over again before deciding just how much of a die-hard fan you can afford to be for one team: By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer WASHINGTON -- The government has decided that an American life isn't worth what it used to be. The "value of a statistical life" is $6.9 million in today's dollars, the Environmental Protection Agency reckoned in May -- a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago. The Associated Press discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years. Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences. 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. Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted. Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing the value to avoid tougher rules -- a charge the EPA denies. "It appears that they're coo ...