[ The ‘Fs’ are for Fluoride.]

Australian Defence was warned 30 years ago that the chemicals
in its firefighting foam should be handled as a toxic waste...

[ They are mostly used for regular fire fighting practice/training. ]


Stop trying to downplay the seriousness of this issue.
They are incredibly serious toxins, and it is a real
worry for those people living around them.
~ Mariann Lloyd-Smith,
National Toxics Network – Senior Advisor

 PFAS Chemical Producers Under Criminal Investigation


It has rendered some farm land unusable, property
values have plummeted, and residents have
been unable to drink their bore water.

The bonding of two chemicals – being fluorine and carbon in 1940
seemed to be a huge break through for many new processes,
however the health risks were found some time later.
These products have been banned in 171 countries
though not yet banned in Australia. ?

13 June 2021

Labor and the Greens have moved to force the Morrison government
to hand over its response to the parliamentary inquiry into toxic
firefighting foam contamination. It has been eight months
since Queensland MP Andrew Laming, who chaired
the inquiry, broke Liberal ranks making an
emotional speech in parliament calling
on the Coalition government to
compensate residents …

Fluorides are “Protected Pollutants” in Australia!
If the truth about this chemical had not been covered up
for so long the problems listed below may never have occurred.
Legislation is always years behind when the environment is involved.
Governments are slow to deal with hazardous chemicals
– far too slow for our environment…


Boron nitiride catalyst destroys toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” ! ! !

Boron nitiride catalyst destroys toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” ! ! !

Boron nitiride catalyst destroys toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” ! ! !




How PFAS Contamination is Affecting Area Property Values

Kyle P. Konwinski  &  Aaron M. Phelps



 In May of 2009, PFOS was added to Annex B of the

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

↓   Notice the ‘F’s. for Fluoride  



Firefighting Foam Policy – Queensland Gov.




The RAAF once used harmless,
environmentally friendly, fermented blood

 and bone, and liquorice to make fire fighting foam.
It was also great to make the grass grow, I know, I used it!


30 [+] Aust. Defence Bases Contaminated With (PFOA)

There appears to be more concern being shown to landholders
who have had their land contaminated by AFFF (PFOS)
than concern for the mental health and wellbeing
of the serving members who handled this
concentrated product…  ↓ ↓ ↓





“… some studies suggest that almost every person on Earth
has them in their bloodstream, which gives some
indication of  The scale of the problem…”

Denis O’Carroll said this is important as where other contaminants 
might stay in water or soil, PFAS are extremely stable and can 
travel easily from water to soil to animals to fish to humans.


18 Dec. 2018

The ‘F.’ Word, is OK in Europe 

The EU recognizes fluoride errors and
lowers recommendations dramatically.



Six diseases linked to PFOA: US study finds


Dr. Mariann Lloyd-Smith

The new levels issued by the EPA in the US are 0.07 parts per BILLION
for both PFOA and PFOS. Both chemicals have been linked
with a range of disorders, including thyroid issues,
pregnancy complications and high cholesterol.
EPA report also details possible connection between
PFOS and bladder, colon and prostate cancer.



“National Toxics Network and International POPs Elimination
Network senior adviser Mariann Lloyd-Smith
 said the chemicals

– PFOS, PFOA or PFHxS – previously used in some firefighting foams were
toxic and bio-accumulative–building up in all living organisms including humans,
were intergenerational, being passed from mother to child and capable of long
range transport and thus found in the Arctic and Antarctic. ‘Most importantly,
they are so persistent, they have no way of breaking down so what is
released to the environment is with us for all time,’ she said.”



prof-j-giesyFairfax Media can now reveal that Professor Giesy was accused
of covertly doing 3M’s bidding in a widespread international campaign
 to suppress academic research on the dangers of PFAS chemicals. 




As of July 2019, EWG and Northeastern University have mapped out
712 PFAS contamination sites across 49 states in the U.S.



