Save Myriad Calculated with airSlate SignNow

Save myriad calculated

hello on behalf of the Society for benefit cost analysis I'd like to welcome everyone and thank you for joining us today we're really excited about launching the Society's online webinar series with today's discussion of assessing ways of saving lives during the Cova 19 endemic however before we get started like to cover a few housekeeping items first all attendees will be placed on mute and we remain so for the duration of the presentation but if you have a question we'll try to get answer them at the end of the discussion so please submit the question using the chat feature at the bottom of your zone panel also please note that the session is being recorded and will be posted shortly on the Society's website I'd now like to introduce your speakers for today when discuss when policy discussions involve trade-offs between economic activity and mortality risks the person most likely to be consulted or cited is Kipnis koozie he's a pioneer in developing the key concept used in such analyses the value of a statistical life kip is the university distinguished professor of law economics and management at Vanderbilt Law School and a former president of the Society for benefit cost analysis today's talk it is also worth noting that he recently authored the book pricing lives guideposts for a safer Society Kipp will be interviewed today by Tom canoes nur Thomas University professor at the Claremont Graduate University School of Social science policy and evaluation he is also the editor of the journal of benefit cost analysis Tom is particularly well-suited for today's topic given his extensive research into assessing the level and distribution of the economic benefits of life saving government regulations the society is very grateful to have them both here today it's about further ado Tom please take it away thank you and good morning for those of us where it's morning so Kip why don't we start off by asking you why are economists discussing the appropriate response to coronavirus risks isn't that just a medical or political issue well there's the kind of thing that economists do all the time in regulatory context so worrying about risk probabilities the health impacts of these risks the cost to address the risks so the whole idea of conceptualizing and valuing these policies is very much me economists ballpark and it's the really it is the kind of thing that all of us have been doing for decades but isn't this much different than the analyses economists usually do is it the matter of saving lives just an ethical question well the saving lives is what is or the things that I value so as valued risk to life so that's where the value of statistical life comes in so the benefit for any government regulation or any government policy the society's willingness to pay for the particular benefit and in this case what we are monetizing is your willingness to pay for a small reduction in risk that is resulting from any of the myriad of kovat 19 or coronavirus policies that we've adopted so in this situation I would applaud the same kind of value of statistical life approach that we use in other policy context as a way of reflecting society's willingness to pay for the benefit so how about briefly explaining the concept of value of statistical life for PSL in terms of how it's calculated and why not just use the present value of earnings loss from people that are killed or died well the president the value of Americans lost when people die is what the courts use after you're dead so if you're run over in an automobile accident the amount of compensation that we'd be paid out will be governed by the present value of your lost earnings and often they deduct the value of your consumption let's say we reduce it by 40% for the consumption of the deceased and it's a way of monetizing what's the income loss to the family however from the standpoint of your willingness to pay for the reducing your risk of death you also have to take into account you not only care about the income lost your family you care about the fact that you're dead so that's sort of the the driving force behind the valuation government agencies used to use the present value of lost earnings as a way of calculating what they call the cost of death they said life is too sacred to value therefore we're going to calculate the cost of death and for the cost of death they used the present value of lost earnings but instead of that I suggest that they'd use my value of statistical life numbers which back in 1982 were three million dollars or just about almost eight million dollars in today's money and doing that increases the benefits you get from government regulations by a factor of ten so not only were they using the wrong number you know for the wrong reason saying if they just call it the cost of death they weren't really valuing mortality risks but also they were using too low a number to value risk to life now you talked about willingness to pay but we have to estimate it in various contexts so want to just amplify a little bit what those contexts are you know consumption job oh the main context where we've gotten the numbers including some that we've co-authored as well is from the labor market and so I've been doing labor market analyses since the 1970s and the analyses improved over time because we have better data so now we can match to the when we look at large samples of workers you can match to the workers the risks that are specific to the kinds of jobs that the workers have so we can characterize the risks in terms of the workers industry the workers not patient you can take you to account the workers aah immigrant status gender lots of different characteristics to try and fine-tune what the measure is of the job risk facing particular workers using these data and you could then figure out or estimate what is the wage premium workers get for this risk and so these are the sources of the value of statistical life numbers from the labor market the average annual fatality risk now is about one chance in 25,000 a year for a worker in the earlier years it was about one chance in 10,000 and so is the risk trade-off for these small risks that are used to construct the value of statistical life