Petition Tag - nuclear

31. Congress here's your last chance or your fired

Congress has held out on making us energy independent, and we are now spending 700 billion dollars a year to countries that do not even care for our values for energy.

It is now time that our elected officals represent our people and our intrest and immediatly make us energy independent instead of us continuing to send these Billions of dollars to those terriest states.

32. UK Government's Nuclear New Build Decision is in Contempt of Court

In 2007, the High Court determined that the Government’s earlier public consultation in 2006 on whether or not to replace existing civil nuclear power stations in the UK was unlawful.

This, the Court declared, was because the consultation breached the Government’s duty to hold a full and effective public consultation under the Aarhus Convention 2003. The Court described the consultation exercise as one which was “very seriously flawed”, “manifestly inadequate”, “seriously misleading” and “wholly insufficient to enable [respondents] to make ‘an intelligent response’”. These enormous failings were held by the Court to have frustrated the public’s legitimate expectation to participate fully and effectively in a decision with potentially very serious environmental and safety implications.

Following this ruling, which it did not contest, the Government decided to hold a new consultation in 2007. However, it failed once again to consult the public fully and effectively.

Instead, some one thousand persons were offered questionnaires on UK civil nuclear power replacement which many recipients considered “not [to be] of appropriate quality”. Among the criticisms made of the exercise were that “positive messages” for nuclear power “were presented as statements of fact” and respondents “were not able to answer the questions in a way that reflected the view they wanted to express” but “were led towards a particular answer” (see ‘Harrison Grant questions nuclear consultation for Greenpeace’, The Lawyer, 21 September 2007 and ‘Scientists take on Brown over nuclear plan’, The Guardian, 4 January 2008).

Following the exercise, a formal complaint was submitted to the UK polling regulator (the Market Research Standards Council).

We therefore petition the Attorney-General to consider whether the Government’s decision in early 2008 to ‘go ahead’ with the replacement of civil nuclear power stations, having assumed that the 2007 constitution has produced a ‘public mandate’ for new build (Guardian, op cit.) may constitute contempt of court.*

If she considers that the Government should be held in contempt, then we petition the Attorney-General to take appropriate subsequent legal action.

*Where contempt includes (a) failure to obey superior courts of record which prescribe certain conduct on one party to a civil action – including the executive since for it to assume itself immune to contempt of court would, as Templeman LJ ruled, be for it “to obey the law as a matter of grace not of necessity” (M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377) – and (b) from which it is no defence to claim that what would otherwise constitute contempt of court was committed in the discharge or purported discharge of official duties (M v Home Office; R v City of London Magistrates’ Court, ex p Green [1997] 3 All ER 551))

33. Stop Nuclear Expansion in Ontario

The Ontario government is planning to procure an additional 14, 000 Megawatts
(MW) of nuclear energy through the construction of new nuclear plants and the
refurbishment of old reactors. Expanding Ontario’s nuclear capacity equates to
gross negligence.

It is sentencing future generations to deal with the dangers and burdens implicit
to nuclear energy. Below are the reasons why nuclear is a deeply unethical
energy option, especially when there are other energy technologies that are
proven to be clean, safe and reliable.

Nuclear's Time Has Passed: Research has proven that Ontario can be powered
without it. Today, renewable energy technologies including wind, solar,
geothermal, hydro and biomass, are highly developed and in use internationally.
Globally, the rates of growth of the solar market and of installed wind capacity
exceeds 25% a year. Renewables are safer, more reliable, and can be deployed
significantly more quickly and widely than nuclear power. Renewables are ready
now for the phase out of nuclear power.

Ecological Justice/Intergenerational Equity: Devastating impacts arise from all
phases of the nuclear lifecycle. Mining and exploration devastates landscapes,
First Nations land rights and traditional way of life and it has significant impacts
on water resources. The toxic tailings from mining and refining, and the spent
fuel bundles goes far beyond the lifetime of this generation, lasting tens of
thousands of years.

