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

• Published in: The Science of the total environment 2010-07, Vol.408 (16), p.3085-3091
• Main Authors: Forslund, Johanna, Samakovlis, Eva, Johansson, Maria Vredin, Barregard, Lars
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Arsenic; Arsenic - isolation & purification; Biological and medical sciences; Business and economics; Chemical and industrial products toxicology. Toxic occupational diseases; Contaminated sites; Contamination; Cost engineering; Ecological risk assessment; Economics; Ekonomi; Environment. Living conditions; Environmental Health and Occupational Health; Environmental Pollutants; Environmental Pollutants - isolation & purification; Environmental Remediation; Environmental Restoration and Remediation; Farmakologi och toxikologi; Guidelines; Health; Humans; isolation & purification; Mathematical analysis; Medical sciences; Metals and various inorganic compounds; Miljömedicin och yrkesmedicin; Nationalekonomi; Number of lives saved; Pharmacology and Toxicology; Policy evaluation; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Remediation; Risk; SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP; SOCIAL SCIENCES; Subsidies; Sweden; Toxicology
• ISSN: 0048-9697; 1879-1026; 1879-1026
• DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.042

Sweden has only just begun remediation of its many contaminated sites, a process that will cost an estimated SEK 60,000 million (USD 9100 million). Although the risk assessment method, carried out by the Swedish EPA, is driven by health effects, it does not consider actual exposure. Instead, the sites are assessed based on divergence from guideline values. This paper uses an environmental medicine approach that takes exposure into account to analyse how cancer risks on and near arsenic-contaminated sites are implicitly valued in the remediation process. The results show that the level of ambition is high. At 23 contaminated sites, the cost per life saved varies from SEK 287 million to SEK 1,835,000 million, despite conservative calculations that in fact probably underestimate the costs. It is concluded that if environmental health risks are to be reduced, there are probably other areas where economic resources can be used more cost-effectively.