numbers now has it this also been validated in things like product markets and other contexts and willingness to pay for safer cars or bicycle helmets and things like that yes for example you've done it for airbags was one example I've done it for used car safety infused cars I've also done it for living near hazardous waste sites what's the you know the cancer risk living near hazardous waste site so you can do it lots of different contexts so any situation where people are making market decisions involving risk you can look at what effect is the risk a bond that price people are willing to pay for the good so safer products command a higher price and what's the wage commanded for a risky job riskier jobs command a higher price a higher wage in order to do the job now it's used in government agencies not just in the u.s. evaluating like health and safety regulations more generally you want to expand on that a little bit on how the numbers are used or what you've done there well the government agencies originally were anchored on the low numbers so they're anchored on the present value of lost earnings but they've gradually increased the numbers over time and in my book pricing lines which is back here anyway giving it the plug in my book to 2018 Princeton University Press and then on that book I advocate a value statistic of life number of 10 million dollars in 2015 dollars which would be 11 million dollars in current prices so with this would be the way to get these numbers where these numbers come from so if a worker faces one chance in 10,000 risk of death and you have 10,000 workers like this and each of them gets paid an extra thousand dollars a year for this job then the value of statistical life for this group you get 10,000 workers each of whom faces one chance in 10,000 of death on average one of them is gonna die and they're being paid 10,000 workers tons $1,000 each or 10 million dollars so that would be the genesis of how you calculate these numbers so anyway in current dollars I use a number around 11 million dollars government agencies now are also in the 9 to 11 million dollar range somewhere in that vicinity in terms of the numbers that most of the government agencies now use now other countries use VSL in their policymaking not just the US you wanna tell us a little bit about how it might be the same or different than what we do in the US for thresholds well it should be different because they're poorer than we are and the value statistical life how much people are willing to pay for reducing mortality risks is going to vary with your income in fact it goes up fairly substantially so internationally a 10% increase in your income will lead to a 10% increase in the country's value of statistical life or since everybody else is poorer than the United States except for anything Qatar where I'm not sure the money's redistributed to the population at large but anyway because they're poorer you would apply a lower value of statistical life in those countries than in the United States and I've calculated those numbers some of those I did with Clayton Masterman a co-author student co-author now and you can actually determine what would be the appropriate value statistical life extrapolating from the United States and then essentially reducing the u.s. numbers for these other countries after you do that the numbers still end up bigger than what these countries currently use so what I claim on my book is that countries throughout the world are still considerably under valuing risk to life because they remain too hung up and anchored on the old approach that they used to use which is based on the present value of lost earnings and it takes a long time to eventually move up to a more sensible approach yes I should point out to the audience that much of what Kip is talking about but in with Clayton or himself it's in the general benefit cross analysis in the last few years so you can get a good flavor of this topic by reading the general benefit cost analysis now what about let's connect via cell to the pandemic current research about what to do or how how to do it and if you have some papers you want to suggest people read about this quickly putting your own work with respect to the pandemic well have a paper coming out in the October issue of the journal of risk and uncertainty which goes into all the topics that I'm talking about today but telling you how to do I would do it in terms of covering all all the terrain I believe you have a paper in that issue as well as about let's Jim Hammett there's also a really great paper coming out in the journal of benefit cost analysis by Linda thunder sturum and her university of wyoming co-authors where they actually crank through a benefit-cost analysis analyzing whether the initial shutdown was worthwhile and the paper is already in early view you can look at it now and the issue should be out this week formally now how about fine-tuning the analysis such as taking account of age or other demographic income sex race because that's going to come up in many of these papers to you know more the more you fine-tune these things the more people are going to hate you for being an economist yeah so all these things are tend to be very controversial and so often there's a trade-off between what's the right efficiency and certain what's the kind of society conceptualize the appropriate equity issues in the case of age and we've done you and I've done with Jim's iliac an analysis of the clear skies initiative trying to show what happens when EPA in that situation devalue the lives of people over the age of 70 or 65 by 37% well doesn't make a difference if you use age adjusted value statistical life in that situation and didn't matter a huge amount though the value of statistical life does tale off with age but it doesn't drop off the table and with respect to all these age issues which i think is particularly prominent how people want to think about equity differs so it's the equitable solution to value all lives the same which in which case you'd use the same value of statistical life for everybody or is it that you should value each person's year of life each year of life for each person should have the same value in which case older people people particularly those 85 and