New posts

Reply to thread

Message

A couple of links that refer to the cost benefit but when you look closely, neither of those links show the raw data on which their calculations are based and appear not to be holistic economic effects on the community.

The ADA one quotes other research as "expecting" savings, but without any raw data it's likely just savings to the state health budget. It doesn't address the shifting of full costs for maintaining the system to local government or the private sector for increased dental fluorosis.

The CDC one refers to "local cost savings" but acknowledges only for "all but very small communities" which most of Qld is.

This is what I mean by a 'Chinese Whispers' type of reference, where one refers to another and so on and the context of the original probably getting biased or totally distorted by the time it gets to the end of the wisper. Please, someone show me some original raw data on the alleged cost benefit.

http://www.ada.org.au/OralHealth/FLN...aspx#FLcosteff

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm

<blockquote data-quote="Whiskers" data-source="post: 751305" data-attributes="member: 10916">A couple of links that refer to the cost benefit but when you look closely, neither of those links show the raw data on which their calculations are based and appear not to be holistic economic effects on the community.&nbsp;The ADA one quotes other research as &quot;expecting&quot; savings, but without any raw data it&#039;s likely just savings to the state health budget. It doesn&#039;t address the shifting of full costs for maintaining the system to local government or the private sector for increased dental fluorosis.&nbsp;The CDC one refers to &quot;local cost savings&quot; but acknowledges only for &quot;all but very small communities&quot; which most of Qld is.&nbsp;This is what I mean by a &#039;Chinese Whispers&#039; type of reference, where one refers to another and so on and the context of the original probably getting biased or totally distorted by the time it gets to the end of the wisper. Please, someone show me some original raw data on the alleged cost benefit.<a href="http://www.ada.org.au/OralHealth/FLN...aspx#FLcosteff" target="_blank">http://www.ada.org.au/OralHealth/FLN...aspx#FLcosteff</a>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Whiskers, post: 751305, member: 10916"] A couple of links that refer to the cost benefit but when you look closely, neither of those links show the raw data on which their calculations are based and appear not to be holistic economic effects on the community. The ADA one quotes other research as "expecting" savings, but without any raw data it's likely just savings to the state health budget. It doesn't address the shifting of full costs for maintaining the system to local government or the private sector for increased dental fluorosis. The CDC one refers to "local cost savings" but acknowledges only for "all but very small communities" which most of Qld is. This is what I mean by a 'Chinese Whispers' type of reference, where one refers to another and so on and the context of the original probably getting biased or totally distorted by the time it gets to the end of the wisper. Please, someone show me some original raw data on the alleged cost benefit. [url]http://www.ada.org.au/OralHealth/FLN...aspx#FLcosteff[/url] [url]http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm[/url] [/QUOTE]

Verification