| A Comparison of the Monetized Impact of IQ Decrements from Mercury Emissions Charles Griffiths, Al McGartland, and Maggie Miller U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA Abstract
Objective: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that the upper bound of benefits from removing mercury emissions by U.S. power plants after implementing its Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) is $210 million per year. In contrast, Trasande et al. [Environ Health Perspect113:590–596 (2005) ] estimated that American power plants impose an economic cost of $1.3 billion due to mercury emissions. It is impossible to directly compare these two estimates for a number of reasons, but we are able to compare the assumptions used and how they affect the results. Data Sources and Data Extraction: We use Trasande's linear model with a cord/maternal blood ratio of 1.7 and calculate health effects to children whose mothers had blood mercury levels ÷ 4.84 µg/L. Data Synthesis: We introduce the assumptions that the U.S. EPA used in its Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) analysis and discuss the implications. Using this approach, it is possible to illustrate why the U.S. EPA assumptions produce a lower estimate. Conclusions: The introduction of all the U.S. EPA assumptions, except for those related to discounting, decreases the estimated monetized impact of global anthropogenic mercury emissions in the Trasande model by 81%. These assumptions also decrease the estimated impact of U.S. sources (including power plants) by almost 97%. When discounting is included, the U.S. EPA assumptions decrease Trasande's monetized estimate of global impacts by 88% and the impact of U.S. power plants by 98%. Key words: benefits, CAMR, dose response, fish consumption, IQ, mercury, methylmercury, U.S. EPA. Environ Health Perspect 115:841–847 (2007) . doi:10.1289/ehp.9797 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 26 February 2007]
Address correspondence to C. Griffiths, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, West Bldg, Room 4316F, MC 1809T, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004-2403 USA. Telephone: (202) 566-2288. Fax: (202) 566-2338. E-mail: griffiths.charles@epa.gov We thank D. Axelrad for his invaluable assistance and S. Newbold for his careful review. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. EPA. The authors declare they have no competing financial interests. Received 4 October 2006 ; accepted 26 February 2007.
The full version of this article is available for free in HTML or PDF formats. | 