over who are being killed by the Cova 19 pandemic they would attend have a lower value statistical life and you can calculate their value using value of statistical life year numbers dive estimated yeah one of the things I've always tried to emphasize it's a little salty or is it some of the people who don't like the concept of VSL don't really don't make them don't make the connection that it's it's higher than other measures and that makes the benefit of safety higher so it's always a little strange when when people you know who want to promote more safety you want to pick a low value of safety too to talk about you know they'd be these numbers people tend to think you're devaluing life until you hear what the number is they say oh my god I even know my life is worth that much and the alternative is you know some of the things we're all doing right now is you know I don't want to use medical costs of having a non-fatal colvett infection because that's nothing basically and what is what is the cost of a death right now for people that die young or old she's the old a few days in a hospital I mean that's you know at a thousand or 2,000 a day that's not what we want to say that is the benefit from preventing that death I hope sure now comp severe it about the initial lack down which is in some places including where I am the recommendation is to relock down so what does economics have to say about whether things ought to open up or not open up or close up again do you think well I'm currently locked down myself Susie a Stickley locked down and I think what economists do is that we give you a methodology for thinking about it so when they're thinking about well should you open up a hairdressers should you open up bars now try and think of where the incremental benefits from doing that what are the incremental cost then you can't always put a number on these things you can't calculate them but at least you're conceptualizing the issue correctly in most of these situations the best you're going to be able to do is have some subjective assessment well if we open up bars then we'll have an extra 1,000 cases you know it you know make a judgment what's the what's the health cost of that and what's the benefit associated with it so thinking about trade-offs and least thinking like economists is probably at least a good start in these situations because we're not going to have numbers on these different things I mean it's like this is reminiscent of after the terrorist attack there's a sense that we should under take precautions after the 9/11 now nobody could tell us we don't take these precautions what's the number of people are gonna die because of plane hijackings next year so there was not a number that people had for that but yet government agencies but have to make some assessment well if we undertake this you in order to justify the cost you would have to save let's say 50 lives and in our judgment you would do that so that would be the way you can approach it right unfortunately we learn in basic economics is that the optimal amount of bad things like crime isn't zero you know you just have to tolerate some of this and although you don't want to come off like saying the old saying the problem with youth that is wasted on the young and then the young people come back and say the problem with wisdom is it's wasted on the elderly so now you're working on others health and safety issues that involve via cell that may or may not involve coal but you want to tell us a little bit about what you're up to well I've been worrying a lot about police shootings which have been in the news and so I have a paper with Scott Jeffery coming out University of Illinois Law Review we're doing more work on that topic now which is what's the role the value of statistical life with respect to police shootings so there are in there other deaths not just from shootings you know you could be choked to death by police as well so how should we think about what the appropriate damages should be in those contexts and so I've written about what's the role of a logistical life particularly instead of punitive damages so if you find a situation where the killing was malicious or reckless or displayed a wanton disregard for the safety of the person who's being dealt with then how should you think about what the court should award in damages and generally these people don't get big damages it's very hard to win at all when they do get damages it's more on the order of a million dollars or less so the only exception I've found is Justine de Mond in Minneapolis she the woman who was shot to death by the police she's from Australia my wife and I Joanie and I were in Australia at the time when she was shot to death in Minneapolis and it was front-page news there they were just in shock the police would shoot somebody and kill them and so in that situation she got 20 her family got 20 million dollars but except in that rare case the damages tend to be very low so the value of statistical life in these situations could first of all serve as a mechanism for setting appropriate damages when punitive damages are warranted and also municipalities could use this number when they're trying to conceptualize how much is it worth to prevent these shooting these killings then they could apply the value statistic of life so we've calculated for people who are fleeing unarmed from police what's the value of statistical life associated with these killings and this in the billions of dollars so and then you go through the different gradations of culpability you know fleeing and unarmed fleeing and armed not fleeing and unarmed or not fleeing an armed so different context not all police shootings are unwarranted but some of them certainly are and then you want to do you want to incentivize the police department so that they do strike an appropriate balance between you know the safety of the public at large and then the well-being of those who they're chasing after now we're starting to get many questions come in from the audience so I'm going to try to get at some of those now with the time we have allowed one of them is I know you've done work and on like how you died like from cancer or some other situation is is that a what do you want to tell us about that no how