ECONOMIC COSTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISEASES AND DISABILITIES

[nosmokes]

original

ECONOMIC COSTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISEASES AND DISABILITIES

From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News
Jan. 5, 2006
<www.rachel.org>

THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISEASES AND DISABILITIES

By Kate Davies

<http://healthlinks.washington.edu/nwcphp/nph/f2005/web_ex_davies_f2005.pdf>
and here <http://washington.chenw.org/pdfs/EnvironmentalCosts.pdf> , Kate
Davies has estimated that enviromment-related diseases in Washington state
cost somewhere betwen $2.8 and $3.5 billion per year. If these costs were
generalized to the entire U.S. population, the total cost of
environment-related diseases would be $132 to $165 billion each year.
However, as this article makes clear, there are large uncertainties in these
estimates. And of course such estimates completely ignore the psychological
and emotional costs of the human suffering involved for the victims, their
families, and their communities.--DHN Editors]

Introduction

It has been said that economics is the only subject in which two people can
get a Nobel Prize for apparently contradictory research. Joking aside,
economics is quite literally a deadly serious business. Especially when it
comes to the health effects of toxic chemicals.

Environmental health advocates have long claimed that economics, and more
specifically the high costs of implementing environmental protection
measures, have been used to justify the continued use of many toxic
chemicals. They assert that government and industry are reluctant to protect
public health from exposure to toxic chemicals, if it means implementing
measures that would cost too much money and reduce profitability. For
example, lead based paint was banned in some European countries as early as
1921 because of health concerns, but it was not outlawed in the US until the
1970s. Similarly, information on the risks of leaded gasoline was available
for many years before regulatory action was taken. Today, the health risks
of asbestos, mercury and many other toxic chemicals are generally
acknowledged by the scientific community, but these substances continue to
be used and released into the environment.

Environmental health policy decisions focus on the costs of taking action to
protect public health, while often ignoring the costs associated with
inaction. In particular, the continued use of toxic chemicals has been
associated with many chronic diseases and disabilities, including cancer,
birth defects, and learning and developmental disabilities. These and other
chronic diseases now cause major limitations in daily living for more than
one in every ten Americans and account for more than 70 percent of the $1
trillion spent each year on health care in the US . Although exposure to
toxic chemicals is only one factor in chronic disease causation,
environmental health policy decisions should take account of both sides of
the metaphorical coin -- both the costs of taking action to protect public
health, and the costs of inaction and continued exposures to environmental
hazards.

~snip~
.
.
.
--###--
complete articlehere