 Water Research Australia 

…with an assumption that water accounts for 20% of total exposure.
Given that the two contaminants may occur together, and their
effects are similar, it is recommended that the combined
concentration in drinking water should not exceed
0.070 μg/L. [70 parts per TRILLION]…’

…Unlike most other environmentally persistent organic chemicals,
PFOS and PFOA bind poorly to soil and organic material,
and therefore exist mainly in the dissolved phase in surface waters.
At pH values above pH 4 they exist in dissociated anionic form and
may bind electrostatically to positively charged particles…

[ Issue 82 – July 2016 ]




Plasma Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Concentration
and Menstrual Cycle Characteristics in Preconception Women

Wei Zhou,1* Lulu Zhang,2,3* Chuanliang Tong,4 Fang Fang,1 Shasha Zhao,1 Ying Tian,1 Yexuan Tao,2,3 Jun Zhang1 and for the Shanghai Birth Cohort Study

Our study found that increased exposure to PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS was associated with higher odds of irregular and long menstrual cycle and lower risks of menorrhagia in women who plan to be pregnant. In contrast, women with higher levels of PFOA, PFNA, and PFHxS were more likely to have hypomenorrhea.

Full text » HERE ←« Important



Zürich Statement on Future Actions on Per- 
and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)

  Not good bedtime reading!  



red-line-copyPer-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made fluoride based chemicals that have been widely used since the 1950s, in household and industrial products that resist, oil, stains, heat, grease and water. This includes non-stick cookware, food packaging, stain protection applications to fabric, furniture and carpet, and firefighting foams. Since 1970, firefighting foams containing PFAS were used extensively in Australia and elsewhere due to their effectiveness in fighting liquid fuel fires. 

PFOA and PFOS are the best known members of a group of manmade chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs. Highly fluorinated chemicals are unrivalled in their utility because their carbon fluorine bond is nearly unbreakable under natural conditions. When chains of carbon-fluorine bonds are linked together, they form water- and oil-resistant coatings on clothing, carpets, and cookware that will not wash away, dissipate with extreme heat, or fade in sunlight over extended use.

The same basic carbon-fluorine chains can also create robust firefighting products able to withstand, and even extinguish, the blazes of scorching aircraft fires.  But the durability that make these chemicals useful also makes them a concern. They persist in the environment for thousands of years, affecting us and future generations as an everlasting legacy.


“The Australian Federal Government should not use toxic
fire fighting foam.”  Research completed by US, lawyer –
– Isobel Roe – 26 Sep. 2016

The Australian Government is wasting time and money by failing to acknowledge US studies into a toxic foam chemical, a US lawyer who led a class action against the makers of the toxin has said.

The chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was in a firefighting foam that has leeched into groundwater beneath at least 30 Australian Defence bases including the Oakey Aviation Base on the Darling Downs.

It has rendered some farm land unusable, property values have plummeted, and residents have been unable to drink their bore water.

The same chemical was contained in Teflon and found in a West Virginian Town Water Supply the late 1990s, sparking legal action against Teflon manufacturer DuPont, and eventually won a $US70 million settlement for almost 70,000 people who might have been exposed to the contaminated water.

Kentucky-based lawyer Robert Bilott brought the class action on behalf of the residents and said he had been watching Australia’s response to the growing contamination issue with interest.

“A lot of time and a lot of resources can be saved by the fact that a lot of this very complicated and expensive research has already been done,” Mr Bilott said.

“I think it would be important to take advantage of the data that already exists so it’s not a delayed response to folks who are drinking this.”

Six diseases linked to PFOA: US study finds

The Australian Defence Department maintains there is no strong links between PFOA and serious human health effects.

Queensland Health advice said adverse health effects had been found in animals but not in humans.[?]

But as part of the US class action, an independent scientific panel spent more than $US30 million studying the chemical and its human health effects.

“One of the things that was remarkable about it was they ended up getting blood data from 69,000 people in that community,” Mr Bilott said.

“They ended up concluding that there was six disease linked to drinking this chemical in your water for over a year and that was kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, preeclampsia and high cholesterol.

“And that data is out there.”

Mr Bilott also raised concerns about Australia’s drinking guidelines for the chemical.

An independent review by a toxicologist released earlier this month found Australia should maintain its standards for the chemical, despite a decision by the United States Environment Protection Agency to dramatically lower what it considered safe.

“It’s the same chemical, it’s the same science and it’s the same knowledge, so I’m not quite sure why there would be any distinction,” Mr Bilott said.

A frequently asked questions document on the Defence Department website said the United States health study could not be used in Australia. [?]

“The findings of this health study could have been impacted by many location- and population-specific factors [for example, routes of exposure, background conditions and lifestyle factors], which cannot necessarily be translated to the Oakey community,” the document read.

“In addition, many factors can influence a person’s health and therefore it is challenging to link a person’s health issue unequivocally to PFOS [perfluorooctane sulfonate] and PFOA exposure.”