Health: Radioactive tritium, is a by-product of CANDU nuclear generation, not to
mention a mutagen, carcinogen, and teratogen. CANDU reactors produce far
more tritium than other reactors by design. Tritium from reactors is released
into our water supply. Recommended concentrations from the Ontario Drinking
Water Advisory Council are 20-100Bq/L, vs. the current 7000Bq/L standard.
Developing fetuses, young children and pubescent youth are most at risk.

Cost: The costs to the Ontario tax payers in order to generate nuclear power are
astounding and can only be expected to rise. The costs passed onto future
generations are either unaccounted for or unknown. Construction of Darlington
was estimated at $4b, but cost $14.3b, this does not include the $7.47b and
$24b for decommissioning and waste management respectfully. $15b of Ontario
Hydro’s $20b debt was due to nuclear. In the event of an accident, the
taxpayers are liable. Uranium prices increased six fold since 2001.

Political Transparency: Nuclear power is not above the law! Plans for new
nuclear projects were exempted from the Environmental Assessment Act in
2006, and, have now bypassed the Ontario Energy Board review process. This is
a violation of the public's right to participate in decision making and eliminated
the sole opportunity for the evaluation of sustainability. Building new reactors is
unnecessary! The OPA has claimed estimated that electricity demand will almost
double, when it has steadily declined since the 1950s. Similar inaccurate
forecasts were provided in the past to justify nuclear power investment.

Climate Change Mitigation: The GHG emissions reductions are actually not
meaningful for mitigating climate change as they will not occur within the
timeframe of action required by the IPCC. It takes 10-15 years to bring new
capacity on-line for Ontario. Refurbishment of old facilities takes up to 5 years.
Clearly this is not within the time frame required for action on GHG emissions.

34. Don't build any new coal or nuclear fired power plants in the UK

There are plans to build a new nuclear power plant and a new coal one, both in Kent.

These both pollute the planet, and there is controversy on both sides.

Iceland doesn't use outdated energy sources like this, so why should we?

35. The Most Powerful Weapon of Mass Destruction in the Universe

The 3 neutrino combination explodes galaxies but now the highly unstable combination has been brought under controlled conditions making Israel the most powerful nation in the world.

It's peaceful uses are curing incurable diseases and reversing global warming. For details the author may be contacted.

Pictorial, Historical record of Jews being sent to gas chambers.

36. Support the nuclear deal!

India’s communists have always opposed India’s strategic embrace of the U.S.

It believes that the U.S. is a hegemonic, deeply destabilizing power and India cannot become a close ally of Washington without sacrificing or compromising its policy independence and narrowing its room for manoeuvre in world affairs.

Second, the left argues that the text of the "123 agreement" differs significantly from the statements that Singh made in Parliament, promising that it would address all of India's concerns about full civilian nuclear cooperation with the U.S. and autonomy for the Indian nuclear programme.

The left says there are specific differences between the agreement and a law passed last December in the U.S. Congress as a prelude to "123", called the Henry J Hyde Act. The act mandates annual certification by the U.S. President that India is behaving in conformity with American foreign policy objectives, and also imposes a few other conditions that India said were not acceptable to it.

According to the left, the Hyde Act will prevail over the "123" agreement and can be used arbitrarily to terminate nuclear cooperation with India.

The act, it says, falls short of guaranteeing full-scale nuclear commerce with India, which was promised when Singh and President George W Bush inked the deal in July 2005. For instance, the U.S. will not export uranium enrichment or fuel reprocessing technologies to India.

The act, argue the communists, will erode India's sovereign decision-making in respect of its nuclear programme. Since the "123 agreement" essentially derives from the Act, it must be opposed.

In addition, the left is concerned at the likely impact of "123" on India’s traditional advocacy of universal nuclear disarmament. It says that by getting "accommodated in a U.S.-led unequal nuclear order", India’s leading role in championing nuclear disarmament "as a major country of the non-aligned community" will be given "the go-by".

The left also says that it is "debatable" whether nuclear power, which would be promoted under the U.S.-India deal, is a sustainable solution to India's energy problem.

