New posts

Reply to thread

Message

Medicowallet, the science aside for the moment, I refer you back to the cost-benefit arguement from post 19 (I think).

I've asked you previously in the 'fluoride' thread for the research that substantiates the cost benefit arguement and no one has provided any. You keep saying the reseach says there is a cost benifit, but I've researched long and hard and typically find one researcher quotes another or previous research to the effect of cost-benefit ... BUT the 'Chinese Whispers' just keeps going without leading to any real economic assement.

The Bundaberg and lower Burnett councils have considered the amount of their water supply going to drinking water as insignificant in their water network and the number of households actually using tank water for drinking as significant. Both consider the ongoing operating costs as prohibitive, ie they are not reimbursed enough (from the health budget) in the long run, and ineffective because of the tiny amount of water consumed for drinking.

It's only fair the councils be properly reimbursed from the health budget to provide this so called important health iniative, isn't it?

MW, please provide the research that shows the cost benefit of fluoridation.

<blockquote data-quote="Whiskers" data-source="post: 751271" data-attributes="member: 10916">Medicowallet, the science aside for the moment, I refer you back to the cost-benefit arguement from post 19 (I think).I&#039;ve asked you previously in the &#039;fluoride&#039; thread for the research that substantiates the cost benefit arguement and no one has provided any. You keep saying the reseach says there is a cost benifit, but I&#039;ve researched long and hard and typically find one researcher quotes another or previous research to the effect of cost-benefit ... BUT the &#039;Chinese Whispers&#039; just keeps going without leading to any real economic assement.The Bundaberg and lower Burnett councils have considered the amount of their water supply going to drinking water as insignificant in their water network and the number of households actually using tank water for drinking as significant. Both consider the ongoing operating costs as prohibitive, ie they are not reimbursed enough (from the health budget) in the long run, and ineffective because of the tiny amount of water consumed for drinking.It&#039;s only fair the councils be properly reimbursed from the health budget to provide this so called important health iniative, isn&#039;t it?MW, please provide the research that shows the cost benefit of fluoridation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Whiskers, post: 751271, member: 10916"] Medicowallet, the science aside for the moment, I refer you back to the cost-benefit arguement from post 19 (I think). I've asked you previously in the 'fluoride' thread for the research that substantiates the cost benefit arguement and no one has provided any. You keep saying the reseach says there is a cost benifit, but I've researched long and hard and [B]typically find one researcher quotes another or previous research to the effect of cost-benefit ... BUT the 'Chinese Whispers' just keeps going without leading to any real economic assement.[/B] The Bundaberg and lower Burnett councils have considered the amount of their water supply going to drinking water as insignificant in their water network and the number of households actually using tank water for drinking as significant. Both consider the ongoing operating costs as prohibitive, ie they are not reimbursed enough (from the health budget) in the long run, and ineffective because of the tiny amount of water consumed for drinking. It's only fair the councils be properly reimbursed from the health budget to provide this so called important health iniative, isn't it? [B]MW, please provide the research that shows the cost benefit of fluoridation.[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification