L.A. CITIZENS ROBBED OF RIGHTS ON FLUORIDATION; COMPOUND NOW ADDED TO OUR WATER.

Byline: Barbara Keeler and William Dailey

The Department of Water and Power began fluoridating water on Aug. 10. When last consulted, Los Angeles voters said ``no thanks'' to fluoridation.

This time voters weren't asked, and government leaders robbed residents of choice.

Those who want more fluoride than they obtain from processed foods, beverages, pesticide residues, dental products and fluoride long present in L.A.'s tap water cannot choose the form or dosage. Neither can their dentists, unless the civil suit filed by San Diego-based Citizens for Safe Drinking Water restores choice.

The DWP notified physicians and dentists to stop prescribing fluoride supplements to patients who live or attend school in fluoridated areas. Thus, individuals who want fluoride supplementation, including low-income people with publicly funded health care, are denied Food and Drug Administration approved pharmaceutical-grade supplements, at dosages prescribed individually.

Instead, they receive one-size-fits-all doses of fluorosilicic acid - industrial waste deemed too hazardous for landfills or sewer systems, but purchased for addition to water. The FDA has no jurisdiction over and does not regulate substances added to water.

Also robbed of choice are residents who don't want or cannot tolerate raised levels of fluoride from any source. According to the 1993 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services toxicological profile on fluoride, ``Subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds.'' That includes the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium or vitamin C, people with cardiovascular disease and kidney problems, postmenopausal women and elderly men, according to the report.

Rather than allowing residents who want fluoride supplementation to buy it from FDA-approved sources, the Los Angeles City Council now forces at-risk individuals to invest in expensive reverse osmosis systems, which waste water, or seek bottled water without high fluoride levels.

Why might residents want to decide for themselves whether to raise their intake of fluoride? Perhaps choice advocates have viewed or read any of the following:

The definition of fluoride in the American Heritage Dictionary: ``A . . . highly corrosive, poisonous . . . element, the . . . most effective of all the elements . . . ''

Warnings on fluoride toothpaste to contact a poison control center in case of ingestion. Fluoride is a registered rodenticide and also is used to enhance toxicity of other poisons, which it can do in water.

Studies showing fluoride accumulates in the body and raises lead levels in tap water.

Studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association linking fluoride exposure and bone fractures.

The 1995 and 1996 Journal of the American Dental Association (ADA), reporting pervasive overexposure to fluoride due to ``use of fluoridated water and fluoride dentifrice, dietary fluoride supplements . . . an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis . . .'' The 1996 study warned parents to limit children's intake of juices due to fluoride content.

The statement of the union representing all toxicologists, chemists, biologists and other professionals at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., explaining why they voted unanimously to oppose the 1995 California law mandating fluoridation: ``. . . the body of evidence, . . . including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a casual link between fluoride and fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology . . . (and) recent epidemiological studies linking fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children.''

Could the ADA supply research to explain its decades-old support of water fluoridation? Of course. Could council members present research they read before deciding to fluoridate Los Angeles water? One hopes.

People outside Los Angeles could then balance that research against the research referenced in our opinion piece and the EPA employees' document, calculate their fluoride exposure and decide whether more fluoride will reduce their incidence of cavities. If so, they could decide whether reducing decay is worth the documented risk to overall health. If so, their doctors could choose the type and amount of pharmaceutical grade supplementation.

L.A. residents have lost those options, unless the court, at a Sept. 8 hearing, decides to allow Citizens for Safe Drinking Water to proceed with its suit against the city.