"The bulk of the left’s current opposition to the agreement derives from procedural arguments (about Singh’s assurances to Parliament), and from differences between its text and what was promised in July 2005, and again in March and August last year," says M.V. Ramana, a physicist and energy expert attached to the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore told IPS.

The present position of the left parties significantly differs from its original stand on the U.S.-India nuclear deal two years ago, which emphasised its negative consequences for India's advocacy of global nuclear disarmament.

For decades, said the left parties in July 2005, India "was …committed to nuclear disarmament… The BJP-led government had begun the journey of accepting a junior partnership of the U.S. in return for a de facto recognition as a nuclear weapon-state… The current agreement marks an end to India’s nuclear disarmament policy".

Nevertheless, the communists have decided not to press for a vote on the "123 agreement" under Parliament's rules of procedure, unlike most of the non-UPA parties. A negative vote could lead to the fall of the Manmohan Singh government.

"The left is loath to topple the UPA government because it fears that that will pave the way for a return of the BJP," says Achin Vanaik, a professor of international relations and global politics at Delhi university.

37. Give A.Q. Khan his freedom back

Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, an amazing man who has done a lot for this country, has been under house arrest for too long.

Although it's quite late in the day to now start this petition, these are his last few years, sadly, we must give him his freedom back. Considering the fact that the U.S is the only country in history to have ever even used a nuclear bomb.

In addition, they along with, European countries, have proliferated nuclear technology to Israel - and continue to do so. Also, the Indo-US nuclear deal is yet another example of the US breaking its legal commitments to non-proliferation.

Therefore, it makes no sense to penalize A.Q Khan, who neither broke any international law to which his country was a party, nor any national law. It is high time that he was given his freedom back!

Despite all his faults, he gave Pakistan Uranium enrichment technology which allowed the country to acquire it's nuclear capability.

38. SaveTibet-Save Humanity - Appeal to the World Community

Five Point Proposal Memorandum, Under worldwide “Blood Appeal Campaign and Satyagrah” For Tibet Freedom with the Appeal of “Save Tibet-Save Humanity".

39. Stop Nuclear power in Australia

Requires larger capital cost because of emergency, containment, radioactive wastes and storage systems. Requires resolution of the long-term high level waste storage issue in most countries. Potential nuclear proliferation issue.

Nuclear explosions produce radiation which make people sick and even kill them.

40. No Nuclear Power in Australia!

Now that the world is heating up due to Global Warming, the Australian government has to turn to a new source of energy, as coal is a major player in the Greenhouse Effect.

Instead of taking the obvious choice, like wind or solar power, the government has gone to nuclear power.

Nuclear power is dirty and dangerous. If something went wrong, the results would be catastrophic. On top of all that, NO scientist in the WORLD has discovered a safe way to get rid of nuclear waste.
Wind and solar power are more environmentally friendly, and more effective.

41. Depleted Uranium Is A War Crime

April 19, 2006

The Pentagon has been using radiooactive weapons for at least a decade and a half with full complicity of at least three White House administrations and Republican and Democratic congressional legislators.

Conservatively, at least 300 tons and 1,700 tons of depleted uranium were used in the Gulf War and the current Iraq War, resectively.

Depleted uranium is really a misnomer, because the potentially harmful effects are by no means depleted. Research reports have found that when depleted uranium is ingested or inhaled, it can cause cancers and birth defects.

Iraqi and visiting doctors, and a number of news reports, have reported that birth defects and cancers in Iraqi children have increased five- to 10-fold since the 1991 Gulf War and continue to increase sharply, to over 30-fold in some areas in southern Iraq.

Currently, more than 50 percent of Iraqi cancer patients are children under the age of 5, up from 13 percent.

42. Act Urgently - Do Not Let Opponents Block Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Between the US and India

The time has come for you to act now and make a forceful statement of your support to the historic transformation in U.S. - India relations. We are witnessing a shifting of paradigms, and you can play a critical role at this juncture when the entire world is watching the outcome of the civil nuclear agreement between the U.S. and India.

You can act and make a difference. A difference that will be remembered by generations to come. Or you can choose to do nothing.

