NationStates

OOC: Revived, I would like to submit sometime this month.


Well I decided to revive this proposal to close off the loophole made by the Nuclear Testing Protocol, that a nuclear test can be called a peaceful use and you can get away with any environmental damage caused by it.

Draft V, modified clauses 2 and 4.

Peaceful Nuclear Explosives Act
Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Businesses
Proposed by: Atomic Utopia

RECOGNIZING the tremendous utility of peaceful nuclear explosives in earth-moving, space travel, and isotope production;

CONCERNED by the tremendous potential for misuse and destruction these devices present;

AIMS to regulate the use of Peaceful Nuclear Explosives to ensure the health and safety of the general population;

DEFINES Peaceful Nuclear Explosive (PNE) as any explosive device that derives the majority of it's energy from nuclear forces and is designed for peaceful use;

DEFINES Peaceful Use as any individual or group detonation with the aim of earth-moving, resource processing, isotope production, or other such non weapons testing or deployment purposes;

DEFINES fallout as any radioactive material produced by the detonation of a PNE that is released into the environment;

DEFINES negligible dose as any dose of radiation below that sufficient to cause a 0.01% increase in the risk of radiogenic cancer;

MANDATES that all GA members, hereinafter refereed to as "parties" shall comply with the following:

1. Parties shall refrain from detonating any PNE devices when;
a. the predicted dosage from both prompt and fallout sources exceeds the limits defined in section two;
b. the place of detonation lies outside of that country's borders and lies below 150 km in altitude as measured from sea level;
c. the detonation would endanger the populations or infrastructure of other nations;
d. the detonation causes excessive environmental damage as defined in section three;
e. and/or the detonation would be located below 150 kilometers in altitude in a protected site as designated by WA law.

2. Parties shall not allow the average lifetime radiation exposure of the general population to exceed;
a. a dosage sufficient to increase the radiogenic cancer risk 2% in any portion of the detonating country's population;
b. a dosage resulting in any more than a negligible increase in cancer in other countries unless said countries allow dose limits to be increased in a written contract;
c. and/or cause radiation sickness or any other similar illnesses in any population.

3. Fallout from detonations shall not;
a. result in radiation exposure exceeding limits as defined in section 2;
b. and/or contaminate property owned by the general population sufficiently to reduce productivity or damage said property.

4. All PNE devices created or owned by parties are to have a chance of unwanted detonations less than or equal to one incident every 10^6 years per device from the frame of reference of said device.

5. All PNE devices that fail to meet the specified requirements in section 4 shall be dismantled or modified to meet specifications.

6. In the event that the general population or property owned by the general population is exposed to conditions exceeding the regulations set fourth in this document the person(s) affected by the incident are entitled to compensation equal to the cost of the damages in lost productivity, property, medical expenses, ect.

Please, criticize it and tell me what could be improved. Right now I am attempting to determine what would be a good category and finding any legality issues that may be present or crop up in the future.

Atomic Utopia wrote:2. Parties shall not allow radiation dosage to the general population to exceed;
a. a dosage enough to increase the radiogenic cancer risk 20%;
b. and/or cause radiation sickness or any other similar illnesses.

A 19% increase in the radiogenic cancer risk 500 km upwind of our borders, while totally legal hereunder, presents a still unacceptable increase in our own cancer rates, and does so even if we detonate nothing. I apologize for not accompanying this with a suggestion as to how to implement, but that really needs to be changed. As occasional users of PNEs ourselves (albeit not between the base of the water table and the edge of space), we support regulating them, and these are largely reasonable guidelines. But that radiation uptick would be too much.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Atomic Utopia wrote:2. Parties shall not allow radiation dosage to the general population to exceed;
a. a dosage enough to increase the radiogenic cancer risk 20%;
b. and/or cause radiation sickness or any other similar illnesses.

A 19% increase in the radiogenic cancer risk 500 km upwind of our borders, while totally legal hereunder, presents a still unacceptable increase in our own cancer rates, and does so even if we detonate nothing. I apologize for not accompanying this with a suggestion as to how to implement, but that really needs to be changed. As occasional users of PNEs ourselves (albeit not between the base of the water table and the edge of space), we support regulating them, and these are largely reasonable guidelines. But that radiation uptick would be too much.

Fixed, I made section 2b require that people in other nations be exposed to nothing exceeding a negligible dose

Against this oxymoron.

Communist EU wrote:Against this oxymoron.

Please explain why you are against it.

