Topic

water

57 petitions

Started 1 week ago

Petition to College of Charleston

Ban the sale of plastic water bottles on the CofC Campus!

Since the College of Charleston's Quality Enhancement Plan is Sustainability Literacy - with a focus this year on water quality and quantity, we challenge the College of Charleston to ban the sale of single-use plastic water bottles on campus. This initiative addresses the triple bottom line efforts of the College of Charleston as follows.... Environmental: Americans used about 50 billion plastic water bottles last year. However, the U.S.’s recycling rate for plastic is only 23 percent, which means 38 billion water bottles – more than $1 billion worth of plastic – are wasted each year. Bottles that aren't recycled end up in landfills, where they never truly degrade, and in oceans where they break down and can be ingested by birds and other marine life. In addition, nearly all water bottles are made from PET a plastic produced from crude oil. The Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable estimates that one 500-milliliter (16.9 oz) plastic bottle of water has a total carbon footprint equal to 82.8 grams of carbon dioxide. To add insult to injury, it requires 3 times the amount of water to produce a plastic bottle than it does to fill it.  Economic: An analysis conducted by Consumer Reports found that bottled water use for one year could cost $346, but the same amount of tap water would only be 48 cents. If you bought that amount of bottled water for 10 years, the cost would be over $3,400. This is more than the cost of a semester spent living in Buist, College Lodge, Craig, McConnell, or Berry Residence Hall.  Social: Water is a basic human right and the college should not be supporting the privatization of this natural resource. In many areas of the world, the drinking water is unsafe, making sources like bottled water a necessity; however, in the US, this is simply not the case.   

College of Charleston SGA
220 supporters
Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Mayor Rawlings and The Dallas City Council, The Dallas City Council

Stop Water Fluoridation in Dallas, Texas

     The fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e., to lower dental decay rates while limiting the occurrence of dental fluorosis.  According to the latest national survey by the Centers for Disease Control, 41% of American adolescents now have some form of fluorosis (a discoloring of tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride)— an increase of over 400% from the rates found 60 years ago. In the 1940s and 1950s Doctors prescribed Fluoride as a thyroid suppressant. Hypothyroidism now is at near epidemic levels in America. Fluoride – is an enzyme poison which accumulates in the body. Since the body can only eliminate 50% of its total fluoride intake, this build-up can cause harm to the thyroid by blocking the use of iodine. Dogs have been found to suffer a high incidence of hypothyroidism also. The relationship between fluoride contamination and thyroid disease in dogs deserves further attention, particularly since it was fluoride’s production of goiter in dogs that first prompted the idea that fluoride could be an anti-thyroid agent. (Maumene 1854). Here is a link to an article about why these two doctors changed their minds about flouoride http://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/sonoma-county-news-article-3141.html.     Dallas Raw Water has .5ppm fluoride. Dallas does NOT need to spend $1,000,000.00 yearly to increase fluoride levels. The Dallas City Council voted to Fluoridate the Dallas raw water in 1965, when the medical profession believed fluoride needed to be ingested to prevent tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. Since the purported benefit of fluoride is topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, there is no justification for forcing people to ingest fluoride through their water supply.      Hong Kong's fluorosis rates went went from 1% in the 60's to 59% in 1980's so they lowered their recommended level of Fluoride to .5ppm for their 7 million people. “Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy.” .According to Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology and one of the scientists who helped keep fluoridation out of Sweden.  Health Minister German and her director general, Arnon Afek, MD, MHA, a pathologist, suggested that in modern times, patient, parental, and in-school education is a better way to improve oral health than water fluoridation. Fluoridation was completely banned in Israel August 26, 2014.      Minorities are not being warned about their vulnerabilities to fluoride. The CDC is not warning black and Mexican-American children that they have higher rates of dental fluorosis than Caucasian children. This extra vulnerability may extend to other toxic effects of fluoride.      The chemicals used to fluoridate the Dallas water are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, Hydro Fluorosilicic Acid is added to raise the Fluoride level, this  comes from the wet scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. This is classified as a hazardous wastes and is contaminated with various impurities.      Fluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation. Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives because people drink different amounts of water. Being able to control the dose a patient receives is critical. Some people (e.g., manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink substantially more water than others. No one can deny that high natural levels of fluoride damage health. Millions of people in India and China have had their health compromised by fluoride. The real question is whether there is an adequate margin of safety between the doses shown to cause harm in published studies and the total dose people receive consuming uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and non-water sources of fluoride. This margin of safety has to take into account the wide range of individual sensitivity expected in a large population (a safety factor of 10 is usually applied to the lowest level causing harm). Another safety factor is also needed to take into account the wide range of doses to which people are exposed. There is clearly no margin of safety for dental fluorosis (CDC, 2010) and based on the following studies nowhere near an adequate margin of safety for lowered IQ.      While fluoridation may not be the greatest environmental health threat, it is one of the easiest to end. It is as easy as turning off a spigot in the public water works. But to turn off that spigot takes political will and to get that we need you to help persuade nine to vote to Stop Fluoridation. Please sign this petition and send an email even if you are not in Dallas. http://www.ci.dallas.tx.us/forms/mcc/MCC_Mail_Form.htm The Precautionary Rule simply states; when in doubt , leave it out!