President Bush's visit to India has brought the story of India to the fore of global attention like never before, and opponents of enlightened U.S. - Indian interests are out in force and trying to change the opinions of individual Congressmen and Senators. We cannot afford to let them scuttle the visionary path of U.S. - India relations. Those who oppose the civil nuclear deal oppose the rise and development of India.

We urge you to act. We urge you to act by signing the following petition to U.S. Congress.

The Issue

The U.S. and India have resolved to progress on civil nuclear power cooperation between the two countries on March 2, 2006, during President Bush's visit to India. This agreement requires certain laws to be changed and amended in the U.S. Congress, for which the Bush administration will soon approach the Congress. The Congress has to give its approval to the deal. By signing this petition you will convey to the Congress that you strongly support this deal.

USINPAC has been working in support of civil nuclear cooperation since its beginning stages, including meeting with key Members of Congress in both the House and Senate, and also senior officials from India, in support of this cooperation. By signing this petition you will add significantly to U.S. - India relations.

43. Prevent a Nuclear Iran

February 12, 2006

We began the petition last week and intend to bring it with us when we visit our local Congressional delegates to urge them to take this issue seriously.

44. Stop Iran before it's too late for all of us

January 8, 2006

This is an online petition to show that you support the option of denying Iran the ability to develop and use nuclear weapons through conventional military intervention.

45. Urge U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer to Run for President of the United States in 2008

This is a petition to urge the Honorable Barbara Boxer to run for the office of President of the United States of America in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

Barbara Boxer is one of the greatest American politicians today. She has steadfastly stood up for the core progressive values of liberty, equality, justice, compassion and truth, even when she has had to stand alone and face overwhelming odds.

When numerous reports of voting irregularities and fraud in the 2004 U.S. presidential election in the pivotal State of Ohio started to emerge on weblogs and 'dissident' websites, when the mainstream media utterly failed to report, let alone investigate those stories, and the State and Federal Governments tried as hard as they could to cover up the truth of what had happened, it was Barbara Boxer who became the sole member of the U.S. Senate to demand accountability from the Republican establishment by signing a Congressional objection to the certification of Ohio's Electoral College votes on January 6, 2005 and articulating those concerns before a national audience.

When Condoleezza Rice was expecting a smooth and triumphant passage through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's confirmation hearings on her nomination to become U.S. Secretary of State, it was Barbara Boxer who challenged her outright to admit to misleading the nation, while taking part in the political campaign to sell the Bush Administration's criminal intent to invade Iraq, and advocating the use of torture against detainees.

When George W. Bush asked the U.S. Congress to authorize his long premeditated invasion and occupation of Iraq, Barbara Boxer was one of the few proud members of the Senate to perceive his true agenda, and oppose granting him such authority. She has consistently spoken out against the war, while at the same time working to ensure that the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform is being duly honored and rewarded.

Barbara Boxer has been a champion of women's rights, environmental protection, job creation, fiscal responsibility, medical research, educational opportunities for all, and has unfailingly stood up for the poor and the vulnerable.

Barbara Boxer has made mistakes, no doubt, but she has been willing to recognize and acknowledge her mistakes, and to do what she can to correct them. That is the mark of a true progressive.

It is therefore a privilege for us to ask the Honorable Barbara Boxer to run for the office of President of the United States of America in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, and to make the following pledge:

46. Worldwide abolishment of nuclear weapons

September 24, 2005

This petiton is currently being circulated on paper through the youth community in Edmonton AB Canada.

Our hope is to have enough money to bring our petiton on a cross-Canada road trip once our university session is through.

We would like to gather at least 100,000 names, but our goal is tentative! We would like more!

Once substainial support is gathered we plan on creating media attention with a hand delivery of the petition the the Prime Minister's Office in Ottawa.

47. Utilize Nuclear Energy in the USA and on a Global Scale.

This petition was written on December 1, 2004 in order to advocate the production and utilization of nuclear energy on a global scale.

48. Reinstate Nuclear Weapon Program in Poland

This petition askes the Polish Parliament to reinstate a nuclear weapons program in Poland.

