Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpmoral | Hacker News Reader

I'm not in the US but doesn't that downplay it a bit? Hasn't this been a contentious topic for some time? It's not like no one's been talking about it and Utah suddenly decided out of the blue.

View on HN

> I'm not in the US but doesn't that downplay it a bit?

No, not really. There are a couple municipalities (Portland, OR, e.g.) that have famously not fluoridated their water forever, but for the most part this is not something most places argue about. UT is an exception.

The irony is that people on the Left will claim that red Utah is ignorantly making public health policy, while deep deep blue Portland is considered “progressive.” The public health “experts” are ripping into Utah but haven’t seemed to care about Portland. Perhaps because the public health people are mostly Democrat and care more about politics than actual health? I would love to be wrong — but why is Portland (and much of Europe) getting a free pass from the controversy, but a (relatively low population) red U.S. state isn’t?

Portland, Oregon is a city so the effects of their policies are a little more limited in scope. IMO if it really is a contentious health issue (well-founded or not, I guess people really do disagree about this issue) it is better to make the decision at the lowest level practical.

I think most cities manage their own utilities. So, Portland has to make some decision on this issue. Utah doesn’t, it was an active choice to intervene.

recently they managed to bring this to a court, and the judge was convinced by the evidence, and ruled that water fluoridation is harmful.

downplayed? you judge.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. What I meant was that it was my impression that the argument over fluoride has been going on for longer and is bigger than this one case. How and why the judge ruled and what the ruling was is tangential to that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com