Communist EU wrote:Against this oxymoron.

The soviet union did extensive research into using nuclear weapons for mining. It failed catastrophically, but still - its not entirel an oxymoron.

Great Scourge wrote:

Communist EU wrote:Against this oxymoron.

The soviet union did extensive research into using nuclear weapons for mining. It failed catastrophically, but still - its not entirel an oxymoron.

So what could be improved with the proposal itself?

If you already have a statement ensuring that the allowable dose to the general populace must be negligible, then you don't need a statement regarding radiation poisoning. Alternatively, you may want to put limits of about:
2 Rem / yr / Person
500mRem / 3 Month-Period (Quarter)

This will help to ensure with visible limits that you don't risk any danger to people.

Pharthan wrote:If you already have a statement ensuring that the allowable dose to the general populace must be negligible, then you don't need a statement regarding radiation poisoning. Alternatively, you may want to put limits of about:
2 Rem / yr / Person
500mRem / 3 Month-Period (Quarter)

This will help to ensure with visible limits that you don't risk any danger to people.

You can't put actual numbers as each nation has different levels of resistance, backround radiation and of course this Rem you use is completely unknown to most. (OOC, it's used in the USA, the rest of the world uses the metric equivalent sievert)

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Pharthan wrote:If you already have a statement ensuring that the allowable dose to the general populace must be negligible, then you don't need a statement regarding radiation poisoning. Alternatively, you may want to put limits of about:
2 Rem / yr / Person
500mRem / 3 Month-Period (Quarter)

This will help to ensure with visible limits that you don't risk any danger to people.

You can't put actual numbers as each nation has different levels of resistance, backround radiation and of course this Rem you use is completely unknown to most. (OOC, it's used in the USA, the rest of the world uses the metric equivalent sievert)

So what could be improved, or is it ready to submit?

Atomic Utopia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
You can't put actual numbers as each nation has different levels of resistance, backround radiation and of course this Rem you use is completely unknown to most. (OOC, it's used in the USA, the rest of the world uses the metric equivalent sievert)

So what could be improved, or is it ready to submit?

5. All PNE devices that fail to meet the specified requirements in section 4 shall be dismantled or modified to meet specifications within three years of this document coming into effect.

I'd change this to prevent such devices being used instead of a time limit as it would have the same effect but with less loophole potential.
Other then that it looks ready.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Atomic Utopia wrote:So what could be improved, or is it ready to submit?

5. All PNE devices that fail to meet the specified requirements in section 4 shall be dismantled or modified to meet specifications within three years of this document coming into effect.

I'd change this to prevent such devices being used instead of a time limit as it would have the same effect but with less loophole potential.
Other then that it looks ready.

Well the logic behind section five is that detonation is a means of dismantling and that clause four is meant to increase storage safety not safety while detonating such devices (which is independent of storage safety). In the event that a period of more than 48 hours passes with no new suggestions I will act to submit this proposal.

Atomic Utopia wrote:

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
I dearly hope you are not planning to submit that resolution of yours? It is far from ready.

No, I am not planning to submit it in it's current state as far to few people have commented on it and told me how it could be improved (doubtless it needs to be). Never the less, it would be advisable that I prepare myself for submitting it in the future when it is fully developed and improved. Planning ahead is always a good idea, especially on something like this. Now, would you please tell me what is wrong with it, preferably on the thread the proposal is on itself.

How does this affect all business? How is trout farming, or the furniture making business, or pizza delivery, or the soda pop sector going to be affected by peaceful nuclear explosions? If you submit this, it will be dinged for a category violation. This could maybe fall under IntSec, but may require some fine tuning to increase military spending.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Atomic Utopia wrote:No, I am not planning to submit it in it's current state as far to few people have commented on it and told me how it could be improved (doubtless it needs to be). Never the less, it would be advisable that I prepare myself for submitting it in the future when it is fully developed and improved. Planning ahead is always a good idea, especially on something like this. Now, would you please tell me what is wrong with it, preferably on the thread the proposal is on itself.

How does this affect all business? How is trout farming, or the furniture making business, or pizza delivery, or the soda pop sector going to be affected by peaceful nuclear explosions? If you submit this, it will be dinged for a category violation. This could maybe fall under IntSec, but may require some fine tuning to increase military spending.

