Does remediation save lives? - On the cost of cleaning up arsenic-contaminated sites in Sweden

Science of the Total Environment

Volumn 408, Issue 16, 2010, Pages 3085-3091

  Forslund, Johanna ^a   Samakovlis, Eva ^a   Johansson, Maria Vredin ^a   Barregard, Lars ^b  

^a Natl Institute of Economic Research   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Contaminated sites; Number of lives saved; Policy evaluation; Remediation; Subsidies

Indexed keywords

ARSENIC-CONTAMINATED SITES; CANCER RISK; CONTAMINATED SITES; ECONOMIC RESOURCES; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE; HEALTH EFFECTS; NUMBER OF LIVES SAVED; POLICY EVALUATION; RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS;

ARSENIC; CONTAMINATION; COST REDUCTION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; POLLUTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; WATER ANALYSIS;

HEALTH RISKS;

ARSENIC; POLLUTANT;

ARSENIC; BIOREMEDIATION; CLEANUP; CONTAMINATED LAND; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; POLICY APPROACH; POLLUTION EXPOSURE; RISK ASSESSMENT; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

ARTICLE; BIOREMEDIATION; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER RISK; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; HEALTH HAZARD; PRIMARY PREVENTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK REDUCTION; SWEDEN; ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION; HUMAN; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; POLLUTANT;

ARSENIC; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION; HUMANS; SWEDEN; ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND REMEDIATION;

SWEDEN;

EID: 77953689948     PISSN: 00489697     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.042     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Burström K. Kostnadseffektivitetsstudier av primärpreventiva interventioner avseende hälsa. Stockholm County Council, Social medicine Report 1999 1999, 6. [Swedish].
2. Carlon C. Derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe. A review and evaluation of national procedures towards harmonisation. European Commissions JRC Scientific and Technical Report EUR 22805 EN 2007.
3. Chess C., Hance B.J., Sandman P.M. Bättre dialog med allmänheten: en kortfattad handledning för myndigheter i riskkommunikation. Örebro University Hospital, Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Report R 92 2004, 1. [Swedish].
4. Forslund J., Barregard L. Remediation of sites contaminated by arsenic - data to estimate the government cost for risk reduction. Swed Natl Inst Econ Res Brief Pap 2008, 2008:1.
5. Gov. Bill 2000/01:130: Svenska miljömål - delmål och åtgärdsstrategier. Swedish.
6. Gov. Bill 2004/05:150: Svenska miljömål - ett gemensamt uppdrag. Swedish.
7. Gov. Bill 2007/08:1: Budgetpropositionen för 2008. Swedish.
8. Hamilton J.T., Viscusi W.K. Calculating risks - the spatial and political dimensions of hazardous waste policy 1999, The MIT Press, London.
9. Harvard Centre for Cancer Prevention Harvard report on cancer prevention. Cancer Causes Control 1996, 7(Suppl 1):53-59.
10. IARC Some drinking-water disinfectants and contaminants, including arsenic. International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 2004, Vol. 84.
11. Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity to humans 2008, IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Available from: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/crthgr01.php, Accessed 2008-03-28.
12. Liljelind I., Barregard L. Hälsoriskbedömning vid utredning av förorenade områden. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report 5859 2008, [Swedish].
13. Ramsberg J.A.L., Sjöberg L. The cost-effectiveness of life-saving interventions in Sweden. Risk Anal 1997, 17(4):467-478.
14. Rosén L., Söderqvist R., Soutukorva Å., Back P.-E., Grahn L., Eklund H. Riskvärdering vid val av åtgärdsstrategi. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report 5537 2006, [Swedish].
15. Saracci R., Vineis P. Disease proportions attributable to environment. Environ Health 2007, 6(38).
16. Sjöberg L. Riskperception och attityder. Ekonomisk Debatt 2003, 6. [Swedish].
17. Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Lichtenstein S. Perceived risk: psychological factors and social implications. Proc R Soc Lond 1981, A376:17-34.
18. Swedish EPA Development of generic guideline values - model and data used for generic guideline values for contaminated soils in Sweden. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report 4639 1997.
19. Swedish EPA Methods for inventories of contaminated sites. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report 5053 2002.
20. Swedish EPA Rapport riskbedömning av förorenade områden - En vägledning från förenklad till fördjupad riskbedömning 2007, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Available from: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/30_global_meny/02_aktuellt/Remisser/vagledningsmaterial_om_fororenade_omraden/Riskbedomning_av_fororenade_omraden_remissversion_2007-10-19.pdf, Accessed 2008-03-17.
21. Swedish EPA. Lägesbeskrivning av efterbehandlingsarbetet i landet 2007. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency official document, 2008-02-21, Dnr 642-516-08 Rf, Dnr 642-5732-07 Rf; 2008a. Swedish.
22. Swedish EPA. Lägesbeskrivning av efterbehandlingsarbetet i landet 2007 - Bilagor. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency official document 2008-02-21; 2008b. Swedish.
23. Swedish EPA [Internet] Tabell över begränsande faktorer för riktvärdena för förorenad mark. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Available from: , Accessed 2008-12-03; 2008c. Swedish. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/Verksamheter-med-miljopaverkan/Efterbehandling-av-fororenade-omraden/Riskbedomning/Nya-generella-riktvarden-for-fororenad-mark/Tabell-over-begransande-faktorer-for-riktvardena-for-fororenad-mark/.
24. Swedish EPA Kostnads-nyttoanalys som verktyg för prioritering av efterbehandlingsinsatser. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report 5836 2008, [Swedish].
25. SIKA Effektiva styrmedel för säkrare vägtrafik. Swedish Institute for Transport and Communications Analysis PM 2005 2005, 8. [Swedish].
26. SIKA Samhällsekonomiska principer och kalkylvärden för transportsektorn. Swedish Institute for Transport and Communications Analysis PM 2008 2008, 3. [Swedish].
27. Tallbäck M., Rosén M., Stenbeck M., Dickman P.W. Cancer patient survival in Sweden at the beginning of the third millennium - predictions using period analysis. Cancer Cause Control 2004, 15:967-976.
28. Tengs T., Graham J.D. The opportunity cost of haphazard social investments in life-saving. Chapter. Risks, costs and lives saved 1996, Oxford University Press, New York. R.W. Hahn (Ed.).
29. U.S.Department of Health and Human Services Toxicological profile for arsenic. Public health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2007, August.
30. U.S. EPA. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, Publication 9285.7-08I, May 1992.
31. U.S. EPA. Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Calculations at Hazardous Waste Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Publication 9285.6-10, December 2002.
32. U.S.EPA Cleaning up the nation's waste sites: markets and technology trends. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 542-R-04-015 2004.
33. US-NAS Arsenic in drinking water, 2001 update. U.S. National Academy of Science 2001, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
34. Viscusi K.W., Hamilton J.T., Dockins P.C. Conservative versus mean risk assessments: implications for superfund policies. J Environ Econ Manage 1997, 34:187-206.
35. WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality 1993, Volume 1. Geneva, Switzerland. 2nd Ed.
36. WHO Air quality guideline 2000, Geneva, Switzerland. 2nd Ed.
37. WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Recommendations 2004, Volume 1. Geneva, Switzerland.