Table 2.

Comparison of the monetized impact of IQ decrements from anthropogenic mercury emissions under assumptions by Trasande et al. and the U.S. EPA.

Monetized impacts	Trasande (original)	Trasande (corrected)	U.S. EPA
Undiscounted effects ($US 2000)
Monetized impact of anthropogenic emissions	33 billion	3 billion	580 million
Monetized impact of U.S. anthropogenic emissions	12 billion	1 billion	35 million
Monetized impact of U.S. power plant emissions	5 billion	480 million	15 million
Discounted effects ($US 2000)
Monetized impact of anthropogenic emissions	33 billion	3 billion	370 million
Monetized impact of U.S. anthropogenic emissions	12 billion	1 billion	25 million
Monetized impact of U.S. power plant emissions	5 billion	480 million	10 million
Assumptions
Linear dose–response slope	0.93	0.093	0.032
Male lifetime earnings ($US 2000)	1,032,002	1,032,002	472,465
Female lifetime earnings ($US 2000)	763,468	763,468	472,465
Male earning loss of 1 IQ point decrement (%)	1.93	1.93	2.38
Female earning loss for 1 IQ point decrement (%)	3.23	3.23	2.38
Fish consumption affected by U.S. deposition (%)	58	58	30
Fish consumption affected by global sources (%)	42	42	70
Domestic deposition from U.S. sources (%)	60	60	16
Global deposition from U.S. sources (%)	2	2	2
U.S. emissions from U.S. power plants (%)	41	41	41
Discount rate (%)	0	0	3
Average no. of years for ecosystem adjustment	0	0	15