Bush: 'Human life is precious'--EPA: 'Less than you might think'

Federal agencies, when they consider new regulations, weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule, observes AP, so the less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation.

The news service explains the implications: 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.

The benefits under discussion here are the survival of a given number of human beings; the costs are reduced company earnings.

The decreased value of an American life arrived at by the EPA will result in fewer restrictions on pollution, more dangers for consumers and similar corporate-sponsored blights. W. Kip Viscusi of Vanderbilt University, an expert in the field, told the media, Nobodys ever lowered it [the value of a statistical life]. He said that most researchers believe the value should generally be increasing.