The Federal Government is undertaking its own epidemiological study of the human health effects of the PFOA chemical. [?]



The New Asbestos!

ABC News-Impacts of PFOS and PFOA

It was revealed in September 2015

The chemicals had leaked from Williamtown Air Force base into ground and surfacewater, prompting bans on bore water and closing fishing grounds. “Stop trying to downplay the seriousness of this issue. They are incredibly serious toxins, and it is a real worry for those people living around them.-”
Mariann Lloyd-Smith, National Toxics Network senior advisor. – The New South Wales

Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has started a statewide investigation into the historical use of the firefighting foam.


The Unfolding Scandal of  Toxic Water in Australian Communities:

Some say this is the worst pollution in Australia’s history,
but all the Australian
media, except »→  ABC TV  ‘Four Corners’  ←« are ignoring it !


The “Protected Pollutant”  – HOWEVER the ‘FLUORIDE’ word was NOT mentioned by the ABC ?  The Federal Government could face compensation claims across New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory, after the Department of Defence admitted it was slow to warn people about groundwater contamination from Army Air Bases.


    A lawyer leading the class action in the southern Queensland town of Oakey said he would soon head to the NT town of Katherine to speak to locals about a joint lawsuit there in the wake of this week’s revelations on the ABC’s Four Corners program.
On the program, a Defence official admitted they should have issued warnings three years earlier about toxic firefighting foam pollution from Army bases. The department said the cost to taxpayers to clean up the problem nationwide would likely amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.

About 500 people are part of a class action in Oakey, where the toxic compounds PFOS and PFOA [ which contain fluoride ] have spread into groundwater and soil on surrounding properties.
In NSW, residents near the RAAF Williamtown base launched their 
own class action last year.


Fluorides are “Protected Pollutants”
The use of the “F” word is censored in
the Australian media. Fluorides can only
be refer to in glowing terms and associated
with “dental health” ! ! !


Professor Nicholas Buckley

“Dragged” into this research project-


He has been handed a Poisoned Chalice.
We all wish him well here at
‘Fluoridation Queensland’ – Previously known as:

We do not envy him his job. He will have
interference from the dental lobby,
or some resistance. Fluoride
is their sacred cow !


EPA Victoria – April 2019


Draft of Version 2 of the PFAS
National Environmental Management Plan

“The environmental and potential human health impacts
from exposure to a group of manufactured chemicals
 known as PFAS (per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) 
are of increasing concern worldwide.”
Note: The ‘F’ word – Fluoride, is not mentioned? ]



…..At least 4,700 PFAS variants are ↑ available on the global market.


Lawsuit Reveals How Paid Expert Helped 3M 
“Command the Science” on Dangerous Chemicals






NOTICE ALL THE ‘Fs’ here ↑ ↑ ↑  & here ↓  ↓  ↓


NOTICE ALL THE ‘fluoro’s  here ↓  ↓  ↓







November 2017
‘Biological Cleavage of the C–P Bond in
Perfluoroalkyl Phosphinic Acids in
Male Sprague-Dawley Rats and
the Formation of Persistent
and Reactive Metabolites’
→  HERE  

Spanish Research – Nov 2017 

Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Metabolic Outcomes in Pregnant Women:
Evidence from the Spanish INMA Birth Cohorts



Full Report  ⇒ HERE

Problems with firefighting foam Indiana USA


12 Endocrine Disrupters 





RELATED STORY: Public meeting over Williamtown contamination incident


A toxic chemicals campaigner says it is misleading to claim the health impacts of firefighting foam at the centre of the Williamtown water contamination are not yet understood.

The chemicals, PFOS and PFOA, have also been discovered at two Fire and Rescue NSW training bases in Sydney’s west and in the Illawarra.

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) are man-made chemicals belonging to the group known as perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs).

It was revealed in September 2015 the chemicals had leaked from Williamtown Air Force base into ground and surface water, prompting bans on bore water and closing fishing grounds.


“Stop trying to downplay the seriousness of this issue. They are incredibly serious toxins, and it is a real worry for those people living around them”.

– Mariann Lloyd-Smith, National Toxics Network Senior Advisor

 Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has started a statewide investigation into the historical use of the firefighting foam.

The EPA said its investigation into PFOS and PFOA will focus on sites where the chemicals may have been used in large quantities including airports, firefighting training facilities and industrial sites.

