Lobby The Politicians
Now is the time, to make a change and voice your opinion. Successive governments have been ignoring our calls for better planning for now and the future. Here we have put together some sample letters for you to use or create your own letter, we have also included a list of ministers e-mail and postal addresses for you, and they can be found Here.
The greatest weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.
Choose a Campaign and Send a Letter:
|Industrial Wind Farms|
Industrial Wind Farms:
Sample Letter - Wind Energy
Dear, Minister of the Environment,
Damage to the Local Economy:
Developing wind farms in important tourist areas could have a negative impact on tourism businesses in terms of decreased income due to fewer visitors. Tourism industry is worth over €6.5 million to the lrish Economy (see Failte Irelands 2014 Figures’). Claims that the wind farm construction will provide local jobs is unfounded as once the construction (by specialist teams) is complete the wind farms are remotely monitored and maintained by very few individuals (roughly 2 jobs for every 10 turbines). This is nothing in comparison with tourism.
Damage to Landscape Character and Visual Impact:
“Landscape character means the distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a particular type of landscape, and how these are perceived by people. It reflects particular combinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, land use and human settlement. It creates the particular sense of place of different areas of the landscape”.
“Landscape capacity refers to the degree to which a particular landscape character type or area is able to accommodate change without significant effects on its character, or overall change of landscape character type. Capacity is likely to vary according to the type and nature of change being proposed”.
Large scale Wind Farms change landscape character and capacity.
Sample Letter - Fluoridation
Dear, Minister of Health,
I am opposed to the use of the public drinking water to provide medication to a small segment of the population. There are several strong reasons for this.
First and foremost, most developed countries, including Japan and 97% of the western European population, do not consume fluoridated water. Ireland remains the only country within the European region with a legislative mandatory policy requiring the fluoridation of all public water supplies? Why is our department of health so adamant that they are right and rest are wrong.
Second there are a number of serious issues concerning the medical ethics of providing medication via drinking water. These include:
Medicating non-target populations:
The elderly clearly do not require fluoride. Four Journal of American Medical Assoication (JAMA) articles in the 1990's show an increased rate of hip fractures in fluoridated communities. 25% of the elderly who fracture a hip die from complications/secondary effects of the fracture.
The Americans with Disabilities Association (ADA) and The Journal of the American Dental Assoiction (JADA) recommend no fluoride for children under 6 months and no additional fluoride for children under 3. How will you protect the vulnerable infants and children from fluoride in their drinking water?
Providing medications in unregulated doses:
The Dental Association's recommended daily dose is 1 mg/L. However, ingestion from other foods and beverages usually already exceed the total daily dose without fluoridated water. Ask yourself what other medications are prescribed in unregulated doses?
Providing medication via the wrong route of administration:
Most experts agree that the effect, if any, fluoride is via topical application and not from oral ingestion. Numerous cost-effective alternatives exist for providing topical fluoride (toothpaste, mouth rinses, tablets/drops).
Fluoridation currently uses a fertilizer waste byproduct containing arsenic and heavy metals. Even proponents should agree that our children deserve pharmaceutical quality products, not waste products.
"Above all DO NO HARM": The most fundamental principle in medicine is to do no harm, modern scientific evidence shows that fluoride is linked to increased rates of cancer, hip fractures, neurologic impairment, learning disabilities, hyperactivity, substance abuse, crime and lowered IQ in children. It is indisputable that harm is done to some people in fluoridated communities. Is that acceptable? No.
We should be enforcing the European Union's "Precautionary Principal" which bascially states if you have doubts don't do until proven otherwise.
The only ethical thing to do is find other ways to treat the target populations with the proper dose, via the correct route of administration, with medical products that are pure, and properly monitored by qualified health personnel.
You have better access to credible information than at any time since the fluoride debate started over 50 years ago. I also believe you have the wisdom to seek medically-credible, ethical methods for protecting the teeth and health of Irish Citizens.
I also consider it an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to make an informed choice. Please keep medication a choice between doctor and patient.
Sample Letter - Fracking
Dear, Minister of the Environment,
We are a small island that already has water provision issues and a growing population. Where are the millions of litres of water required for fracking going to come from (on average about 8.4 million litres of clean water per well)?
What will be the impact on water bills? We talk about conserving water through water meters (a fact that is widely refuted throughout Ireland for a variety of reasons) but what will happen to the fracking water bills? Who will pay for the clean-up should their be leaks from the wells?
We already have limited resources and we are talking about mixing what we have with toxic chemicals (such as hydrochloric acid) that would not be allowed to be used so freely above ground due to their polluting effect.
How are we going to make sure that those thousands of litres of chemicals (a conservative estimate puts it at 0.5% of the fluid content = 42 000 litres per well) will never cause environmental pollution?
Half of this fluid will never reemerge from the well and therefore will remain underground. Water, by its very nature, is in permanent circulation. How can anyone know what the long-term environmental impact will be? How can you regulate for this?
What will be done with the fracking fluid that does reach the surface? About 4.4 millions litres per well.
It is a fact that much of the frack fluid in Lancashire U.K is still sitting in storage tanks, as no one is sure yet how to dispose of it?
Contact Details of Ministers :
Minister Paul White:
E-mail Address: email@example.com
Postal Address: 29 - 31 Adelaide Road, Dublin 2
Minister Alan Kelly:
E-mail Address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Postal Address: Custom House, Custom House, Dublin 1
Minister Simon Conveney:
E-mail Address: email@example.com
Postal Address: Agriculture House, Kildare St. Dublin 2
Minister Leo Varadkar:
E-mail Address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Postal Address: Department of Health, Hawkins House, Dublin 2
Minister Paschal Donohoe:
E-mail Address: email@example.com
Postal Address(Head Office): Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, 44 Kildare Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
Tourism and Sport Divisions: Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, New Road, Killarney, Co. Kerry
Most definitely the dentist community has a monopoly on the study of fluoride and has absolutely used tunnel vision to look at fluorides as a dental concern, however it is not just a dental concern it is a toxicity concern.
|Back to Top|