|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - risks
Bolton Defend Council Housing
Say No to Stock Transfer
Council housing is worth defending against privatisation. There is concern that tenants are not being given full information on the case against transfer. The alternative of direct investment should be given and the risks of privatisation highlighted.
These risks include loss of secure tenancies, higher rents and charges, loss of accountability, and problems of debt and borrowing. These risks also include financial crises, job losses, pay cuts, mergers and takeovers.
We, the residents of Cassia County are strongly opposed to the proposed corridor of the Gateway West Project through private property.
We feel it should be placed on as much public ground as possible to protect our families, our homes, and our businesses.
We should not have to submit ourselves to undo risks when there are other alternatives. We support our county commissioners in routing the project through public grounds.
The current generation of genetically modified (GM) crops poses unnecessarily risks to the health of the population and the environment.
Present knowledge is not sufficient to safely and predictably modify the plant genome, and the risks of serious side-effects far outweigh the benefits.
We urge you to stop allowing participants in your programs to feed their infants formula that contains genetically modified ingredients.
On July 13, 2003, at 10:34 p.m., Palo
Alto Police Department (PAPD) rookie
Craig Lee drove his police car up to
59-year-old Albert Hopkins, who was
sitting in his parked car on Oxford
Avenue near the intersection of the El
Camino Real in Palo Alto. Lee asked
Mr. Hopkins for identification. Mr.
Hopkins did not initially give his
name, but later confirmed his identity
and his Palo Alto address.
When PAPD rookie Michael Kan stopped
his police car nearby, Lee spoke to
Kan. Kan walked over and ordered Mr.
Hopkins out of his car, and tried to
pull him out. Kan and Lee repeatedly
hit Mr. Hopkins with their batons,
while Mr. Hopkins tried to ward off
blows. Kan and Lee also doused him
extensively with pepper spray. Mr.
Hopkins was overcome, temporarily
blinded, handcuffed, and transported
to the hospital where he was treated
for body injuries, and a swelling near
PAPD launched an immediate
investigation, which culminated in Kan
and Lee being charged with felony
assault and misdemeanor battery by a
Peace Officer. During the criminal
trial, all of the senior officers
that arrived on the scene that night
testified that they were concerned
that Kan and Lee could not provide a
reason for arresting Mr. Hopkins, and
so there seemed to be no justification
for use of force.
Presented with a strong case against
the two rookies, 8 jurors were certain
Kan and Lee were guilty: a 2-1 margin
favoring conviction. Despite all this,
Kan and Lee are being returned to
their jobs (after a plea deal let them
off with a mere $250 fine), and we are
told: "it's time to put it to rest and
We say there can be no rest until our
leaders realize it's time for Kan and
Lee to move on.
This petition arises not from malice
but the desire to safeguard the
community, as we strongly believe:
1. They are not fit for the job. As a
result of their beating of Albert
Hopkins on July 13 2003, and despite
the shocking deal that drastically
reduced the charges, the fact remains
that Officers Kan and Lee each pleaded
'no contest' to a criminal charge of
an act of illegal public violence
while on duty.
Yet, we have not seen Officers Kan and
Lee publicly take responsibility for
their misconduct. Instead, their court
testimony blamed the victim of their
criminal violence - who was not
arrested for any crime - while
belittling the response of their
supervisors that night. Does this
behavior reflect the discipline and
respect for the law that is
fundamentally required of law
enforcement officers? Or does it
indicate a profound employment
mismatch - that cannot be overcome
with any amount of retraining?
2. They cannot serve the interests of
the Palo Alto community. As reflected
in our budget, the safety of the
community is Palo Alto's highest
priority. As the locus of Silicon
Valley and home of Stanford
University, Palo Alto's community
includes guests welcomed from around
the world, that expect and are
entitled to the universal human right
and Constitutional protection) of
freedom from arbitrary arrest or
detention and unreasonable use of
Given its profound authority, our
police force must not include those
who trample the rights of those they
serve, while rejecting the good
judgment of those they serve under.
3. Continuing their employment poses
unacceptable risks. Studies on police
misconduct, such as the Christopher
Commission report (an examination of
LAPD four months after the King
beating), have found that the heart of
the problem is failure to act upon the
few officers using excessive force.
