Health impacts make up a significant portion of the damage costs from air pollution. In lack of European valuation studies on morbidity impacts, energy externality studies and green acounting exercises in Europe have used values from ten year old US valuation studies. Empirical evidence from a new Contingent Valuation study, which use a quite similar, but improved, survey design of the most transferred US morbidity study, shows that common respiratory symptom days and astma attacks are valued lower in Norway than in the US, even when the US values are expressed in 1986 dollar values. Thus, the common practise of tranferring US estimates and scaling up values with the consumer price index would have lead to highly biased values in the Norwegian case. The difference between the US and Norwegian values can be explained by improved CV survey and sample design, different preferences in Norway compared to the US, and different public health care systems. We do not know if we can generalize the Norewegian results to the rest of Europe, but the three possible explanations given for the difference in values indicate that the Norwegian values will be better estimates for European morbidity values than transfered values from US studies.