In a statement last month, Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) said international research was yet to fully understand the ecological impacts, if any, and there was “no proven direct link to any adverse health effects”.

Commissioner Greg Mullins said FRNSW withdrew the use of these foams for both firefighting and training progressively until they were fully eliminated in 2007 as information emerged on possible hazards associated with PFCs.

But National Toxics Network senior advisor Mariann Lloyd-Smith said there was a wealth of evidence.

“To say that we don’t fully understand or there’s not a direct proven link is misleading,” she said.

“One can only wonder if it’s an attempt to protect their liability.

“People need to know these are incredibly serious toxins.

“These are chemicals that we really need to address quickly, with as much precaution as we possibly can to protect humans and, of course, the wildlife and the environment.”

Dr Lloyd-Smith is urging the Fire and Rescue NSW to stop downplaying the impacts of the firefighting foam.

She said she had a message for the Commissioner Greg Mullins.

“Stop trying to downplay the seriousness of this issue,” she said.

“They are incredibly serious toxins, and it is a real worry for those people living around them.

“Warn the population, start working out how you’re going to be able to compensate people, start protecting your population, which is really the job,” Dr Lloyd-Smith said.

Staff and community highest priority, Commissioner said

In a statement on Thursday, FRNSW said it “is consulting with the Department of Health and the Fire Brigade Employees Union whilst taking a cautious, measured approach”.

“The safety of our staff and the community are our highest priority,” Commissioner Mullins said.

“Together with the EPA we have arranged for more comprehensive testing, with results expected to take several more weeks.

“FRNSW will work with a range of other agencies including local councils, water authorities, Department of Health, and NSW EPA to ensure any potential risk of PFC contamination outside of the training sites is identified and limited.

“We will act immediately on any expert advice concerning health or environmental impacts,” he said.



PFOAs And Newborns

       In 2007, the shocking results of a study conducted at the John Hopkin’s Medical Centre
(Bethesda, MD) showed that levels of the toxic PFOA were found in 100%
of a sample of almost 300 newborns, delivered at the hospital.

Samples of umbilical chord blood were also shown to contain varying levels of PFOS.
Asians (6 ng/ml) had the highest concentration, followed by Blacks (5.1 ng/ml)
and Whites (4.2 ng/ml).
Males babies had higher PFOS and PFOA than females.

Obese and underweight mothers had slightly higher concentrations than
women of normal weight.

Other studies have found that some of the highest levels of
PFOA and PFOS have been in children.


PFAS Treatment & Management



PFOS & PFOA In The Environment



  F-111 + 





Contamination of Australian Defence Force Facilities and other
Commonwealth, State and Territory Sites in Australia  – Submission 34
Submission to the Senate Inquiry into AFFF Contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown

…In relation to pollution and contamination, the environmental policy developed at this time (2001-2003) recognised there was a 200-year legacy of contaminated sites on and off the Defence estate. Literally thousands of instances of legacy contamination were already known to exist at Defence sites (many of which dated from WWII) – including contamination arising from ordnance use (conventional and chemical), landfills and burial pits, fuel leaks, chemicals (including cocktails of hydrocarbon solvents), metals – including mercury, and even radioactive materials. In this context, it was not the case that there was a shortage of issues that needed to be dealt with – the risk posed by fugitive AFFF was one of the many being considered at the time.

During 2002 I had several conversations and received reports from my regional environmental colleagues and other personnel located at Defence sites, about fish-kills that had been observed following the accidental, incidental or deliberate release of fire fighting foam into aquatic environments.
Testing and training practices and/or maintenance of critical fire fighting equipment would occur routinely at many Defence sites, often as part of a daily, weekly or periodic routine. This equipment included the familiar aviation fire trucks, as well as the automated fire protection systems built into aircraft hangars.
At that time these reports related to RAAF Base Richmond and RAAF Base Amberley where I recall fish kills had been observed, on occasions, in Rickebys Creek (Richmond) and Warrill Creek (Amberley), that adjoin these sites…





PFOS and PFOA are increasingly being phased out of modern foams.
Concentrations in human blood appear to be decreasing in the 
US, although they are still rising in China. Today they remain
significant residual contaminants at many sites globally,
for example, at many of the world’s 49,000 airports
including 450 civilian and military
airports in Australia

Fluoridation and Scientific Myopia



Just get rid of the non-stick fry pan...