you died does matter so the numbers in the labor market are those for traumatic occupational injuries in some cases there's prolonged hospital stay after it like a burn injury for example but usually the the deaths are there accidental deaths of various kinds that's different than cancer they're not painless and so with ELISA Phillip Gentry my former student now professor washing off s you law school we estimated what we're looking these fatalities what's the share of the value of statistical life attributed to the morbidity loss and it ends up being a non-trivial amount it varies depending on the impacting or from six to twenty five percent so part of the value statistical life does reflect the morbidity effect but then there are other illnesses which with prolonged hospital stays like cancer which are much more highly valued than occupational risks or transportation safety where it's also traumatic death and we found a 20% premium in a recent study for cancer deaths because of the associate associated morbidity effects and there are other estimates of the premium out there too depending on the nature of the morbidity consequences of the treatments so yes how do you die matters but certainly all in the barren any death the biggest thing you're losing is your life so the fact that you're dead the risk of death and being gone is the biggest welfare loss and things can be the driver of the willingness to pay so I would still start with the value statistic of life as the starting point but also recognize that being killed on the job is not painless so that the fact that other deaths involved pain and suffering as well does not necessarily distinguish them it's only if they're more painful than then job desk and how much be people be willing to pay to avoid these risks reducing these risks that would be the driver a government agencies generally don't make this adjustment in the UK they've periodically made adjustments for cancer giving it a higher value and there's been discussion in the United States of doing that but I don't know how much that's to right you've also done work on natural disasters and terrorism so how you die has has touched on that too so some audience questions some of which get into some very interesting subtle issue so one is one of our viewers to know that when I think about medical ethicists and craft guidelines for extreme events such as ventilators that might be dashing explicitly recommended and expected longevity is involved and prioritizing one patient over another in a medical care industry but when economists attach a dollar value on the remaining lifespan by using a value of statistical life year rather than a value of statistical life we are accused of being cold-hearted death panelists as this at a pair of double standard and what are your thoughts about well I actually have a chapter on that issue in my book and the book my dad so yeah one of the American risk and insurance Association of book of the Year award but the one of the issues has to do with what number you're putting on the life years so that in the UK which is where they really do monetize these things they put a value on each year of life and if you're lying life extending your life but extra five years cost more than this amount you should not worth doing so this would be in that the analog of the death panels people worried about well the numbers in the UK as I shown my book they're off by a factor of ten even for the UK they're too low so yeah if you're gonna set some budget price and what year every year of life is worth then sure people are gonna go ballistic and say you know economists are sort of you know too cold-hearted and doing the wrong thing in the United States the number is about five hundred thousand dollars per year of life for expected year of life in terms of value to the system to life here that's a fairly substantial number since most people have some life expectancy you know even if even if you're old you may have you know if you're 85 you're showing your remaining life expectancy is six point six years so you know you still come up with a three or four million dollar value even if you use value of statistical life here whether you want to go that route depends on what how you want to make your decisions but you can do the calculations and the calculations if you do it correctly or not always as low as people assume that they are as to why people get upset at economists I'm not sure that they are at that upset like I've never had anybody be upset with me talking about valiums does just to the life here I think they get upset when they have these visions of Sarah Palin even these visions of death panels that would be coming but I mean I think people would be uncomfortable with doctors talking about that - should we pull the plug on this person because you know this person's 85 there's somebody down the hall in 70 well in that situation if somebody has to they have to it's an either/or a choice and they're trading off a life for a life so that doesn't seem as controversial because there's a constraint on how many ventilators they have but if they just said oh you've hit this age range because you're this age we're not going to use waste our money on a ventilator for you that would be a different issue and I think that would be much more controversial even for doctors to do that now one of our audience members points out that there was a recent article in The Washington Post that reported on projections of reduced births in the near future due to colvett panic and went on to apply a $10,000,000 of yourself for an on birth if you consider the use of biostatistics of life for people who could hypothetically exist in the future to be appropriate if not how do you see this example of not having as many taxpayers and relatives and led to the larger phenomenon of non Economist's maybe not in fully embracing or understanding the value statistical life well the balance is difficult life generally pertains to how much people who are currently alive are willing to pay for a reduction in risk and so if you're talking about births that didn't happen the value typically would be how much would the parents have been willing to pay for this additional birth and usually they can shift the timing of the birth so instead