Although the most common and simplest method is to convert each different cost and benefit into a monetary value (as risk cost-benefit analysis does), it inevitably ends up raise the question of how one places a value on goods “the value of which is such that no amount of economic good is equal in value”, such as “life, love, liberty, equality, health and beauty”, or “non-economic goods” . (Velasquez, 65) This makes CBA very limiting in its application because each individual or group who uses it must then come up with their own system of valuing the different types of goods in their situation. This means that the value of some goods can fluctuate greatly because it depends on the opinions of the group that uses cost-benefit analysis to evaluate it. Other criticisms further expand the dilemma of the lack of a standard cost-benefit analysis measurement system, asking how one can even make an accurate measurement of costs and benefits that "cannot be reliably predicted" (and therefore "cannot be adequately measured") (Velasquez, 64). The main response to these criticisms is that, when these immeasurable goods absolutely must be included in the equation, they should be assigned a value as accurately as possible in order to take them into account in the cost-benefit analysis. The response elaborates on this point by stating that possessions that are “considered valuable only because they lead to other good things” (e.g. money), “in most circumstances, should not take priority over life and health.” (Velasquez, 66). It should be noted that the types of circumstances in which the first type of good could prevail over the other are not explored in depth