Fracking gets a lot of attention and rightly so. THere are the environmental aspects of the government striving to grow the burning of fossil fuels of which 'Frackgas' is one of them. The pollution aspect is even more painful with metals such as; arsenic, mercury, cadmium being brought to the surface for clean up. The cost to the communities will be through a massive cost to the Water companies who will pass these additional costs on to their customers. Millions of tonnes of chemical impregnated water will be used in the 'frackgas' operation and it will all need to be treated. Where will the cleaned pollutant residue end up? We have yet to gain an answer to this. Let us look at the visual impact. Stoke on Trent could end up with some 30 derricks blotting the landscape. We know that we have miles upon miles of coal bed methane trapped under our city and towns. There is this licence for 'Frackgas' or the dangerous technique of fracking coal bed methane. This is your country: Protect It

To describe the UKs nuclear waste site as a “Repository” is putting a spin on the UKs main nuclear dump for "low level" waste. There is "controlled discharge direct to the Irish Sea" not to mention run off to the Drigg Stream and River Irt. Discharges to the air of radioactive gases are ongoing. According to the British Geological Society the Drigg site is above a regional aquifer. It is also "likely to be destroyed by coastal erosion" in 500 to 5000 years (computer modelling can be wrong either way) . Much of the waste is long lived and high risk. Below are a few of the reasons why it is important that Cumbria County Council Lock the Gate on Drigg: Planning Application PL\1508\05 (4/15/9012):The phased construction of additional vaults, higher stacking of containers..capping.. 1. Drigg Low Level Waste Repository (the word nuclear was dropped so as not to scare the horses) would continue to accept nuclear waste for decades to come. "Capping" is misleading. To cap” a nuclear dump is akin to putting a cap on a fizzy lemonade bottle while there are holes in the bottom of the bottle. The site will continue to leach aqueous emissions to groundwater and gaseous emissions to air. 2. LOW LEVEL: This suggests that the waste at Drigg is low risk and short lived. Neither is true. As the University of Reading has pointed out: “The Drigg site uses two disposal systems: 1) An original system operated from 1959 to 1988 comprising a series of parallel trenches excavated into glacial clays, back filled with LLW and covered with an interim water resistant cap. 2) Current disposal of compacted waste placed in steel ISO-freight containers, with void space filled with highly fluid cement based grout. These containers are then disposed of in a series of open concrete vaults. Radionuclides with highest activities in the inventory include 3H, 241Pu, 137Cs, 234U and 90Sr, 238U and 232Th. http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/16608/1/mrspaper.pdf 3. RADIOACTIVE FLY TIPPING: The chemical and nuclear dump site has moved on from the years 1940 to 1988 when chemical and radioactive waste was tumble tipped into trenches. Now the waste is compacted into steel shipping containers filled with cement. Incredibly the containers are stacked high. In 2013 the LLW management wrote: “in containers at the tops of stacks, the external capping grout has 
undergone extensive physical degradation and settlement; the lids are not full of grout, and the grout is generally heavily cracked. The state of the capping grout in underlying layers is better; most containers only show sparse cracking and typical settlement in the lid is approximately 15 mm. Standing water, sometimes contaminated with low levels of radioactivity, is present in approximately half of the containers at the tops of stacks. ..In containers at the tops of stacks, organic matter has accumulated beneath many open grout ports, with vegetation growing from some grout ports. ..Corrosion, sometimes fully penetrating, is present in some container lids at the tops of stacks…” http://llwrsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/30-RP-LLWRGR-PROJ-0139-Vault-8-Container-Issues-Project-MAS.pdf 4. FLOODWATER AND SEA INUNDATION: “The Environment Agency has given a formal view that “the potential for disruption of the site is an acceptable risk” By “disruption of the site” they mean inundation by sea and flood. This is a far cry from the Environment Agency's previous criticism in 2005: "BNFL (Now the NDA) has not yet demonstrated that the wider benefits to the UK from continued LLW disposal on this site outweigh the potential future impacts" We would hope that Cumbria County Council agree with the Environment Agency's 2005 findings that that the real and present threat of inundation of the Drigg site by flood or by sea is not an acceptable risk to the people of Cumbria or to our international neighbours. 5. THE COLLAPSE in 1985 of the largest black-headed gull breeding colony in Europe on the Drigg dunes has never been satisfactorily explained. The official explanation is that a fox did it! https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/disappearing-trick-birds-and-nuclear-waste/ 6. CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA is officially blamed on "population mixing" due to the influx of workers firstly to the 1940 explosives factory (Royal Ordnance Factory) at Drigg and then the ROF at Sellafield. The irony of this incredible argument is that the plan for 3 new nuclear reactors at ' Moorside' a few miles from Drigg ('Moorside' is at the village of Beckermet) would involve a boom and bust influx of thousands of workers along with a further tsunami of nuclear wastes and ever more Driggs. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-moorside-biggest-nuclear-development-in-europe Many of the Councillors expressed serious concerns at the meeting and yet the vote was unanimously in favour which, to campaigners and the wider public, smacks of something very fishy indeed. To rely on the testament of the Environment Agency who merely look at the information provided to them by the industry is reckless. All projections and computer modelling are based on information provided by the operators. Much of the Drigg site is already unable to be accessed for monitoring due to the stacking of containers. At the planning meeting on 15th July 2016 There was no discussion of a. the increased possibility of criticality with an ever increasing radiological burden. The words criticality “will not occur” cannot be applied to Drigg's LLWR : https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/drigg-decision-we-are-caught-in-a-trap-no-way-out-because-we-love-nuclear-waste-too-much/ b. the ethics of denying future generations the right to protect themselves, c. whether to warn future generations not to dig or distrurb the poisonous chalice beneath the land. d. the ethics of adding to an already intolerable radioactive burden on this vulnerable coastal site.

