3 ms·
Sure but that's not an argument for letting the person who is putting others at risk, decide how much safety they want to pay for.
by nerdbert 3y ago
Sure but that's not an argument for letting the person who is putting others at risk, decide how much safety they want to pay for.
- jessriedel 3y agoThe statistical value of life in the US, which is applicable to small diffuse risks, is ~$10M. When the NHTSA or EPA or whatever decide whether to spend money on clean up a river to reduce cancer risks or impose safety rules, they use that amount (to first order). If someone is willing to pay p*$50M for a p<<1 chance of killing a member of the general public, the gov't can allow them and then spend that money saving lives, leading to both net lives saved and additional freedom/flexibility.