Abstract:
The true compliance cost of any fluoride mitigation policy is unknown but some estimated figures can be used. However, we do not know the full behavioural reactions to different possible mitigation policies. An alternative, equally ideal model on which decision-making could be based involves (a) estimation of changes in levels of exposure; (b) exposure-response functions linking levels to human mortality, human morbidity, and ecosystems and species; (c) willingness to pay for measures that avoid impacts identified in exposure-response relationships; and (d) allocation of benefits and costs to time periods (years). Such a procedure for estimating health benefits is more tractable than a CBA, but remains very difficult due to the absence of (a) a behavioural model of the economic sectors that use fluoride-contaminated water; (b) knowledge of change in exposure; (c) knowledge of exposure-response functions; and (d) internalization assumptions for occupational effects.
