Topic

Public Health and Safety

14 petitions

Update posted 23 hours ago

Petition to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Ryan Zinke, Jerry Brown, Kate Brown, Jay Inslee

Protect Our Oceans from Offshore Drilling

No spilling. No killing. No more drilling. The White House released a draft proposal in early January to dramatically expand offshore drilling in 2019. The Trump administration seeks to open up nearly all federal waters to potential oil and gas drilling lease sales. It’s a huge mistake. And we need you to join the chorus of ocean lovers around the nation who are rallying to stop special interests from destroying our coastlines. Please make your voice heard before this dangerous proposal becomes our reality. Oil and water don't mix, as shown by recent spills. And fossil fuel extraction efforts continue to cause extreme economic harm. In 1969, a well blowout off the Santa Barbara coastline pumped nearly 4 million gallons of crude oil into the Pacific and onto the beaches of Southern California. Since then, local lawmakers and the public in California have worked tirelessly to prevent spills and leaks from ruining our environment and $18 billion coastal economy by rejecting any new oil and gas drilling leases offshore in federal waters. A ruptured pipeline spewed over 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto the biologically diverse and pristine Gaviota Coast in 2015, just west of Refugio State Beach near Santa Barbara, California, with an estimated 21,000 gallons reaching the water. The Refugio spill killed hundreds of ocean creatures, closed popular beaches for weeks and shut down fisheries for 138 square miles, severely impacting the area’s commercial and recreational anglers. The catastrophic Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill took 11 lives and caused more than $17 billion in damages to natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Let’s not risk another disaster. Now is NOT the time to roll back safety standards and abandon hard-fought protections. California representatives have taken action to safeguard our state waters from drilling out to three miles offshore. Elected officials from other states, including Oregon, Washington, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina have also vocalized strong opposition to offshore drilling in federal waters, which is seen as an assault on each respective local economy, sovereignty and our invaluable natural resources. We don't have to choose between a bustling national economy and clean, safe and healthy local environments. We can have both. The success of Marine Protected Areas along California's coast proves that making smart investments that protect our environment can benefit fisheries and tourism, while preserving ecological habitats. Ignoring the will of the people, the Trump administration is now unilaterally moving to benefit industry at the expense of the environment. We can’t let it happen. Sign this petition with Heal the Bay, California Coastkeeper Alliance and Surfrider Foundation to demand that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management "BOEM" and the United States Secretary of the Interior REJECT this proposal to drastically increase offshore drilling.

Heal the Bay, California Coastkeeper Alliance & Surfrider Foundation
134,323 supporters
Update posted 1 day ago

Petition to Sam Sherman, Wanda Williams

Save our Neighborhood from Corporate Greed!

