Main Article Content
In a previous paper, we discussed that the application of cost benefit analysis (CBA) often incurs setting a value to a statistical human life (VOSL). This led to decades of research into what a reasonable value should be. These evaluations of the VOSL lead to widely varying results. Rather than attempting to harmonize on an average with large margins of uncertainty, the conclusion can be drawn that indeed there is no law of nature that determines what risk is acceptable and that, therefore, a consistent valuation of a human life cannot be expected. Nor can it be expected that there is a universally valid number for the acceptability of a risk. We argue that one should accept that standardization of acceptable risks has its practical limitations given by the – lack of – similarity in nature of the activity and the nature of the risk. In fact, attempts to force standardization are counterproductive. In many cases, one has to accept the only available alternative not involving violence, which is a political debate, terminated by the more general rule of law or constitution on how to settle such a debate and then accept the decision.
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
1 Ale BJM, Hartford DND, Slater D. ALARP and CBA all in the same game. Safety Science. 2015;76:90–100.
2 Edwards v The National Coal Board. 1949;1 A11 ER 743, Court of Appeal (UK). http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQ5a-l1YfZAhUP0mMKHZyQC-EQFghQMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Foxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk%2Fnew%2Fcasebook%2Fcases%2FCases%2520Chapter%252025%2FEdwards%2520v%2520National%2520Coal%2520Board.doc&usg=AOvVaw1f3mxuEzfBmgedOVLSxFtf
3 Health and Safety Executive. Reducing risk, protecting people. Norwich: Her Majesty’s stationery office; c2001.
4 Bacon JH. Categories and structures of manmade risks and related basic problems: a risk regulator's perspective. Risks and safety of technical systems. 10th Forum Engelberg; 1999 Mar 23-24.
5 Kluin MH. Optic compliance. Enforcement and compliance in the Dutch chemical industry. PhD thesis. Ridderkerk: Ridderprint; 2014, Doi:10.4233/uuid:81b399d2-d0fc-44c7-b799-d02578f3a874
6 Ale BJM, Kluin MHA, Koopmans IM. Safety in the Dutch chemical industry 40 years after Seveso. J Loss Prev Process Ind.2017;49:61-67
7 Drucker PF. The practice of management. New York: Harper & Row; c1954;
8 Kelly KA, Cardon NC. The myth of 10-6 as a definition of acceptable risk. EPA Watch:1994; 3 nr 1.
9 Ale BJM. Risk analysis and risk policy in the Netherlands and the EEC. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 1991;4:58-64
10 Ale BJM. Dealing with risks of fixed installations in the Netherlands. Cryogenics. 1993;33(8):762-766
11 Omgaan met Risico’s, Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 1988-1989, 21137, nr 5. English translation: Premises for Risk Management. 1988.
12 Morall III JF. A Review of the record. Regulation. 1986;10(2)
13 Morall III JF. Controlling regulatory costs: the use of regulatory budgeting. Paris: OECD/GD 1992:
14 Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, Safran DG, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, et al. Five hundred lifesaving interventions and their cost effectiveness. Risk Anal. 1995;15;369-390.
15 Heinzerling L. Regulatory costs of mythic proportions. The Yale Law Journal. 1998;107(7);1981-2070
16 Morall III JF. Saving lives: A review of the record. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory studies. 2003: Working Paper No. 03-6.Available from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=424523 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.424523
17 Heinzerling L. The rights of statistical people, Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 2000;24:189-207. Available from: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/327
18 Viscusi WK, Aldy J. The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertain. 2003;27:5-76.
19 Blaeij A de. The value of statistical life in road safety: a meta-analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2003; 35: 973-986
20 Ackerman F. The unbearable lightness of regulatory costs. Global Development and Environment Institute. Tufts University. 2006: Working Paper No. 06-02.
21 Basta C, Christou M, Struckl M, Ale B. Translating the risk of major accidents into opportune safety distances from dangerous establishments: recent developments of the European regulation as deriving from selected national practices. Proceedings of the Ninth International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference: 2008 May 18-23: Hong Kong.
22 Basta C.,, Risk, territory and society: challenge for a joint European regulation. PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology; The Netherlands; 2009.