Then repeal the nuclear power safeguards act. Environmental all business is a "Has no proper category, but is vaguely environmental, thus it goes here. And it can effect all of those, you only have to be creative with how you use them,

Atomic Utopia wrote:

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
How does this affect all business? How is trout farming, or the furniture making business, or pizza delivery, or the soda pop sector going to be affected by peaceful nuclear explosions? If you submit this, it will be dinged for a category violation. This could maybe fall under IntSec, but may require some fine tuning to increase military spending.

Then repeal the nuclear power safeguards act. Environmental all business is a "Has no proper category, but is vaguely environmental, thus it goes here. And it can effect all of those, you only have to be creative with how you use them,

If you think so. I will be the first one to file a legality challenge if you move forward on this as is.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:If you think so. I will be the first one to file a legality challenge if you move forward on this as is.

"While it in all sincerity is not a problem, I also do not want to see this fail, and I most certainly do not want to see it fail due to you. Thus I will move to make this proposal resistant to such problems.

Now if Herr Ambassador would act with consistency and also attempt repeal GA #483 due to similar "legality problems" we would begin to view your statements as containing a threat."

"Ugh, keep your religious mumbo-jumbo to yourself, ambassador...were I you, I wouldn't worry overmuch about the cries of hate from anti-nuclear positions at the prospect of using nuclear devices for nonviolent endeavors: they make up the minority of the WA.

"That's not to say that resistance can't be found elsewhere, but purely anti-nuke arguments won't be a worry for you."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Ugh, keep your religious mumbo-jumbo to yourself, ambassador...were I you, I wouldn't worry overmuch about the cries of hate from anti-nuclear positions at the prospect of using nuclear devices for nonviolent endeavors: they make up the minority of the WA.

"That's not to say that resistance can't be found elsewhere, but purely anti-nuke arguments won't be a worry for you."

"Herr Ambassador, please tell me of these pockets of resistance so I can prevent them from being a problem for this resolution, as I hope to submit this resolution 48 hours from now."

Atomic Utopia wrote:

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:If you think so. I will be the first one to file a legality challenge if you move forward on this as is.

"While it in all sincerity is not a problem, I also do not want to see this fail, and I most certainly do not want to see it fail due to you. Thus I will move to make this proposal resistant to such problems.

Now if Herr Ambassador would act with consistency and also attempt repeal GA #483 due to similar "legality problems" we would begin to view your statements as containing a threat."

Done.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Atomic Utopia wrote:"While it in all sincerity is not a problem, I also do not want to see this fail, and I most certainly do not want to see it fail due to you. Thus I will move to make this proposal resistant to such problems.

Now if Herr Ambassador would act with consistency and also attempt repeal GA #483 due to similar "legality problems" we would begin to view your statements as containing a threat."

Done.

As I told you by TG, your arguments are a tad... broken.

I also noticed you did not include any complaints about the applicability of the Environmental: All Businesses category, which is your complaint about this proposal.

Atomic Utopia wrote:
I also noticed you did not include any complaints about the applicability of the Environmental: All Businesses category, which is your complaint about this proposal.

I really tend to go out of my not to submit illegal proposals. If you actually took the time to read the rules, you would know that bringing up the category is illegal. I would suggest you actually take the time to familiarize yourself with the rules before you run around making idle threats mmkay?

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Atomic Utopia wrote:
I also noticed you did not include any complaints about the applicability of the Environmental: All Businesses category, which is your complaint about this proposal.

I really tend to go out of my not to submit illegal proposals. If you actually took the time to read the rules, you would know that bringing up the category is illegal. I would suggest you actually take the time to familiarize yourself with the rules before you run around making idle threats mmkay?

Atomic Utopia wrote:
Now if Herr Ambassador would act with consistency and also attempt repeal GA #483 due to similar "legality problems" we would begin to view your statements as containing a threat."

Which resolution would #483 be? I wasn't aware we had passed that many resolutions.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:-snip-
Which resolution would #483 be? I wasn't aware we had passed that many resolutions.

Oops, no matter, it is in the same order of magnitude, far better than that time when I calculated K_∞ and I got an answer of 0.6 with 8 cm central control rod removal in the current state of the reactor when the correct answer was 1.3 with 8 cm central control rod removal (laughs)... needless to say that was a bad day.

Reviving this, looking at alternative categories for my proposal should it sate JPT. I would like suggestions, ad hominem attacks, whining, and any such advice to be given.

Atomic Utopia wrote:Reviving this, looking at alternative categories for my proposal should it sate JPT. I would like suggestions, ad hominem attacks, whining, and any such advice to be given.

You have already been told how to fix it.