As a nineteen year old there have been many things that I have experienced so far in my life. We all in someway have gone though a lot that we unfortunately had no help with or anyone there to to comfort us and tell us that its going to be okay. You have the good memories that we cling to so dearly, and then there are those which are not so great. Events that should have never even taken place, especially for those so young and vulnerable. The bad memories where you think I wish I would have known ‘this’ or ‘that’ then maybe I would have not been so lost and helpless in that situation. If that were the case you could have been somewhere else today. A lot of our youth nowadays are susceptible to making very life-changing decisions or mistakes that they were not warned or aware of as they were growing up. Our education system is so set on Sex Education being improved constantly and carrying out classes to younger and younger ages each year. In doing so each generation is thinking more about sex in contrast to accomplishing a fully content life with healthy relationships amongst friends, families and significant others. Instead we end up with unsatisfied young men and women who seek happiness in the wrong things and places, they take their loved ones for granted, push their family away and allow the road to anti-social behaviour and depression to creep in where it seems almost impossible for the individual to ever be happy with anything or anyone. My aim for this petition is to launch the start of Relationship Education classes for young people. Where we can teach children the values of trust, respect, loyalty, communication, love, and integrity in the right way. From being raised in a single parent family I saw my mother in the most damaging ways as a child. I saw her beaten by men and women, I saw her heartbroken numerous times, she was also very angry with the world. But the one thing I would see in her for the most part compared to everything else was of course disappointment. She would always weep and wonder why she never saw certain things coming or how she wishes she would have done things differently or maybe to have not done anything at all. Relationship classes should have been put in place a long time ago, God knows so many of us would have benefited highly from them. Classes where we can help guide our youth, pave out the road to success and point them in the right direction is something that should be encouraged not thrown to the side. Good relationships with others should hold far more importance than Sex Education which I do still believe is essential to be taught but definitely not more significant than building a happy community with one another. I believe these classes will help our schools to see a dramatic drop in bullying, absences and insecurities. Through this scheme we will teach mutual respect, the correct manner to communicate with one another and to avoid unkind comments or gestures that would hurt your peer in any way. In addition to this procedure we will have gained a large increase in sociable engagement with other peers, good attendance, confident individuals, an expansion on creativity and most of all a happy class. Not only will this benefit children during school time but the life skills they will attain will be practiced in the comfort of their own home, with family and friends, through college, university, in the workplace and so on.

His request is simple; he wants to speak to you Mr Cameron, to present you with scientific evidence and to show you the social opposition to fracking, particularly from Lancashire where he lives, but he also acts as a passionate green voice for many people in the UK who feel the same way. He isn't a scientist, or a powerful politician or a celebrity; he is a regular everyday bloke who believes fracking is a very bad idea - today (4/12/2015) is his 12th day without food. He wants to talk to you about the exponential growth of support from regular everyday folks who don't have a voice on the telly, the radio or in the papers, but who want you and our government to deliver renewable, sustainable, safe options to power our country. He just wants to talk to you Mr Cameron - go and see him! * * * Gayzer has no PR or media team, no YouTube channel or popular blog page to help raise his profile. Please show your support for his plight; he is your next-door neighbour, he is the voice in the supermarket queue, he is the one who is putting everything on the line to try to protect the future of all of our children.

The development and use of renewable energy sources is required to protect the future of all who live and work in Gloucestershire from Climate Change. The current strategy of the Pension Fund administered by Gloucestershire County Council Pension Comittee to invest many many £millions in large fossil fuel companies is compromising the future of those of us who live in Gloucestershire and those who contribute to or are receiving GCC pensions.

