FLUORIDATION BEGINS DESPITE GROUP'S SUIT.

Byline: Steve Carney Staff Writer

Amid the complaints of foes who compare it to lead or arsenic, fluoride has begun flowing through the pipelines and faucets of Los Angeles, harmlessly preventing cavities, advocates say.

While a restraining order from an anti-fluoridation group remains stalled in court, the city began adding the element to the water supply Aug. 10 to comply with a 1995 state law.

``Only time will tell how soon we see the benefits,'' said Melinda Rho, an associate water quality engineer with the city's Department of Water and Power.

The DWP sent notices to its customers, as well as all dentists, doctors and pharmacists in the county, telling them they could discontinue fluoride supplements for their patients.

The American Dental Association says adding fluoride to the water supply, instead of simply having it available in toothpaste or mouth rinses, is helping prevent tooth decay for 360 million people worldwide. About 62 percent of the nation's water supply is fluoridated.

But opponents insist that the link between fluoridation and dental health has never been established. Instead, they say ingesting fluoride can be harmful and resent the city adding it to the water supply without a referendum, said Paul Borraccia of Sherman Oaks, head of the Los Angeles chapter of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water.

The San Diego-based group has filed suit against the Los Angeles City Council and the DWP, and asked for a restraining order to stop fluoridation.

According to the DWP, fluoride naturally occurs in the water supply in amounts between 0.3 and 0.6 parts per million. The department is increasing that to 0.8 parts per million, what it called ``the optimal level recommended by public health experts.''

A 1995 state law required all public water agencies with 10,000 or more customers to fluoridate their water. Assistant City Attorney David Hotchkiss, who is representing Los Angeles in the Citizens for Safe Drinking Water suit, said the court can't exempt the city from obeying the state law. He said anyone who opposes fluoridation needs to seek relief from the Legislature, not the courts.

Superior Court Judge John Reid dismissed the lawsuit in May, but the group amended and refiled it. A hearing on the amended suit is scheduled for Sept. 8, Borraccia said.

On Aug. 4, Reid transferred the request for a restraining order to the court that handles those procedures, Hotchkiss said. That request has been on hold while the attorney for the anti-fluoridation group, William Dailey, has been out of town, Borraccia said.

Rho said that in addition to equipment costs, the fluoridation program will cost about $700,000 per year. However, she said it will save tens of millions for the city and county in fluoride treatments and dental care for poor children. She added that anyone opposed to fluoridation can remove the element with water filters.