Annual cost of fluoridating city water catholic online dating site

Posted by / 31-Dec-2016 04:09

Annual cost of fluoridating city water

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the concentration of fluoride in public water supplies in Canoas/RS.

Samples of drinking water were collected in duplicates for eight months on 22 different points grouped into three water treatment plants of the city.

Commercial prices of HFSA and USP Na F were used to compare costs of using each to fluoridate. could save

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the concentration of fluoride in public water supplies in Canoas/RS.Samples of drinking water were collected in duplicates for eight months on 22 different points grouped into three water treatment plants of the city.Commercial prices of HFSA and USP Na F were used to compare costs of using each to fluoridate. could save $1 billion to more than $5 billion/year by using USP Na F in place of HFSA while simultaneously mitigating the pain and suffering of citizens that result from use of the technical grade fluoridating agents.We then compared the total cost to our society for the use of HFSA versus USP Na F as fluoridating agent. Other countries, such as Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia that use technical grade fluoridating agents may realize similar benefits by making this change.► Arsenic in USP Na F would result in 100–500-fold fewer cancers. savings as a society using USP Na F would be $1–5 billion annually.► USP Na F costs about 12 times as much as current fluoridating agents. ► Costs and savings are not distributed evenly throughout society.

||

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the concentration of fluoride in public water supplies in Canoas/RS.

Samples of drinking water were collected in duplicates for eight months on 22 different points grouped into three water treatment plants of the city.

Commercial prices of HFSA and USP Na F were used to compare costs of using each to fluoridate. could save $1 billion to more than $5 billion/year by using USP Na F in place of HFSA while simultaneously mitigating the pain and suffering of citizens that result from use of the technical grade fluoridating agents.

We then compared the total cost to our society for the use of HFSA versus USP Na F as fluoridating agent. Other countries, such as Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia that use technical grade fluoridating agents may realize similar benefits by making this change.

► Arsenic in USP Na F would result in 100–500-fold fewer cancers. savings as a society using USP Na F would be $1–5 billion annually.

billion to more than billion/year by using USP Na F in place of HFSA while simultaneously mitigating the pain and suffering of citizens that result from use of the technical grade fluoridating agents.

We then compared the total cost to our society for the use of HFSA versus USP Na F as fluoridating agent. Other countries, such as Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia that use technical grade fluoridating agents may realize similar benefits by making this change.

► Arsenic in USP Na F would result in 100–500-fold fewer cancers. savings as a society using USP Na F would be

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the concentration of fluoride in public water supplies in Canoas/RS.Samples of drinking water were collected in duplicates for eight months on 22 different points grouped into three water treatment plants of the city.Commercial prices of HFSA and USP Na F were used to compare costs of using each to fluoridate. could save $1 billion to more than $5 billion/year by using USP Na F in place of HFSA while simultaneously mitigating the pain and suffering of citizens that result from use of the technical grade fluoridating agents.We then compared the total cost to our society for the use of HFSA versus USP Na F as fluoridating agent. Other countries, such as Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia that use technical grade fluoridating agents may realize similar benefits by making this change.► Arsenic in USP Na F would result in 100–500-fold fewer cancers. savings as a society using USP Na F would be $1–5 billion annually.► USP Na F costs about 12 times as much as current fluoridating agents. ► Costs and savings are not distributed evenly throughout society.

||

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the concentration of fluoride in public water supplies in Canoas/RS.

Samples of drinking water were collected in duplicates for eight months on 22 different points grouped into three water treatment plants of the city.

Commercial prices of HFSA and USP Na F were used to compare costs of using each to fluoridate. could save $1 billion to more than $5 billion/year by using USP Na F in place of HFSA while simultaneously mitigating the pain and suffering of citizens that result from use of the technical grade fluoridating agents.

We then compared the total cost to our society for the use of HFSA versus USP Na F as fluoridating agent. Other countries, such as Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia that use technical grade fluoridating agents may realize similar benefits by making this change.

► Arsenic in USP Na F would result in 100–500-fold fewer cancers. savings as a society using USP Na F would be $1–5 billion annually.

–5 billion annually.

Water fluoridation continues to be supported by more than 90 national and international professional health organizations.

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that is found in soil, air, and water.

Fluoride is added to drinking water to protect against tooth decay.

The measurement of fluoride concentration was performed using the electrometric method.

The analysis of samples collected in the study period showed that there was oscillation in fluoride concentrations in accordance with the sampling months (from 0.185 to 1.605 ppm /L).

annual cost of fluoridating city water-14annual cost of fluoridating city water-10annual cost of fluoridating city water-19

Policy makers would have to confront the uneven distribution of costs and benefits across societies if this change were made.

One thought on “annual cost of fluoridating city water”