Monty Bennett's Dallas Express yesterday published a story headlined "Is Dallas' Water Department Wasting Money And Harming Public Health?" I will answer those two questions in order: no and no.
This is obvious to many of you, but it bears repeating: the Dallas Express is one cog in a right-wing online apparatus that, along with paid actors in the real world, boosts misinformation and sows chaos (not to put too fine a point on it). For background, if you haven't already, read Steven Monacelli's report in the Texas Observer.
Back to the fluoride. Here's the lede of the Dallas Express story:
Documents exclusively obtained by The Dallas Express raise questions about public health and financial waste in the Dallas water department.
Adding hydrofluosilicic acid (HFS) is one of the most commonly used methods for treating drinking water with fluoride in the United States. However, the water department appears to consistently inject more HFS into the water than the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says is necessary to ostensibly protect public health. This action is done so at considerable taxpayer expense.
I non-exclusively obtained the same document (singular) that was exclusively first obtained by the Dallas Express, which got it from an anti-fluoride activist named Regina Imburgia. I know they got it from her because the Express didn't publish the document, so I had to go to the city's open-records portal and find it myself. Imburgia was the one who filed the request for fluoride data that led the Express to report that Dallas Water Utilities "consistently" puts more fluoride in the water than it should.
Here's the document:
At the top are the initialisms for Dallas' three treatment plants. Under each plant is a column for fluoride content before treatment (RAW) and after treatment (TAP). The water department aims for .7 milligrams per liter. That's the optimal concentration of fluoride, as determined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Nearly a year's worth of data shows that the water department is very good at putting the right amount of fluoride in our water. Instead of giving readers that full picture, the Dallas Express focused on 22 fluoride assessments. Do the math: (3 plants) x (~350 days of data) = 1,050 assessments contained in the document. And those 22 assessments on which the Dallas Express based its report? We're talking fluoride levels nowhere near problematic. The Dallas Express correctly points out that the World Health Organization says the upper limit for fluoride should be 1.5 milligrams per liter. On one day at one plant, the level reached 1.28. Otherwise, those 22 assessments cited by the Dallas Express show only slight elevations that were quickly corrected.
Now let's talk about what the Dallas Express claims is "financial waste in the Dallas water department" because fluoridation is done at "considerable taxpayer expense." Dallas Water Utilities serves 2.6 million people, which includes a bunch of suburbs (see slide 13). To fluoridate all that water, the department spends $500,000 annually, which is about 20 cents per person (see slide 12). So if one water-treatment plant overshoots that .7 target on one day, how much money are we talking?
More math: ($500k) / (3 plants) / (365 days) = $456 per plant per day. So are we talking $100 of "financial waste"?
No, we're not. Because, as you can see from the data, these treatment plants will slightly overshoot their fluoride target, then slightly undershoot it. It all evens out.
In summary: the Dallas Express is not reputable. It is a partisan outlet that publishes misinformation. And when it isn't publishing misinformation, it "has published or will publish stories that result in undisclosed promotion of a company in which Mr. Bennett has an interest ..." That's what an office of the Republican-controlled Texas House of Representatives wrote last year when it denied the Dallas Express' application for press credentials.
Know what you're drinking and, just as important, what you're reading.