of having a baby this year during the pandemic wait a year and so that there's not a total loss and this issue also comes up on in other contexts as well so I I've taught various programs on this concept and the you know the anti-abortion people point out that they want to apply a value to Stuka life to all the dead babies and so that if you start going down the road of valuing the statistical life of the unborn you may want to think about all the different context where it comes up and does it really make that much sense well thus far today in the United States policy we've restrict ourselves to value the lives of those currently alive which i think is easier to do one of the interesting questions that's popped up from the audience is in the transportation sector where one could argue that there's a hedonic factor the perception of control which might affect the real evaluation of mentality risks in air travel or auto travel and possibly you know change the relative value of safety when you think about autonomous vehicles or piloted vehicles even though I'm a much worse risk driving myself than than the airline pilot is driving me in the air so do you think that kind of autonomy or control is important in general and in particular for Colvard policy decisions well the extent that people think that they have control and therefore face a lower risk than average they're not going to be taking appropriate levels of say of care in the case of the auto situation at least I found for used cars you found for airbags when people buy cars they're least willing to spend a substantial amount on safety so even though they have this may have this illusion of control that they when it comes to the actual trade-off they're willing to pay substantial amounts for safety whether people getting behind the wheel or excessively cost in cautious or too bold because they think they're much better drivers than they are you know it's not clear to me that that's a big big problem the flipside is get on getting on a plane because it's not under your control you think that the risk is much greater and unless it's a boeing 737 max then you're probably you know not not a much greater risk than you would be driving yourself now one of the issues that pops up and people I talked to as well as some of the audience questions is what what exactly you know given that the the risk of death has an effect on VSL meaning you know it's not a linear or not constant what do you think is the right way to think about the risk for Colvin I mean it's it's there are about a million to two million people infected but a hundred thousand died and we have 300 to 350 million people so some people think the risk of death is you know 100,000 but it's it's not it taken at large it's a hundred thousand over 300 million because everybody's at risk kids everybody so do you think that getting now the the you know the comparison point right is being done and what do you think the comparison point is well the size of the risk change doesn't follow me too much if you look at labor market studies they do include workers and some pretty harvest jobs right why have shown that if you're valuing a risk change of one in a thousand so if you're doing a policy that reduces the risk to society about one in a thousand as opposed to a smaller probability like one in ten thousand so the value of statistical life is about eight percent less so it would be a little bit less and the flipside and if you're increasing the risk so if you decide you're gonna increase the risk by opening up bars and restaurants in California and beaches where you are then the willingness to pay for reducing it goes up his actually goes up by about ten percent if you increase the risk by about one chance in ten thousand so that ya large changes in risk do have a slightly different value however most policies that we have there are you're looking at the global thing if we did nothing for Kovac nineteen versus if we did everything sure that's a huge swing in the probabilities but most of the decisions were making or not quantum leap decisions it's like well I get a haircut and I don't know if you've noticed but I succumbed and I've gotten a haircut yes I you know I've done the small marginal change in riskiness and I'm willing to do that sort of thing and for that I've used my value statistical life number now eleven million dollars to figure that out yeah I'd like I'd like to point out for people that there is you know research by economists longtime research on very risky situations too so it's not like we haven't studied these there is a you know test pilots versus airline pilots there's Sherpas taking people up Mount Everest there's a Drewes catch people who catch fish and you know in the Atlantic and there are people who study janitors who clean out the inside of a nuclear reactor alright and their pay differential which is sixteen times the regular janitor for example so it's not like we haven't thought about this a bit so we have some more time so let's let's do some more his questions let's see here now one of our viewers said he saw a recent MBR working paper by pin dike that argued that VSL shouldn't be used because of this high Colvin level and a symptomatic and unreported cases that the infection rate might be one in a thousand and that VSL applies to risk intervals about one in 10,000 so is 10 million VSL or something lower what would make sense to you well we've already I think we already addressed that this is one in two thousand swing instead of one in ten thousand then you can ask the estimate what the how you would adjust the VSL and you you still you still go based on the individual preferences but you have to have knowledge you're basically you make assumptions for estimating worker utility function and you can estimate what the VSL would be for other changes in risk but yes i would not throw out the methodology or the way of thinking about it just because it's a larger change in risk than what a chance in ten thousand now I haven't seen the current version of its paper but he wrote to me and sent me an earlier version not common okay it's with a little bit of time we have left there's a concern that maybe we haven't paid enough attention to policies to respond to the pandemic but also but