100% London teamed up with energy experts to come up with nine essential steps to a clean energy future for London. The mayor needs to stand with every Londoner, including businesses, schools, hospitals and local councils, to make sure we build a clean future for our city. Here’s what the new mayor should commit to do to make London 100% clean: - Fix up older homes, to make them warm and energy efficient - Invest in public transport - Create a network of renewable energy suppliers - Make cycling safe and accessible for everybody - A city-wide solar power strategy - Make freight carbon-free - Cleaner air through lower vehicle emissions - Use resources well, and recycle more effectively - Modernise our workplaces to make them energy efficient

As pointed out recently by the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, the global health improvements witnessed in recent decades risk being undone by climate change.. We also know that most of the existing coal, oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground if this is to be avoided. However, the energy sector’s continued exploration for new fossil fuel reserves makes clear that they will only respond to market forces. The ethical and financial case for fossil fuel divestment is thus well founded, and widely supported by, amongst others, the President of the World Bank and Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO)- both public health physicians. Whilst we commend the Gates Foundation Asset Trust’s recent decision to divest $765.9 million worth of shares from ExxonMobil, we feel that this does not go far enough. By failing to divest from the major fossil fuel companies, the Gates Foundation is implicitly providing moral support to companies that continue to obstruct meaningful action to reduce GHG emissions. Just as important, it sends the wrong signal to many governments who continue to frame their energy policies under the influence of the fossil fuel industry. It also misses the opportunity to support a transition to a safer and healthier world through transfer of investment to the renewable energy sector. Constructive engagement with the fossil fuel industry is important, but the Gates Foundation is better placed to support the transformation of the energy sector if it does not simultaneously signal that it is morally acceptable to profit from industries that cause global warming and threaten the health, biodiversity and security of the planet. Yours sincerely, Dr David McCoy, Medact, UK Prof. Hugh Montgomery, University College London Prof Sue Atkinson and Dr Robin Stott, on behalf of the Climate and Health Council, UK Dr David Pencheon, Director, Sustainable Development Unit for the Health and Social Care System, UK ----------- If you are from outside the UK then please email [email protected] with the following details, and we will add you to the petition manually: Full name, Email, Job title, Country and whether you work in the health sector.

Fracking is an inherently dangerous industrial process which poisons water aquifers. Do we want our families and future generations to suffer from the effects of chemically contaminated water in perpetuity? Environment America's Research and policy Centre’s report in 2013, which studied the impact of fracking across the United States, states that fracking poses grave risks to the environment and human health. For this reason the Scottish and Welsh assemblies have imposed a moratorium on fracking in Scotland and Wales. There have been many cases across the US where contamination of drinking water has led to serious impacts on health for humans and livestock. I urge anyone to get hold of it, it makes very sobering reading. Fracking is not a safe industry and the evidence from studies in the US backs this up. The visual and environmental impact of this industrial process on the landscape and to habitats is dramatic and therefore extremely concerning. Damage is caused by drilling through water bearing rock strata and pumping a cocktail of toxic chemicals at extremely high pressure in order to shatter oil bearing shale. Well linings break and degrade leading to irreversible contamination of aquifers. The vast quantities, millions of gallons, of water for this process must be taken in competition with the needs of irrigation for agriculture and our drinking water. The water becomes contaminated and cannot be recycled but has to be brought back to the surface and stored in reservoirs or dumped, leading to escape and further permanent damage to the environment. Fracking will without question threaten the purity and future security of water aquifers across England in densely populated counties including Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire. Drilling horizontally below for example beneath the South Downs National Park cannot be considered safe. In geological terms, this isn't very deep at all. Depth does not address the risk fundamentals that high pressure fracking and extraction from well head to oil bearing strata and in reverse in a environmentally sensitive and densely populated region poses to health. Fracking should be regulated with as much rigour as the nuclear industry is under European Environmental Impact Assessment regulation. The impact of fracking is such a critical and detailed issue for the UK, I urge everyone to review the evidence on fracking that is emerging from the US for themselves and not rely on ministerial briefings and support a moratorium on fracking in England until fracking can ever be proved to be a safe and sustainable industrial practice. There are proven safe and sustainable alternatives to securing the nation's energy requirements.

RWE Innogy have submitted a planning application to dam the river Conwy and build a hydro electric power plant. The Afon Conwy is a unique & nationally important river designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a famous salmon & sea trout fishery and classic white water kayaking and canoeing resource. The section of the river that will be affected by the dam includes the famous Conwy Falls waterfall a significant visitor attraction and the iconic Fairy Glen. Photo ©Andy Teasdale

"A Chinese state-controlled company, with a minority French state partner, will build (and control) massive nuclear power plants at Hinkley Point, Bradwell in Essex and Sizewell. British intelligence agency sources are said to be so concerned that they have let it be known in public that they can never know what hidden capabilities are built into the plants’ software." Polly Toynbee. If these plans go ahead they could press that red button and make the UK a nuclear wasteland whenever they chose, or hold us to ransom indefinitely taking over our government and removing every last freedom we posses. Environmentally speaking our government has crushed burgeoning sustainable energy enterprises to make room for this. Fiscally speaking it is yet another selling off of basic infrastructure that we should own. Whether you believe that this is an environmental, a fiscal or a security risk please sign. Do not hand over the UK on a plate.

Oil & gas companies are looking to explore for more fossil fuels within Mole Valley even though Climate Change scientists and most world powers demand that we move away from our dependency on them to renewables. To be looking for more fossil fuels at a time when we have already found over 5 times more fuel than we can potentially use is utter madness and criminal.

So we do not leave a legacy of more nuclear waste to our future generations