Those officers frequently then go on
to become repeat offenders, who are
responsible for many of the cases that
cost the city in civil suits.
Palo Alto has already paid a $250,000
settlement for Kan and Lee's use of
force. How much would a jury penalize
the city in the next claim that may
result from their use of force, given
that the city was aware of the risk
and chose to ignore it? With budget
revenue rapidly shrinking, how are
such expenses justified?
Therefore, we call on the City Manager
to immediately take this step toward
freeing Palo Alto from the risks and
stigma of brutal injustice that we
believe Officers Kan and Lee's tenure
here has brought us, and begin
restoring Palo Alto as a community
united in its concern for public
safety and human rights.
Our parish is in deperate need of an animal shelter. And as we are researching funding, locations, etc,
we would like to get community support.
The shelter will cut down disease risks and road hazards, not to mention the turning over of trash cans ect. Please show your support by signing.
February 20, 2004
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has released a statement which addresses the ethics of decision making regarding elective, or on-demand, cesarean surgery.
ACOG notes in the statement that although a number of factors influence such decision making, ultimately the decision will come down to the patients concerns and the physicians understanding of the procedures risks and benefits.
However, ACOG also states that it is unclear whether or not a patient has the right to have a surgical procedure when there is no evidence to support the procedure, and makes no statement regarding a physicians responsibility to specifically inform the patient of the benefits of not having the procedure.
Meanwhile, the CDC reports that the cesarean rate has risen to 26.1%, the VBAC rate has dropped 23%, and maternal and newborn mortality rates are on the rise, due to the frequent complications associated with cesarean surgery.
Women are not being given the whole story when it comes to the safety and benefits of a vaginal birth for them and their baby. To see the statement, and these rates:
A petition against the vivisection. We ask that the monkey center from Baziege, called BIOPRIM, be closed because there are many risks :
- human risks : the virus injected into monkeys can be very contagious to human beings. This firms is near of a food warehouse.
- animal risks : animals suffer very much because there is vivisection.
To the prefect from Haute Garonne
To the Master from Baziege.
Nous demandons la fermeture du centre pour primates de Baziege appele BIOPRIm car il présente deux risques :
- risque humains : BIOPRIM est à 200 mètres d'un depot de denree alimentaire.
Les virus injectes dans les singes sont trs contagieux.
- Risque animalier : la vivisection se pratiquera dans ce centre.
Au prefet de la Haute-Garonne
Au Maire de Baziege.
IT IS PATENT that human cloning should not proceed to the clinical research stage. A moratorium on clinical trials of human cloning is warranted on safety grounds, as there is no pathway from animal to pre-clinical to clinical human experimentation that would not involve significant risks to human children. As we have noted elsewhere, it is doubtful even in the long term that an individual or couple will present a rationale for the use of human cloning technologies that is compelling when balanced against the risks.
Leading cloning experts and developmental biologists have told that the cloning process seemed to create random errors in the expression of individual genes -- mistakes that can produce any number of unpredictable problems, at any time in life.
Among the defects routinely encountered among clones are mice which grow to be enormously obese, and cows born with enlarged hearts or lungs that do not develop properly, according to the Times.
During World War II, the Nazis implemented a program of eugenics with the aim of eliminating "undesirables" from the human gene pool. Setting ethics aside, from a purely biological point of view, when you begin to artificially manipulate the gene pool by cloning, you may lower diversity and place the population at an increased risk for death on a large scale because of environmental changes.
There are genuine ethical concerns involved with the potential for human cloning. Currently, people have not come up with any compelling reason to pursue human cloning that would override these ethical concerns about using human clones. Husain writes, "I hope that the leaders in our community of science are stable enough to trust themselves with risky research." Does he have enough trust to let them to decide for themselves whether such risky research is inherently worthwhile?
People have taken marijuana for centuries. The medical benefits have been well documented. The health risks which marijuana prohibitionists assert are minor in comparison to other health risks associated with excessive alcohol and tobacco usage.
Legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes means that people who want to control their pain in their own homes without the use of stronger more adictive drugs such as morphine can do so.