 My name is Robert Strayton, I represent a group of neighbors and concerned citizens fighting against corporate greed and billionaire investment bankers. We are fighting for our homes, our neighborhood, our community and our way of life. We need your help now!  The town has agreed to an "expedited hearing process" in an effort to ram this through without proper public comment.  We need your signatures NOW! AT&T wants to build a 117-foot cell tower in the midst of our least affluent neighborhood on Martha's Vineyard for the benefit of one member of its Board of Directors. The tower would be sited at 14 Sampson Ave, Edgartown, MA 02539. Look at the satellite map of that site and of Chappy and you can see for yourself that better, more compliant sites exist. The photos contained here are of a 104-foot “temporary” tower erected in the same location in May 2016. AT&T now wants to build a substantially larger, far more intrusive cell tower on the same site. The temporary tower is clearly visible in the satellite imagery. The proposed tower would sited in the front yard of my neighbors 1/2 acre lot and would be within 125 feet of 3 neighboring homes. It would be within 178 feet of my home and within 500 feet of over 23 homes. We have argued that this is a totally inappropriate location to site a cell tower on a small island that is primarily wooded, and unpopulated. In fact, AT&T has 2 other leases signed at alternative sites that are more compliant with the laws, provide better coverage to more of the island and move the tower away from the majority of people and homes. One alternative site is a wooded, 4.34 acre parcel, surrounded by over 65.5 acres of town-owned woods. It abuts the site AT&T said in 2011 was the best place on the entire island to site a cell tower. Perhaps most importantly, there is only 1 home within 500’ of a tower there (buffered by a wooded hill), and just one additional home within 800’ of the proposed site. The owners of those homes have written letters, and testified in public hearings as being in support of a cell tower on Chappy. This is the wrong site and we need your help, please? There is more information below that details the 3 year fight we have been waging, but the town is now trying to ram this through. My neighbors and I have appealed to our town government, to our state representative and to our state senator. In spite of their claims that “they are fighting for the little guys, against the huge corporations and billionaires,” appeals to Senator Markey and Senator Warren and to Congressman Keating have gone not just unanswered, but unacknowledged. None are willing to help us, so we are asking you, to please help us save our homes, our neighborhood, our life savings, our way of life, and this beautiful island for the generations to come. AT&T and the Town of Edgartown know this least affluent neighborhood is least able to incur the massive legal bills to fight AT&T and chose this site specifically for that reason. There is no technical reason to site the tower here. None! They know it will be more difficult for us to mount a legal challenge to this reckless and irresponsible public governance. Most recently, a vote was held by the Edgartown Planning Board. The vote failed, and the tower should have been denied, but the town intentionally allowed an ineligible member to vote to create a “procedural crisis,” and will now allow AT&T to bring the application back before a reconstituted and more sympathetic board. If this all smells rotten to you, it should. It was blatant undermining of a legal hearing process for the sole purpose of allowing AT&T another chance to apply for the same tower, in the same location. We need you to help us tell the Town of Edgartown this is wrong, and to demand the tower be placed on one of the alternative sites that is more compliant with the bylaws, less impactful on the community, provides adequate fall zones, preserves everyone’s right to quiet enjoyment of their homes, preserves these least affluent people’s life savings.  We need you to tell the Town of Edgartown to do what it is legally, morally and ethically required to do. Please help us save our homes, our life savings, our children and our future from the big corporations and the greedy billionaires. Thank you,Robert Strayton& The Enos Ave Road Association Chappaquiddick Island is perhaps best known as the location of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s accident that claimed the life of Mary Jo Kopechne. But Chappaquiddick is much more than that. Situated off the Massachusetts coast Chappaquiddick, or Chappy, as the locals call it, is one of the most beautiful and unspoiled landscapes in all of the United States. •  The island is roughly 6 square miles, comprised of woods and fields and miles of unspoiled coastline. Over 40% of the Island is conservation land. •  There are simply better, safer locations that provide better coverage to more people and therefore provide greater public safety benefits to more people while minimizing the impacts of this tower. •  The proposed design would have up to 63 radiation centers emitting over 70,000 Watts of radiation bombarding every living thing 24 hours, seven days a week, 365 days a year for the next 30, 40, 50, or more, years. •  The proposed tower would be 44’ off the single lane dirt road, one of only two roads into this largest, and most densely populated neighborhood on the island •  The tower would be within 130’ of 4 homes. Industry standard fall zones are 110 - 300% of the maximum height of the tower •  The proposed site covers less than 78% of the island and fails to cover the perimeter of the island where the majority of people live. •  AT&T has leases signed, on file with the Dukes County registrar of Deeds for 2 alternative sites in the woods away from peoples homes. •  In addition to the dangers of radiation exposure, this small closely-packed neighborhood would be subjected to the noise of 2 air conditioning systems running day and night. •  Would be subjected to the weekly “exercise” of the back-up generator. •  Would be subjected to the noise, and traffic of ongoing construction, maintenance, repairs, upgrades and “optimization.” •  The property values of the surrounding homes would be greatly diminished as a result of a cell tower in such close proximity. •  In this working-class neighborhood, these homes represent the majority of people’s life savings. •  In an earlier lawsuit, AT&T provided internal emails proving beyond any doubt this cell tower is for the personal benefit of one of its board members, a billionaire investment banker, who doesn’t even live on Chappy but lives across the harbor in Edgartown where he has a summer home he visits one month per year. •  These emails are available for your inspection. •  For more information see the Town of Edgartown website, Chappy Cell Tower page ( https://www.edgartown-ma.us/ ) and the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, DRI - 662-M, Chappy Cell Tower (MVCommission.org ) for more information on the innumerable arguments made in opposition and to see the lies, half-truths, and seriously flawed, even corrupt decision-making that has characterized this process. Please, help us to preserve our homes, our neighborhood, our futures, our health and well being and that of our children from the greed of AT&T and its billionaire board member. Thank you!

Robert Strayton
610 supporters
Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Governor Phil Murphy

