THE 1950S CALLED AND THEY WANT THEIR COMMUNIST PLOTS BACK.

No, I haven't fallen into some time tunnel.  "As bans spread, fluoride in drinking water divides communities across the US."  That's yesterday's USA Today.

Regina Barrett, a 69-year-old retiree who lives in this small North Carolina city southeast of Charlotte, has not been happy with her tap water for a while.

“Our water has been cloudy and bubbly and looks milky,” said Barrett, who blames fluoride, a mineral that communities across the nation have for decades added to the water supply to help prevent cavities and improve dental health.

“I don’t want fluoride in my nothing!” said Barrett, echoing a growing number of people who not only doubt the mineral’s effectiveness but also believe it may be harmful despite decades of data pointing to public health and economic benefits.

In February, the Board of County Commissioners in Union County, whose seat is Monroe, voted 3-2 to stop adding fluoride to drinking water at the Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant, the only water source wholly owned and operated by the county. But the decision came after heated discussions among residents and county officials.

The back story on the communist plot? Mother Jones puts it in the tinfoil hat category.

The John Birch Society peddled the fluoride-as-pinko-plot idea for many years. (One Bircher recently quipped, “Don’t be surprised if we learn soon that the fluoride in Chinese toothpaste is nuclear waste from North Korea.”) Today, fluoridation opponents include scientists and environmentalists who say overexposure can cause serious health effects. The Fluoride Action Network, the most prominent anti-fluoridation group, was cofounded by former Sierra Club executive director and ecoguru David Brower.

But only up to a point, dear reader, as that mention of the Sierra Club suggests.

Those toothless paranoids may have been partly right. Though fluoride’s not eroding our moral fiber, research shows that too much of it eats away teeth and bones. Which is a problem, since it’s not just in 59 percent of Americans’ water; it’s also turning up in foods made with fluoridated water, including ice cream, hot dogs, and beer.

The plot narrative, though, was compelling enough to inspire at least one master's thesis.

Ten years ago, the controversy over fluoridation resurfaced in ... Portland, Oregon, perhaps it was those chemicals messing up the artisanal beer.

In the 1950s, after health authorities began fluoridating U.S. water supplies, they faced opposition from groups like the John Birch Society, which called it "an unconstitutional mass medication of the public."

Sixty years later, the fight over fluoridation has erupted in Portland, where the battle has drawn in the city's craft-beer brewers, organic-food purveyors and environmentalists. Even some of the city's famed indie-rock musicians are taking sides.

The debate has prompted something of an existential crisis in this self-consciously liberal city, which votes Tuesday on whether to overturn the city council's 2012 decision to fluoridate. Citizens who pride themselves on tolerance are divided on the appropriately progressive response to fluoridated water: Is it an intrusion into personal liberty, or a compassionate public health measure?

Portland's water, and most likely the local beers, remain free of fluoride.  Dentists, and public officials with recollections of the Fluoride Wars weigh in on the side of adding the stuff.

“My children had the blessing of growing up with fluoride in their water and … they have very little dental issues,” said Commissioner Richard Helms ahead of the vote. A fellow commissioner saw it differently: “Let’s stop putting something in the water that’s meant to treat us, and give people the freedom to choose,” said David Williams.

Barrett’s water comes from the city of Monroe, not the Yadkin facility. So, for now, she will continue to drink water enhanced with fluoride. “I’m suspicious as to why they add that to our water,” she told KFF Health News.

The arguments rage on.

It is a scenario playing out nationwide. From Oregon to Pennsylvania, hundreds of communities have in recent years either stopped adding fluoride to their water supplies or voted to prevent its addition. Supporters of such bans argue that people should be given the freedom of choice. The broad availability of over-the-counter dental products containing the mineral makes it no longer necessary to add to public water supplies, they say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that while store-bought products reduce tooth decay, the greatest protection comes when they are used in combination with water fluoridation.

The outcome of an ongoing federal case in California could force the Environmental Protection Agency to create a rule regulating or banning the use of fluoride in drinking water nationwide. In the meantime, the trend is raising alarm bells for public health researchers who worry that, much like vaccines, fluoride may have become a victim of its own success.

So it goes when you're dealing with the overreach of the administrative state by unelected bureaucrats.  Some people want more local control, others want yet another National Standard.

In 2016, several consumer advocacy groups, including the Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, and Moms Against Fluoridation, petitioned the EPA to end water fluoridation under the Toxic Substances Control Act, alleging that significant research showed fluoride was neurotoxic at the doses now used. The same group filed a federal lawsuit against the EPA the following year, after the agency denied their citizen petition.

During a 10-day bench trial in San Francisco that concluded in mid-February, the two sides debated the risks and areas of uncertainty. If Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Chen determines water fluoridation presents an “unreasonable risk” to human health, the EPA will be forced to create a rule regulating or banning water fluoridation in the U.S. A decision is expected soon.

For the time being, decisions about whether to fluoridate community water systems are still made primarily at the local level, which Barrett hopes will change.

“Of all things, they want our teeth healthy when basic needs of housing and food are lacking.”

Is she, unwittingly, crying with her mouth full? Monroe might be a poverty pocket, and there might be a constituency for more social spending; but defenders of fluoride in city water would note she might be spending less on the dentist than otherwise she might.