Petition to Jeff Flake, Ann Kirkpatrick
Downwinders refers to the individuals and communities in the intermountain area between the Cascade and Rocky Mountain ranges primarily in Arizona, Nevada and Utah but also in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho who are exposed to radioactive contamination or nuclear fallout from atmospheric or underground nuclear weapons testing, and nuclear accidents. More generally, the term can also include those communities and individuals who are exposed to ionizing radiation and other ...emissions due to the regular production and maintenance of coal ash, radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing, nuclear weapons, nuclear power, nuclear waste and geothermal energy.In regions near U.S. nuclear sites, downwinders may be exposed to releases of radioactive materials into the environment that contaminate their groundwater systems, food chains, and the air they breathe. Some downwinders may have suffered acute exposure due to their involvement in uranium mining and nuclear experimentation. Several severe adverse health effects, such as an increased incidence of cancers, thyroid diseases, CNS neoplasms, and possibly female reproductive cancers that could lead to congenital malformations have been observed in "downwind" communities exposed to nuclear fallout and radioactive contamination. The impact of nuclear contamination on an individual is generally estimated as the result of the dose of radiation received and the duration of exposure, using the linear no-threshold model (LNT). Sex, age, race, culture, occupation, class, location, and simultaneous exposure to additional environmental toxins are also significant, but often overlooked, factors that contribute to the health effects on a particular "downwind" community. Years later, individuals are still being diagnosed with cancer and dying from being exposed to the nuclear toxins. Testing needs to commense in Holbrook, Arizona to determine if more then just those few years that the downwinders lawsuit covers can be expanded. Many people who grew up in Holbrook had relatives pass away due to cancer and we feel that this is strongly related to the Nuclear testing that's been conducted and overlooked for so many years. We the people deserve the right for testing of the soil and air to commence. It is our right to know what all we have been exposed to. It is our right to be compensated for the loved ones who have been impacted due to the nuclear testing or to compensate those who may be at risk. We are asking for someone to step in and be willing to fight our battle. Too many loved ones have died or been diagnosed with life changing news for this to continue. We are fighting to get tests conducted and for answers.
Petition to Gavin Newsom, Barbara Lee, Nancy Pelosi, David Chiu, Scott Weiner, Doug LaMalfa, Jared Huffman, John Garamendi, Tom McClintock, Doris O. Matsui, Ami Bera, Paul Cook, Jerry McNerney, Josh Harder, Mark DeSaulnier, Jackie Speier, Eric Swalwell, Duncan Hunter
CA - Assembly Bill 407 will cause extreme radiation exposure to Patients in California
California Assembly Bill 407 Why this bill is bad for patient care Written by: Coalition of concerned Radiologic Technologists in California* * * Assembly Bill- 407 (AB -407) will allow unskilled physicians, podiatrists and chiropractors to operate dangerous radiation equipment; this bill is headed through the California State legislature. If approved, this bill could lead to patients receiving excessive and unnecessary radiation doses that could cause them serious over radiation exposure to innocent patients who entrust their doctors with their healthcare. Currently, California is the only state where registered radiographers, and physicians and surgeons need to study, apply and pass for the state fluoroscopy permit. This is due in part to the Radiologic Technologists (RT) Act. This act was created in 1971, to protect the public at large. The act mandates that the person behind the fluoroscopy machine, an equipment that produces ionizing radiation, is certified; but moreover, that the fluoroscopy licensed team has had the necessary education, and training, and they are certified in fluoroscopy. This certification and permit assures patients & staff that during procedures they will receive the lowest dose of radiation possible. Unfortunately, AB-407 is inching its way to become reality, unless patient advocates and concerned citizens inform their representatives that AB 407 is bad for patient care. The existing mandate has assured countless patients whom undergo routine, elective and emergency surgeries and exams, the confidence that the surgeon and radiographer will do whatever is necessary to minimize radiation dose for the patient. Fluoroscopy is primarily used in hospitals, surgery and pain management centers, joint centers and more! They are being used in many applications. Some include: bone replacement (e.g. hip replacement), cardiac surgery, interventional procedures, stent placements, and many more applications. AB-407 will EXEMPT physicians, surgeons and chiropractors from taking the California Fluoroscopy Operators and Supervisors permit, thereby providing the convenient option of paying for the permit, without taking the exam. I explained this to my sister by saying; “it is like someone paying for a medical degree without having going through the education to get one.” Going through the process of being certified is a true litmus test of academic integrity and knowledge. An individual who studies, takes and passes & gets certified achieves a higher sense of knowledge thereby increasing outcomes, which in turn improves patient care. The argument being made by several organizations who supports AB-407, “to obtain a fluoroscopy and radiography permit under current California law, physicians and surgeons, and doctors of podiatric medicine, are required to undergo a laborious and lengthy examination process that can sometimes take months to complete, start to finish.” ( (Glazer, 2019) Wait a minute??… isn’t obtaining any permit and license laborious? In fact, don’t you want it to be a laborious effort? Nothing comes easy! More importantly, what about patient care? Patients who give their ultimate trust and care to surgeons need to be confident that every step is taken to ensure that the procedure is not only done correctly, but also performed with the least radiation possible. AB 407 does not provide this. Being non-certified is non-qualified. It is important to note, according to the Radiologic Health Branch of California (RHB), the accrediting arm of radiology for the State of California, indicates that approximately, 8, 800 individuals are certified as Supervisors & Operators (S&O) Fluoroscopy Permit holders. With only an 83% pass-rate, the idea of passing AB 407 seems irresponsible! Surgeons and doctors that need to operate the fluoroscopy equipment must have thorough understanding of topics such as: radiation protection, radiation biology, and radiation physics. This guarantees that a mechanism is in place to ensure that patients who undergo medical procedures will receive the lowest dose of radiation. While a majority of other states do not require certification for fluoroscopy, radiographers have been educated in these important topics. Radiographers serve as radiation safety experts in the surgical suites, and we constantly inform and remind the surgeon about dosage during the case. Supporters of this proposed legislation indicates that the Joint Commission now requires hospitals and ambulatory care centers “specifically require that hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers must verify and document that individuals who use fluoroscopic equipment participate in ongoing education that includes annual training on radiation dose optimization techniques, and safe procedures for operation of the equipment.” P. 3(Glazer, 2019). While this may have been the case, the Joint Commission has now redacted this information. Hence, supporter’s argument that this is a duplicative process is untrue. They also claim this will streamline the process and “allow physicians to enter practice more quickly.