49. Ban Nuclear Weapons from Usage and Manufacture

We would like to "Prevent Nuclear Destructions". To do this we must "Ban Nuclear Weapons from Usage and Manufacturing". The effects of the H bomb will cause unprecedented environmental destruction.

50. Stop transportation and storage to Yucca Mountain

This petition is to ban the transportation and storage of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. The main reasons being that the choice to use Yucca Mt. as a storage unit was based on politics and not scientific evidence. The storage containments holding the chemicals are little researched and are uncertain to their holding capabilities. Therefore a possiblity of the nuclear waste corroding the canisters and leaking into rising groundwater underneath the mountain. This leading to contamination of our drinking water. Also the accidental case of a spill or accident is a possible action that should not be overlooked. This would result in contaminants in groundwater and pollution to our environment. This is just the beggining to the problems that may come from the continueing storage and transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. I would propose on site storage as close to the point of generation as possible to prevent catastrophe of terrorist attack and implement the goals of the long term plans. These storages next to the sites will give time for scientists to study and research further on various geological settings needed for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Possible suggestions are as follows: geological disposal on land, sub-seaded disposal, and upper mantle disposal. The main aim would be to obtain sufficient data in one or two decades to enable comparisons between these differences. These facts and ideas were based from Lisa Lidwedge of the Institue of Energy and Environmental Research. I strongly support these notions and I am very concerned with the disastorous effects that could come from this continueing process.

51. Don't use conventional forces in new Gulf war

This is a petition to USA Congress do not engage in conventional war against Iraq. In case of the estimate of real nuclear threat use nuclear weapons.

The only purpose of this war whould be to protect communist forces in
Eastern Europe for liability of slave labour in their military forces.

If Iraq is considered a symbolic state under Russian orders to weaken the US economy and creating a real threat of nuclear attack against the US then the US should order nuclear attack against targets otherwise suspected of carring
or producing nuclear weapons under Moscow control. Do not use lives of US solders against technology.

52. Release DOWN PERISCOPE on DVD!!!

This petition is asking 20th Century Fox Home Video to release the 1996 comedy DOWN PERISCOPE on DVD in all regions, or at least Region 1 & 2.

This movie is about a maverick naval officer(Kelsely Grammer) who is finally given a submarine to command, but it turns out to be a mothballed wreck--with a crew that's not much better. But if he can prove his mettle (and the ship's) in a war game environment, he can graduate to a first-class nuclear sub, but the Admiral in charge of the wargames(Bruce Dern) would go to hell before seeing him command a nuclear sub.

This underrated movie deserves to be released on DVD!!! This movie did something that seemed to me almost impossible, which is to use the "dude who leads losers to victory" buddy formula and still made it fresh and entertaining.

The film has great talented actors.
Kelsely Grammer shows in the movie he CAN be a movie actor, besides being a TV actor. This film also has the talents of Rob Schneider, Harland Williams, Rip Torn, Bruce Dern, William H. Macy, Harry Dean Stanton, Lauren Holly, and other talented actors who I didn't catch their names.

The film is really LEGITIMATE because the director and writers of the movie have done stuff like MAJOR LEAGUE and POLICE ACADEMY.

So please sign the petition.

53. Stop The New Reactor At Lucas Heights

For several decades the former Australian Atomic Energy Commission, now the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation has been making application to successive Commonwealth Governments for a replacement to the multipurpose reactor HIFAR at Lucas Heights.

In 1992 a public inquiry was conducted by the Commonwealth Government called the Research Reactor Review, or McKinnon Review. The Review recommended a 5-year pause on consideration of the case for a new reactor for further assessment of issues including questions on Australia's need for a new reactor.