also insights it might have for the issues raised and the black lives matter movement what what would be your insight on that I think it goes back to how can we get the country and municipalities to values lives appropriately and the value statistic of life still provides the guideline but I think you have to increase the situations in which there can be meaningful damages so I think right now the police have more legal protections it's very hard to sue and win these claims and so I think some of the concerns that they have with trying to make it the police more accountable certainly makes sense but ultimately the decisions are good these are only going to be incentivizing municipalities to do the right thing so that there has to be a I'd say a decentralized application of benefit cost analysis by police departments analyze where the measures that they can take to reduce these deaths value these deaths appropriately and then figure out you know where the constructive efforts that they can undertake and the another question the audience raises is about the sensitivity of VSL to the state of the labor market you know with our wage is cyclical and does it depend on you know there's a promise as the premium depend on when you are examining the premium now I'm actually got estimates over a period that spans almost 50 years so it's you know data from the 1970s through you know recent years and after you're doing you know the inflation adjustment for the CPI the numbers ended up being pretty close you know they're you know they don't bounce around as much as you expect and as a practical matter this is probably the worst recession or depression we've had in 90 years and I don't notice a lot of people you know gravitating to risky jobs and you know changing what with their risk trade-off would be in other dimensions not caring about safety so I think the fact that they're say in economic downturn yes it could matter in income matters in the united states we've known income elasticity of the value of statistical life this less than it is internationally so ten percent decrease in your income will have a six percent decrease in your value of statistical life so doesn't you know plummet but it does go down a bit but at least in terms of the estimates doesn't seem to mess them up too badly i'm in charge of having the trains run on time i guess because it's the german italian and me so what would you like to say to the audience before I turn it over to Craig as your parting wisdom on the topic of value statistical life and what to do with it I think we've covered a lot of turf I thought I thank the audience for even tuning in in the morning just for a lot of people this is early appeal especially those on the west coast and I think you know approaching all these things starting to think like economists and when you will start worrying about economic loss it's not just the economy you know the we can the large loss through your illnesses that's economics too so there's a tendency to say you know the economic issue is the you've lost jobs or the decreased output versus the health people whereas the health people that does translate into economics as well so really it should be a battle of economists versus economists as opposed to economists versus the health people's right as someone married to a health economist state there are people that worry about the economics of health issues so in a few minutes we have left I like to turn it back over to our president Craig floor time for some parting words well thanks kitten time for all that informative discussion and for the people send in questions I started thinking to every question but I hope to find useful as you see here in the picture you can get more information from Kipps book but you can also as tom said look at the website from the journal event the cost analysis articles posted there we also have a blog in society and their number of vlog issues have come out on this topic and lastly the Society has been maintaining a resource website for people who have been for cost analysis related to the Cova 19 pandemic and ways to control it and so on that website you can find a lot of information if you found this session useful I hope you'll join the Society's future webinars over the next few months we're presenting online some of the great sessions that would have been part of our 2020 annual meeting if it had not had to been cancelled so for example on August 4th there's a presentation on surviving judicial review which will look at how US deregulation efforts have fared in the courts and then on a Tuesday at August 11th there will be a roundtable discussion talking about recent developments in the market for vaping products and implications for benefit cost analysis so I hope you can join those two also on the right hand side of the slide you can see we're trying to put online the workshops that we had planned these are more in-depth half-day efforts to really you know dig into some important topics in the field and those should be up line soon and again you can get details on the sides website again if you're interested in Cobin 19 and your presence on this call suggests that you are you probably interested in the October 14th European conference webinar that we're going to have this replaces our conference that we've had this year and the three keynote speakers are going to talk online adjacent schonbrunn who did one of the very first studies of social distancing is going to talk about one the challenge is making such a study early in a pandemic when there wasn't very much data available and then how has the early study worked out how we might change things now John Hassler who's that the Institute for international economic studies at Stockholm University will then give his perspectives on a covert 19 pandemic a cost-benefit analysis Christian Dahlia will give us some comments again there's details available about all this stuff on the Society's website along with information about how can help decipher benefit-cost analysis by becoming a member or making a donation I appreciate everybody's participation is call and again thanks to Tom and Kip for some really great discussion by everybody thank you thanks Craig oh thank you Greg we're going to get out all those questions