 Pet Birds and Teflon Poisoning


PFAS – Katherine Times








Spiralling asbestos claims from the United States almost
resulted in the collapse of the Lloyd’s of London
insurance market in the 1990s

Are fluorinated fire fighting foams the next asbestos?

 From: Doug Cross            
 Date: 19 May 2013

'In case you missed it'

    Dear All,

Good to see that somebody appears to take notice of what I write! MP Jason Woodforth’s [Qld State Gov.] warning that “Fluoride is the next asbestos!” is a direct quote from an article that I published on our web site on 22nd June 2011 (See final paragraph of ‘A disreputable trade-off: SCHER ignores the humanitarian impacts of water fluoridation.’, at )

Since this is such an important claim, it’s worth recording precisely where that statement came from, so that anyone wishing to repeat it can substantiate its provenance.

In the summer of 2004 I had a meeting in London with Marie-Louise Rossi. She was the Chief Executive of the International Underwriting Association, and had a formal conference with her and some of her Associates at the IUA’s London Headquarters. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the insurance implications of the provable harm caused to children by water fluoridation. We did not discuss any of the more controversial health concerns of the practice, confining the discussion almost exclusively to the implications of the very large proportion of children known to develop this disfiguring condition.

I explained to the meeting the legal problems that are involved with this form of compulsory medication, and the issues of liability that inevitably emerge, especially for any Council, Health Authority or any other public servant that becomes involved in the imposition of this damaging, unethical and illegal form of medical assault.

And as I went through the information that I had prepared for the IUA, Ms. Rossi became more and more concerned. Eventually she blurted out, “My God! This is the next asbestos!” That’s where Mr Woodforth’s statement originated, from the very top of the Underwriting sector, and specifically in relation to water fluoridation. So now you know – and if anyone challenges that comment, I can verify to you now that this is indeed the original source.

So what does this mean for you in Australia now, and indeed, pretty well everywhere else in the world where this form of uninsurable activity is carried out? Well, here’s how it works.

When a member of the public makes any claim against an insured person or corporation, and an award is either agreed or awarded by a Court against the respondent, it is generally their insurers who will have to foot the bill – always assuming that they actually have insurance cover. So ultimately, whilst the insurers write the policies, the risk is usually reinsured through guarantees provided by professional underwriters, acting in the interests of their investors. There’s a hierarchy of people who agree to provide finance that is used to insure against claims. These investors hope that, provided the insurers do their sums right then they, the investors, will eventually make a profit.

But suppose that an insurer fails to understand the risk of an activity in which one of its clients is engaged, and the insured does not disclose – or even recognise – that what they are doing may eventually result in a claim at some later date? Then the investors have a big problem – if the insurer gets it wrong, then ultimately they have to fork out the cash.

That’s precisely what happened to the ‘Names’ (the investors) of Lloyds of London in the 1990s, over the asbestosis/mesothelioma claims, which were bought many years after exposure under employers’ liability or workers’ compensation insurances. As Wikipedia explains:

…the insurer did not understand the full nature of the future risk back in the 1960s, it and its reinsurers would not have properly reserved for it. In the case of Lloyd’s this resulted in the bankruptcy of thousands of individual investors who indemnified [under ‘reinsurance-to-close’] general liability insurance written from the 1940s to the mid-1970s for companies with exposure to asbestosis claims.


And this is why Ms Rossi and the International Underwriting Association were so concerned at hearing what I had to tell them about the public risks of damage from water fluoridation. Within the Health Sector, most health professionals and authorities are required to carry Professional Indemnity Insurance against claims brought against them by patients and others. Insurers will not cover ‘foreseeable risks’ – that is, any activity that, if engaged in by a Client, has a very high probability of resulting in claims against the insurer. (In the UK the government insures itself for claims against to National Health Service, but hey! it’s not their money anyway!) But individual health professionals can still get hit for private actions – remember that if you are a Dental Officer pushing fluoride outside office hours!

And as we are all well aware, dental fluorosis of at least some detectable level affects around half of all children exposed to fluoridated water during their early childhood (York Review of Water Fluoridation, 2000). Around one in eight kids will get it so badly that they need cosmetic dental treatment for the rest of their lives. In the UK the lifetime costs are an average of around £30,000 – about the same as the cost of getting a university education.

So, as a foreseeable risk, anyone engaged in any professional or business capacity whatever in the promotion of implementation of fluoridation may be personally liable for the costs. Insurers will start to recognise it as a foreseeable risk and refuse to cover it under professional indemnity or public liability insurance.