regina imburgia
1,922 supporters
Update posted 1 month ago

Petition to City of Sonoma City Council

Public Petition and Demand for Action by the Sonoma City Council to Fix Illegal Activities

Public Petition and Demand for Action by the Sonoma City Council to Correct Illegal Activities by the City of SonomaThe City of Sonoma has imposed tiered conservation water rates at least since the Water Rate Study of 2014; these rates violate state law.Accordingly, the City of Sonoma has collected revenues from ratepayers exceeding reasonable and fair costs, proscribed by amendments to California’s State Constitution. To date, it appears approximately $6 million has been improperly transferred out of the city’s water fund and used for other government activities without lawful voter approval.The most recent audited financial statement issued by the City of Sonoma covers through June 30, 2015; meanwhile, the City continues to make financial decisions, sign contracts, allocate non-budgeted spending, and conduct labor negotiations, all without sufficient financial information. Moreover, the City of Sonoma appears to be violating covenants of its debt and bondholder agreements.Thus in order to correct financial and legal improprieties, we the Citizens of the City of Sonoma demand the City Council take thefollowing actions within 30 days of receipt of this petition and proceed without delay to end any malfeasance and financial mismanagement of taxpayer money: 1. Place a public hearing on the City Council agenda and direct staff to prepare and deliver a comprehensive report of any and allfinancial improprieties, errors, omissions, misappropriations, or mismanagement found to date since 2009 and to restore public trust openly review any previous decisions made on this matter in order to remedy any actual or potential Brown Act violations. 2. Provide resources and direction to staff to quickly and diligently complete a Water Rate and Cost Allocation Study that is legallysupportable and equitable to all rate-payers, provides the administrative record that justifies rate-payers charges, protects the City from future legal challenges, restores public trust and relieves water users from unlawful rates. 3. Terminate the contract with the City of Sonoma's current CPA firm for failing to properly alert the public or regulators and advise Council on these matters, thereby costing ratepayers millions of dollars; then issue a Request for Proposal for a new CPA firm with both experience and resources necessary to properly audit and advise the City of Sonoma of its required legal financial obligations. 4. Terminate the contract with the current City Attorney for failing to properly alert the public or regulators or advise Council on thesematters, and issue a Request for Proposal for a replacement City Attorney with the necessary qualifications to properly represent theCity of Sonoma in all legal matters. 5. Restate previous years’ financial statements in accordance with GASB provisions (Government Accounting Standards Board) toproperly account for the restricted Water Fund cash flows and transfers, reclassifying them as appropriate as loans from the Water Fund to the General Fund to relieve any actual or potential legal jeopardy for staff or City Council, and to restore the reputation of the City of Sonoma and its citizens. 6. Return all money improperly transferred since the passage of Prop. 218 and Prop. 26 respectively, to the Water Fund, first assuring the soundness and safety of water delivery infrastructure funding and then returning any remaining money to ratepayers. 7. Pass a Council Resolution that at minimum states: To provide transparency, encourage public trust and avert mismanagement ormalfeasance, the City Manager shall each calendar month provide City Council and the public a Treasurer’s Report on the previousmonth, to be placed on the City Council meeting agenda after Public Comments at the second Council Meeting of the followingcalendar month or the immediate next meeting. At a minimum, these reports should contain the following: Monthly and Year-to-Date Budget and Actual Revenues and comparative expense report in accordance with GASB for each major department and in summary for the City; detail of all non-payroll disbursements; Bank Reconciliation Report tied to the bank statement; Balance Sheet; Summary Project Progress financial data compared to budget. A written affirmation signed by the City Manager that the reports have been reviewed by the City Manager for completeness and in compliance with the budget as approved by City Council shall be provided. Finally, the City Manager and Staff should be prepared to answer questions from the public and Council on the items therein.

City Of Sonoma Taxpayers Association
319 supporters