In 1997 the current Commonwealth Government announced that a new nuclear reactor would be established at Lucas Heights pending assessment under the Environment Protection Impact of Proposals Act, 1974. An Environmental Impact Statement process was undertaken, resulting in a favourable report from the Commonwealth Minister for Health. Assessment included review of the proposal by three international peer review agencies. The Commonwealth Government confirmed its intention to proceed with the proposal in 1998. Tendering for the proposal was completed by June 2000 and the tender granted to Argentinian company INVAP. The licensing process for design and construction of the new reactor is currently under way, with approval to be granted by ARPANSA in February 2002. The new reactor, to be commissioned around 2006 will be twice the power rating of the existing reactor, which will be decommissioned at a date to be confirmed.

It is understood that a replacement reactor locational study employing international consultants was undertaken around 1996. The public and the councils were not included in this undertaking, which appears to have been performed by the Commonwealth Department of Industry Science and Tourism with advice from ANSTO. The locational study report remains a Cabinet-in-Confidence document.

A cost for the proposed reactor of $286 million has been estimated by ANSTO as part of the current development assessment process although secret government documents obtained via Freedom of Information requests made by Sutherland Shire Council have revealed that the government’s own cost estimate is around $500 million. No design for the reactor has yet been revealed, despite the international peer review stating that the safety arguments used to justify the proposal now impose specific design constraints on the reactor in order to achieve these promised safety levels.

In spite of polls, submissions, lobbying and the actions of several state governments to prohibit the development of the dumpsites which will be unavoidable with a new reactor, the Liberal Government is continuing it's blind charge towards a future contaminated with the nuclear waste produced by the proposed new reactor.

Please take this opportunity to voice your opposition to this project and to raise the call for a nuclear free future.

54. Close Indian Point Now

I demand that the Indian Point Nuclear
Power Plant be immediately

The N.R.C. has admitted that the concrete containment buildings housing the nuclear reactors at Indian Point were not designed to withstand attacks by aircraft such as the type that terrorists used to destroy the World Trade Center.

Independent auditors have shown proof
that Indian Point has failed to prevent
intrusion by terrorists in mock terror
exercises. The Nuclear Control Institute and other experts on nuclear safety have warned that an attack on Indian Point could breach either of the two reactors or the fuel storage pool, causing lethal contamination of everything within 50 miles while impacting 8% of the U.S. population.

Indian Point cannot be sufficiently
protected to guarantee the safety of so
many residents within the fallout area.
There is no excuse for placing so many
lives in danger by the continued operation of this plant and it facilities in a time of war and into the future.

55. Make Bio-testing of all products law

Make Bio-testing (non-invasive, using state of the art technology) of all products used in and around our bodies, plants and animals absolutely compulsory. This would avoid the catastrophic consequences to humans, animals and plants of the widespread contamination by chemical,radiation, oil/petroleum, nuclear, pharmaceutical and biological agents.


There needs to be a new standard of BIO-SAFETY which simply means that anything that interferes with our oxygen uptake, heartrate, brainwaves, pulse and bio-meridian electric field and causes loss of capacity or downgrading of any of the above, should not be able to be sold without a rating of safety from 1 to 10, with 10 being the safest to all major body functions. The same should apply to animals, and plants, which can be tested for slowing of sap flow and lack of capillary response, just like human & animal blood flow, cortisol etc. Thermal imaging, simple medical instruments can be used to test this on an instant response basis. We DON'T need a five year, fund sucking 'scientific' study on safety to give us all the damaging exposures that have been sanctioned by these elitists, who have said 'this is totally afe', or 'this is safe enough to pass'. We all pay the price for their arrogant lack of care - why aren't their safe chemicals tested on scientist guinea pigs, diluted of course, just like our drinking water containing poisons, and ag. runoffs which are classed as safe. Remember that NUCLEAR pollution was pronounced totally safe by the American Academy of Science in the 1940's, and tobacco, and DDT, and Thalidomide, and thousands of others. We now have BSE because nobody bothered to bio-test animals for their body and systemic reaction to being fed manure mixed with chemicals and body parts of other (even diseased) species. Nature never ever sinned against any species in history, equal to the damage caused 'scientifically qualified' humans. DEMAND PROOF OF DYNAMIC BIO-SAFETY, NOT FIVE YEAR FARCES. Our planet deserves it and so do we.