The High Rank of Fluorides among Toxins

The most telling case against fluoridation I’ve ever seen was a table of toxicity expressed in grams-to-kill. A toxicity table is the science in a nutshell. Fluoride compounds show a shockingly high status when ranked among other poisons. Grams-to-kill is a striking metric.

I have not been able to recover that original grams-to-kill document, seen circa 1990. A similar table is published in a later edition of my source book, but it expresses lethality more obscurely in milligrams-per-kilogram of body weight (mg/kg). From this table I selected a short list. Then I multiplied the mg by 70, which is today’s official average weight in kg. That yields mg-to-kill. Divide that by 1000 to get grams-to-kill.


Lethal dosepoison
Grams to kill
a person of average weight.
From most toxic to less toxic

strychnine .002
plutonium citrate .021
VX (nerve gas) .070
sodium cyanide .154
fluorosilicic acid .56
mercury chloride 2.87
metallic arsenic 5.34
lead dioxide 14.9
ammonia 17.5
silvex 45.5
2,4,5-T 46.4
Roundup 307

Source: Gerald Judd, PhD., chemist,
professor of chemistry, Johns Hopkins.

Fluorosilicic acid is the chemical of choice today for most fluoridated water supplies.

Note the status of fluorosilicic acid against mercury, arsenic, and lead. These three chemicals are supposed to be regulated in water supplies. The federal standard is zero.

Fluorosilicic acid is five times more toxic than mercury, nine times more toxic than arsenic, and 27 times more toxic than lead.

Fluorides are among the most reactive chemicals known to chemistry.

Would you allow any chemical in the Table of Toxicity into your water supply?

tables of toxicity

You can find a toxicity table on Wikipedia, but generally they are hard to come by despite their obvious utility in deciding environmental and medical issues. We are grateful to the late Gerald Judd, chemist and fluoride-fighter, for his tables of toxicity and for his other work on the toxicology of fluoridation.

Judd, a professor of chemistry at Johns Hopkins, wrote Good Teeth Birth to Death. (You can find a PDF on the web and it is in print from a distributor called Tesla Tech. The complete Table of Toxicity is on pages 57 and 58. (This is a link to page 57.) Judd’s book was not published by a university press but somewhat eccentrically by Judd himself.

Dr Judd has passed, but a worthy successor is chemist, toxicologist, and fluoride-fighter Paul Connett. He’s got a video lecture on You-tube, but I prefer the radio interview by Dennis Bernstein on KPFA’s Flashpoint 4/10/13 (aired on KBOO 4/11).

I have yet to see a table of toxicity from Dr. Connett.

toxic lethality studies

Most data on human lethality comes from extrapolations based upon the poisoning of lab rats. The one exception is strychnine, for which there are human figures. (I know not why.)

I suspect that, if you went digging into the archives of the CDC, you would find numbers corresponding to those in the table above. I also suspect that some digging might even turn up a few human studies with titles like The Auschwitz Chemical Lethality Study of 1940 or The CDC-Vacaville Toxicity Study of 1985, but my mind wanders darkly.


I figure that, if toxicity tables speak to me, they might be useful in communicating with the public at large. For the fluoridation issue, toxicology is the most relevant discipline in all of science.

Because fluoridation is sold as dentistry, one might be tempted to fight a resistance campaign in dental terms. This is just what the fluoridators want. But dental health is not the issue; it is just the pretext. The real issue is mass poisoning. The toxicity table is one way to state this message. The expert needed is not a dentist or doctor but a chemist, a toxicologist. The toxicologist will tell you that fluoridation is not just a risk but a dead certainty. Toxify the water supply and negative public health impacts are assured.

Judd saw ADA dentistry as a racket and as a health risk, reminding us of mercury filings and of McMinneville teenager, Keith Kantor, who perished in the dentist’s chair after swallowing fluoride gel. Surely there are more Keith Kantors that you never hear about. Fluoridated teeth cleaning has become a veternary fashion, and there are reports of dogs under treatment expiring on the table.

Can you filter out fluorides?

Judd insists that, contrary to some product claims, no commercial filter exists that can remove fluorides from drnking water, incluuding reverse-osmosis and distillation units. This is because those sneaky fluoride molecules are smaller than the molecules of H2O.

a poisoning

The issue is poisoning, say the toxicologists. Anti-fluoride campaigners: you need not be so shy as to dilute this dark truth. Was it not the poisoning that moved you to join this campaign in the first place?

Sounding the depths of darkness can only give energy to a campaign. Ask an adman. Then hire an agency and task the creatives to find fifty witty ways of saying: It’s poison.

Yes it’s a mass poisoning. But, oh, that has the ring of conspiracy theory in it! We will be perceived as kooks. But it was not too many years ago that anyone questioning fluoridation was called a kook.

We live under a system which enshrines debilitation. Such an utterance is impolite, although the evidence is everywhere. The political landscape beneath the surface is not pretty. One has to defy a gentified social ethic even to discuss it.

Mass toxification is conducted through various environmental vectors, but also through medical and dental vectors, and it is conducted under various pretexts, including medical and dental pretexts: “This is good for you.”

Shy campaigners like to show their reasonableness by saying that the fluoridators are “well meaning.” They even want to concede that fluoride may have some dental benefits. Sorry, apologists, the evidence says the contrary, not surprising given the status of fluoride compounds in tables of toxicity.