2 Replies to “Health and Superfund”

1. Like most of Greenston’e stuff, it’s an interesting paper. It is, however, worth quoting from the paper’s conclusions:

   The finding of health benefits does not necessarily imply that it is in the public interest to continue the Superfund program in its current form. It might be more cost effective, for example, simply to ensure that people do not live near contaminated sites. Further research is clearly needed to determine whether the program is cost effective in improving health outcomes relative to possible alternative use of federal resources. Given the likelihood of a large heterogeneity in the toxicity level of the remaining sites, further research is also needed to determine how the expected benefits of the clean ups may vary across sites, as the program moves its focus from the sites with the highest levels of pollution to the sites with lower levels of pollution. . . .

   A primary limitation of our study is that like many previous studies of hazardous waste sites we do not have a direct measure of exposure or the toxics that individuals were exposed to. Hence, our estimates cannot be used to identify the precise pathways or toxics through which proximity harms health. This is an important question for future research.

2. Like most of Greenston’e stuff, it’s an interesting paper. It is, however, worth quoting from the paper’s conclusions:

   The finding of health benefits does not necessarily imply that it is in the public interest to continue the Superfund program in its current form. It might be more cost effective, for example, simply to ensure that people do not live near contaminated sites. Further research is clearly needed to determine whether the program is cost effective in improving health outcomes relative to possible alternative use of federal resources. Given the likelihood of a large heterogeneity in the toxicity level of the remaining sites, further research is also needed to determine how the expected benefits of the clean ups may vary across sites, as the program moves its focus from the sites with the highest levels of pollution to the sites with lower levels of pollution. . . .

   A primary limitation of our study is that like many previous studies of hazardous waste sites we do not have a direct measure of exposure or the toxics that individuals were exposed to. Hence, our estimates cannot be used to identify the precise pathways or toxics through which proximity harms health. This is an important question for future research.

Comments are closed.