美国的环境保护 美国环保局最近提议 这是最大的污染物 修订砷的水平（MCL） 从50微克/升到10微克/升。这一变化将 严重的经济后果 水系统。这项计划的好处是什么 修改后的MCL费用合理吗？ 根据弗罗斯特等人的说法，修订后的 砷MCL将导致生产成本高 不确定的利益。为了支持他们的理论， 他们检查了癌症的健康风险 用于支持该研究的研究 建议修订并评估质量 以及它的成本效益。 他们坚持认为 支持提议的新技术的科学 砷MCL充满了不确定性。 例如，砷MCL修订版 部分基于外推 砷相关癌症风险的研究进展 在台湾对美国民众来说。然而 作者们发现，没有人能阻止我们 流行病学研究发现 对饮食者的不良健康影响 美国供水系统 砷作者使用了对这些数据的估计 美国环保局制定的合规成本 和AWWA研究基金会 以及美国环保局估计的 砷- 计算相关癌症死亡率 生命年的边际成本 针对不同的MCL选项获得。这些 然后将成本与可接受的成本进行比较 其他公共卫生和医疗费用 治疗干预。即使假设 美国环保局的预计收益和成本， 弗罗斯特等人坚持认为，每年的成本 从提议的法规中获得的生命价值 远高于可接受的成本 每年从医疗干预中获得的生命 或其他公共卫生项目。 考虑到他们的发现，作者们 希望饮用水行业 采取更积极的方法来评估 健康影响科学的新发展 提议的法规及其条款 将开始讨论可接受的 未来法规中每单位收益的成本。 弗罗斯特和同事们也希望 该行业由AWWA和/或其他 美国环境保护局将对抗 改革用于证明新产品合理性的流程 规定。包括30个参考文献和表格。

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recently proposed that the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic be revised from 50 to 10 ug/L. This change will have significant economic consequences for water systems. Will the benefits of the revised MCL justify the expense? According to Frost et al, the revised arsenic MCL will result in high costs for uncertain benefits. To support their theory, they examined the cancer health risk studies that were used to support the proposed revision and evaluated the quality of this evidence as well as its costeffectiveness. They maintain that the science supporting the proposed new arsenic MCL is fraught with uncertainties. For instance, the arsenic MCL revision is partly based on an extrapolation of arsenic-related cancer risks from studies in Taiwan to US populations. However, the authors discovered that no US epidemiological studies have found adverse health effects in people who consumed US water supplies that contained arsenic. The authors used estimates of the cost of compliance developed by USEPA and the AWWA Research Foundation and USEPA's estimated reductions in arsenic-related cancer mortality to calculate the marginal cost per year-of-life gained for different MCL options. These costs were then compared with acceptable costs for other public health and medical treatment interventions. Even assuming USEPA's projected benefits and costs, Frost et al maintain that the cost per year of life gained from the proposed regulation is much higher than acceptable costs per year of life gained from medical interventions or other public health programs. With their findings in mind, the authors hope that the drinking water industry will take a more aggressive approach to evaluating the health effects science for new proposed regulations and that their article will initiate a discussion of acceptable costs per unit of benefit for future regulations. Frost and colleagues also hope that the industry, led by AWWA and/or other organizations, will confront USEPA to reform the process used to justify new regulations. Includes 30 references, tables.