“ Glazer, 2019). To change a legislation that will allow physicians to practice medicine more quickly is not what the RT Act was created for. The RT Act was created to protect the public, and if this legislation passes, the RT act will be compromised. The California Radiological Society and the California Society of Radiologic Technologists, both who fervently oppose this legislation argues that the existing process works. It requires those who wish to operate the fluoroscopy equipment to study, take and pass the California Fluoroscopy permit. Physicians need to demonstrate knowledge of radiation safety practices and with the pass rate of 83%, there needs to be more oversight, resources and education, not less. The need for certification for surgeons is not only needed, but the best for patient care. The RT act should not be water down for the sake of a physician wanting to open their practice sooner. What’s next? A legislative bill to allow non-pharmacists the ability to refill your prescriptions? Perhaps a bill that will allow physicians without an oncology background to treat patients with cancer? As outrageous as these two examples above; do you think that AB-407 may also fall in the same category? To allow non-skilled, non-certified individual to operate a machine that produces (potentially) large quantities of ionizing radiation to you or your loved one? Tell your local California representatives that AB 407 does not promote patient care. Remember, non-certified is non-qualified. To find your representatives click here
Petition to Tom Palmisano, David Victor, Dan Stetson, Marni Magda, Garry Brown, Manuel Camargo, Gene Stone
I’m for Independent Real Time Radiation Monitoring at San Onofre
Dear Community Engagement Panel members,I am asking each of you as CEP members to support and to take action ASAP along with SCE for a public CEP meeting on “Independent Real-time Radiation Monitoring” for SONGS. As well as a second CEP meeting entitled, “Educational Symposium on Radiation” which would include “independent” radiation experts, along with experts from SCE and the NRC. This a necessary step for all the stakeholders to understand what is in the canisters, and what could come out of them now or in the future. Thank you for your consideration of these two programs for the safety of our community.
Petition to San Mateo City Council
Stop Unnecessary and Harmful Cell Towers in the City of San Mateo, CA
There are NO laws regulating the installation of cell towers in San Mateo even though nearby cities adopted laws years ago. We can’t allow corporate greed to destroy citizen rights and harm our families and neighborhoods. We urge the San Mateo City Council to protect our rights and to ensure the following: 1. The primary focus of any cell tower ordinance must be to protect the public health and safety and to preserve our property values. 2. The cell tower ordinance must be limited to 4G technology only. A new ordinance and design standards must be adopted to regulate 5G technology. 3. Our city must thoroughly challenge telecom applicants to ensure that any proposed cell tower is necessary to close a substantial gap in services. 4. We demand that our City government provide transparency in this matter. For example, all correspondence with telecoms must be in writing for the public to view. 5. Citizens must be given the opportunity to provide substantial input into the draft ordinance. Please hear our detailed concerns and amend the draft for the public good. For more information visit our website safesanmateo.com or send an email to email@example.com.
Petition to School District 5 School Board, Mark Flatau, Beth Kornick, Michele Paine, Bette Albright, Anna Marie Bailey, Joe Brenneman, Jon Endresen, Jack Fallon, Mary Kornick, Frank Miller, Diane Morton-Stout, Mary Ruby, Mary Tepas
Not allow cell towers on Kalispell School District property (Flathead High School)
The Board of Trustees of School District No. 5 and Kalispell High School District of Flathead County, Montana, are considering a lease with Gold Creek Cellular of Montana Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless to “… install, maintain and operate communications equipment in and/or upon Flathead High School”. The lease doesn’t say “Cell Phone Tower”, so they would have the right to put any type of equipment up there. Bad Environment: It is important to note that the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) worked to achieve legislation, in place today, that prohibits cell towers and masts on fire stations, due to negative health effects experienced by firefighters (see this link.) Among the behaviors they noted within weeks of installation of the towers were headaches, disorientation, brain fog, & aggressive behavior. We have included some links below. Given their reports, concerns and concerted legal action, perhaps we should look further into this matter. Lack of studies: According to the American Cancer Society, " Very few human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk." Citation. The few studies that have happened have only occured at a very long distance from the tower. Most Recent Lab Results: Directly from the site of the American Cancer Society, " A large study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) exposed groups of lab rats and mice to RF energy over their entire bodies for about 9 hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for up to 2 years (which is the equivalent of about 70 years for humans, according to NTP scientists). In a draft report of the final results (released in February 2018), the study found an increased risk of tumors called malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats exposed to RF radiation" Payment to School District: The school district board, in return for the communications equipment, would receive a rental payment of $20,400 a year. Speak up! The school board votes on this proposal soon after the public comment period closes on May 11, 2018. Meetings will be held on April 24th and May 15th, 6pm Kalispell Middle School. Send comments to Beth Kornick. You can also express your concerns by calling Superintendent Mark Flatau at 751-3442, although email may be the best way to reach him: firstname.lastname@example.org For more information, please visit http://client.prod.iaff.org/#contentid=5090 Thank you to Superintendent Mark Flatau and the School Board for giving us a voice and ensuring the safety and well being of our community!!