And yes, we do have proof of this:

In a recent letter from Zurich Insurance, one of the principle insurers of Local Authorities in the UK, the company confirms that it will not indemnify Councils for any claims against them for damage caused to members of the public arising from water fluoridation.

Is this a significant problem for Health Professionals and Councils advocating fluoridation, or even forcing fluoridation on unwilling communities?

Absolutely! Here’s what happened to Lloyds of London ‘Names’ over the asbestos scandal:

Lloyd’s set up a separate vehicle known as Equitas in 1996 to handle asbestos-related claims. This was effectively acquired by Berkshire Hathaway a decade later amid fears it was running out of funds. Warren Buffett’s investment vehicle agreed to take on Equitas’ staff, operations, liabilities and most of its assets. It also agreed to provide up to £3.7bn in reinsurance cover, therefore protecting Equitas against the risk of larger-than-expected claims. Lloyd’s provided £90m as part of the deal. Although most of the Names paid up and agreed to this scheme to reinsure their debt, 1,200 refused. About 200 of this second group responded by launching a counter-suit for compensation, which claimed that Lloyd’s brochures had led them to believe that the cover, called Reinsurance To Close (RITC), completely ended their liabilities at the end of each underwriting year. The names spent years battling against Lloyd’s in the courts, claiming they had been misled over insurance deals they bought into prior to the market’s near collapse. The High Court eventually ruled against them in July 2008, a decision which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. In June 2009, a final group of 35 individuals were declared bankrupt in the High Court.


If you think about that in relation to fluoridation, you’ll realise just why Ms Rossi and the IUA were so alarmed at what I told them. The numbers of people affected by asbestos run into hundreds of thousands; ‘dental fluorosis of  aesthetic concern’ (mild and worse) affects at least 10,000 children every year in the UK alone, and far more elsewhere. Regarding the risks from exposure to asbestos, the UK’s Health and Safety Executive considers that there is no minimum threshold that exists for exposure to asbestos below which a person is at zero risk of developing mesothelioma. Remarkably, the EU’s SCHER came to precisely that same view regarding the risks of damage to human teeth and bones caused by fluoridation only a couple of years ago!

We are talking about big money here – in the UK alone, if all kids needing cosmetic dental treatment actually found the money to pay for it, then the dental profession would rake in around an additional £300 million in new income every year for as long as fluoridation continues. And our intellectually compromised British government actually aims to quadruple the extent of water fluoridation as soon as it can get past the obstacles of inconveniently unconvinced members of the public (us ‘Activists’, as Queensland Health likes to label folk like me! Bur hey! – who wants to be a ‘pacifist’ anyway?), and the curiously slippery water companies, who just can’t seem to get their plans to the point at which they can actually start new schemes.

Make no mistake about this – if the insurance sector is getting cold feet about covering those who aspire to poison our kids, and cause them grief – especially financial grief – that will result in claims for compensation, then they are not going to carry the can for this one. The fluoride advocates will find themselves in the same boat as those unfortunate ‘Names’ at Lloyds of London who were unwittingly caught out by the asbestos disaster.

When the next asbestos hits, this time from the very water that pours from the faucets in your own homes, both you and the Health Authorities and Councils will be on your own. So heed Mr. Woodforth’s warning and make sure that those pushing fluoride at you are aware that everything that they own could soon be at risk. The insurers will be out through the door like rats up a drainpipe, leaving you to hold the baby.

In case you think that you can ignore Ms. Rossi’s concern, here’s what her CV says about her:



The late Marie-Louise Rossi

Over three decades in the City of London, Marie-Louise has developed an expertise in many areas including insurance. For over eleven years she worked as Chief Executive of the International Underwriting Association (and its predecessor) representing over £11bn pa of international insurance and reinsurance markets to governments and international institutions worldwide. Marie-Louise has worked closely with the EU Commission  and the European Parliament, as well as with the then DTI and the CBI. She was Head of Insurance and Risk Management for the New Security Foundation (formerly NATO forum for Business and Security) and was the author of The Single Market in Insurance (1992).


Doug Cross

Director, UK Councils Against Fluoridation

18th May 2013

Vit.c strip






Vit.c strip

There are a  few names in our ‘ROGUES GALLERY  that might
consider taking a low profile after reading the above. 



Anna B's Guarantee copy

Vit.c strip