NO EDUCATIONAL EXEMPTIONS FOR BRAIDERS- PROTECT THE PUBLIC

The NJ Assembly and the NJ Senate have unanimously approved Bill (A-3754) and (S2510) which would amend and supplement the hairstyling Act of 1984,"P.L. 1984,c205 ( C.45:B-1 et seq) TO EXEMPT PERSONS WHO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF BRAIDING FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC FROM THE LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THAT ACT, AND PROVIDE REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF OWNERS OF HAIR BRAIDING ESTABLISHMENTS. According to https://www.njconsumeraffairs gov/cos/Pages/default.aspx"The New Jersey State Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling board licenses and regulates barbers, beauticians, cosmetology-hairstylists, manicurists, skin care specialists, teachers, shops and schools and registers students who attend these schools.The purpose of the Board is to:protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of New Jersey;regulate the practice of cosmetology-hairstyling; andensure that cosmetology-hairstyling is performed in compliance with State law.The Board protects the public by:making sure that cosmetologists and hairstylists meet all educational requirements for licensure;investigating and prosecuting cosmetologists and hairstylists who have broken the state's consumer protection laws; andrequiring all cosmetologists and hairstylists to be licensed by the state and to renew their licenses every two years.I am a woman of color, a native of America and I am the third generation in my family who is passing along the tradition of hair styling. I learned from my mother, who learned from my great aunt and I am teaching my daughter the art of hairdressing. I went through the program required by the state and I am grateful that I did. I am vexed that there is now pending legislation to create exemptions for people who; like me learned the art of hair styling from their family, except for the fact that I am an American? I am asking that everyone who engages in any form of hairdressing services for the general public still is required to submit to the current licensure requirements.I say yes, making an investment into understanding exactly what it entails to braid someone's hair is not a family tradition, it is a craft, a vocation and there is more to braiding than just arranging the hair. All hair stylist should want to have and in my opinion, must be required to have the basic knowledge of the following; ethics, interpersonal skills, professionalism, salesmanship, hair and scalp treatments, decontamination and infection control, basic hair cutting and hair styling, management and state laws, rules, and regulations for New Jersey all of which are required through the current State Board of Cosmetology structure. Professional and consumers are not for is the bill ( A 3754 ) that; " would create a Hair Braiding Establishment Advisory Committee, within the Division of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Law and Public Safety, and under the New Jersey State Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling. The committee would consist of six members who are residents of the state as follows: three members who own or operate a hair braiding establishment in this state, two members who hold practicing licenses issued by the board, and one public member. The members of the committee would be appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Members of the committee would be reimbursed for expenses and provided with office and meeting facilities and personnel required for the proper conduct of committee business."(http://www assemblydems.com/Article.asp? ArticleID=14442)We cannot change the requirements that we have for the so-called convenience of a handful of people who in reality would benefit from going through the cosmetology program that has already been established. This bill would take clients and income away from professionals who provide a full professional service including braids. They would be forced to reduce their prices for these services in order to be competitive with the unlicensed braiders who offer services for lower prices because they do not have to comply with the laws and get a license like everyone else who provides personal services to the general public. Under the new law “braiders” would be exempt from being required to have the essential training that they need to have before providing services to the general public. I had occasion to visit what I hope was a licensed braid shop and found the conditions to be unsanitary, there was hair everywhere on the floor the counters and there was no wet sanitizer for the combs. As a professional cosmetologist, I asked the stylist to wash her hands prior to her touching me and she scoffed. I was not offered a shampoo ( which is supposed to be part of all basic salon services ) I watched them use the same comb on one person after another. I was appalled because these are the things that are taught in school and should be practiced as a routine in all professional salons. Needless to say, I changed my mind and did not get services at that salon. I mentioned my personal experience to simply call out that is the same experience of others. It is my opinion that anyone who is worth his or her salt should seek to have professional training and learn their craft not just from family traditions but from theory and practical training which is provided by state board licensed educators in accordance with the established curriculums approved by the state board of cosmetology. I assure you having been a student and a teacher of cosmetology there will be things that all students will learn during their educational journey that can make them more valuable as stylists. Please join me and other professionals and members of the general public in asking Governor Phil Murphy to ABSOLUTELY VETO BILLS (A3754) ( S2510).Sincerely, Rhashonna C. Cosby Cosmetologist, Cosmetology Educator

Rhashonna C. Cosby
262 supporters
Update posted 3 months ago

Petition to Mayor Bill de Blasio, Bill de Blasio

Stop Installation of Cellular Antenna Opposite P.S. 183

We recently learned that a cellular antenna (a DAS node) is going to be mounted on the street light directly opposite the entrance to P.S. 183 on East 66th Street and in front of our building. No one in the community was informed that this is happening, and in fact it turns out that the city (department of transportation) leases out these streetlights to franchisees who then install antennas for cell providers (in this case it is AT&T). There is already a similar antenna on the corner of 66th and 1st Avenue. We are outraged that they have been allowed to place the antenna in such close proximity to the school. Communities around the country and abroad have fought to prevent the placement of cellular antennas in highly residential areas due to the health risks involved, especially as cities race to roll out 5G. Read more about 5G here: https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/5G_What-You-Need-to-Know_V4-1.pdf Of course we realize that these antennas are everywhere and that our phones, iPads, etc. emit this radiation as well, but we can control our exposure to those things. We will not be able to control our exposure to this, nor will we know if the antenna remains in compliance with FCC guidelines (which are determined by the telecom industry and haven't been updated in 20 years) because no one will be monitoring its emissions on a regular basis. Please help us prevent the installation of this antenna! What can you do? 1. Call Council Member Ben Kallos’s office: (212) 860-1950 2. E-mail the CEO or other executives at AT&T to complain: Randall StephensonCEO of AT&Trandall.stephenson@att.com 3. E-mail or call Brett Sikoff He is director, mobile telecom franchises & special projects, NYC department of information technology & telecommunications (DoITT) 718.403.6722bsikoff@doitt.nyc.gov

Anat Rosenberg
156 supporters