Advertisement
by Jarish Inyo » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:01 pm
by Defwa » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:20 pm
Jakuso wrote:Defwa wrote:If its not enough to hurt people then your nation must not be using any anyway so the impact should be non substantial if this is passed.
Just because its not a problem in your nation does not mean it isn't a problem in others. We've seen live examples in this discussion of governments willfully ignoring the health effects or putting miniscule profit or saving a little labor over the wellbeing of their population- especially their children.
Make the world better with this resolution.
Forgive me, I Can't see this resolution making much difference environmentally. The atmosphere is already suffering. Yakus is an archipelago in the ocean some distance from any other country. I can't imagine Yakusan emissions making any difference to any other countries, especially at the low levels equivalent to our use of leaded fuel.
by Jakuso » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:25 pm
Defwa wrote:Jakuso wrote:
Forgive me, I Can't see this resolution making much difference environmentally. The atmosphere is already suffering. Yakus is an archipelago in the ocean some distance from any other country. I can't imagine Yakusan emissions making any difference to any other countries, especially at the low levels equivalent to our use of leaded fuel.
You heard him, everyone. The environment is dead. Nothing we can do about it. Everybody go home.
by Defwa » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:46 pm
Jakuso wrote:Defwa wrote:You heard him, everyone. The environment is dead. Nothing we can do about it. Everybody go home.
I'm suggesting we focus on something more important, like a resolution to reduce carbon emissions, not to ban leaded fuel.
by Communist Victoria » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:51 pm
by Wrapper » Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:12 pm
Jarish Inyo wrote:Not to mention that some of those health issues are common today, years after leaded fuel have been banned.
Wrapper wrote:In the USA, the removal of lead from petrol between 1976 and 1995 resulted in a 90% reduction in mean blood lead level....
by Chester Pearson » Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:07 pm
Jakuso wrote:Wrapper wrote:OOC:
What, am I on ignore or something? Or are you selectively ignoring these points?
No I'm stating my point.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Jarish Inyo » Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:48 am
Wrapper wrote:Jarish Inyo wrote:Not to mention that some of those health issues are common today, years after leaded fuel have been banned.Wrapper wrote:In the USA, the removal of lead from petrol between 1976 and 1995 resulted in a 90% reduction in mean blood lead level....
I swear, it's like I'm talking to a brick.
by Mundiferrum » Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:58 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:Wrapper wrote:I swear, it's like I'm talking to a brick.
No you're not talking to a brick. You've listed a large number of illnesses that were supposedly higher when leaded fuel was used. Those illnesses are still common and in some causes higher today. According to sources given, lead was banned and out of production in the USA by 1986. So where is the other 9 years coming from?
There are other ways that lead ends up in the blood, such as lead paint. The removal of lead from paint and other common household items can also be the cause of the reduction. Lead is everywhere. It was in the soil before leaded fuel. Lead was used in a lot of common items before the car. I take that into account. One should remember that in the USA, lead based paint was still being used in the construction of buildings up to 1978.
After reading the sources provided by the fine ambassadors here and other resources, I can not agree that leaded fuel was as serious health risk as other products of the time. The CDC states that lead paint was more of a health risk the leaded fuel emissions.
by Jarish Inyo » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:21 am
by Bananaistan » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:23 am
by Bears Armed » Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:03 am
Jakuso wrote:Forgive me, I Can't see this resolution making much difference environmentally. The atmosphere is already suffering. Yakus is an archipelago in the ocean some distance from any other country. I can't imagine Yakusan emissions making any difference to any other countries, especially at the low levels equivalent to our use of leaded fuel.
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I can't seem to think of a way to ask this IC so here goes. For countries with technology at around a 1920s level, will they have an as cheap alternative to the addition of lead to petrol as an antiknock agent?
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:39 am
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I can't seem to think of a way to ask this IC so here goes. For countries with technology at around a 1920s level, will they have an as cheap alternative to the addition of lead to petrol as an antiknock agent?
by Jakuso » Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:46 am
Chester Pearson wrote:Jakuso wrote:
No I'm stating my point.
No.... You are being pigheaded, and refusing to see reason, even when it is pointed out to you. It is very unbecoming of an Ambassador for a great nation....
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:05 am
Jakuso wrote:
I'm suggesting we focus on something more important, like a resolution to reduce carbon emissions, not to ban leaded fuel.
by Chester Pearson » Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:28 am
Jakuso wrote:Chester Pearson wrote:
No.... You are being pigheaded, and refusing to see reason, even when it is pointed out to you. It is very unbecoming of an Ambassador for a great nation....
I can see the reason. You just don't notice that.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Normlpeople » Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:47 am
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I can't seem to think of a way to ask this IC so here goes. For countries with technology at around a 1920s level, will they have an as cheap alternative to the addition of lead to petrol as an antiknock agent?
by Jakuso » Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:28 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Jakuso wrote:
I'm suggesting we focus on something more important, like a resolution to reduce carbon emissions, not to ban leaded fuel.
"Fortunately, ambassador, we have time to work on multiple issues at once, both big and small. Although only one resolution can be passed at a time, the few days that takes is more then short enough to allow for action on such problems. Frankly, the Jakusan refusal to use unleaded product is mystifying, as ethanol is a much cheaper, safer, and readily accessible alternative. Saves more lead for bullets, I imagine."
by Sciongrad » Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:34 am
Jakuso wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Fortunately, ambassador, we have time to work on multiple issues at once, both big and small. Although only one resolution can be passed at a time, the few days that takes is more then short enough to allow for action on such problems. Frankly, the Jakusan refusal to use unleaded product is mystifying, as ethanol is a much cheaper, safer, and readily accessible alternative. Saves more lead for bullets, I imagine."
Yakus does produce oil products, including UNLEADED petroleum. We use UNLEADED petroleum mostly, but there are SOME who still use LEADED fuels. And also, it would not really benefit us to ban leaded fuels.
by Defwa » Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:35 am
Jakuso wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Fortunately, ambassador, we have time to work on multiple issues at once, both big and small. Although only one resolution can be passed at a time, the few days that takes is more then short enough to allow for action on such problems. Frankly, the Jakusan refusal to use unleaded product is mystifying, as ethanol is a much cheaper, safer, and readily accessible alternative. Saves more lead for bullets, I imagine."
Yakus does produce oil products, including UNLEADED petroleum. We use UNLEADED petroleum mostly, but there are SOME who still use LEADED fuels. And also, it would not really benefit us to ban leaded fuels.
by Applebania » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:39 pm
Wrapper wrote:Jarish Inyo wrote:Not to mention that some of those health issues are common today, years after leaded fuel have been banned.Wrapper wrote:In the USA, the removal of lead from petrol between 1976 and 1995 resulted in a 90% reduction in mean blood lead level....
I swear, it's like I'm talking to a brick.
by Jarish Inyo » Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:46 pm
Applebania wrote:Wrapper wrote:I swear, it's like I'm talking to a brick.
Claire looks over at the seat belonging to Ambassador Nameless. To her surprise, she discovers that the Ambassador has hightailed it and left behind a brick connected to two speakers. She sighs and throws the contraption that had taken the place of Ambassador Nameless out the nearest window.
"Ambassador Alaz, you were talking to a brick. On that note, Applebania shall declare its support for this piece of legislation.
(OOC: Yes, this is an IC response to an OOC post. Deal with it.)
by Jakuso » Sat Aug 09, 2014 12:48 am
Defwa wrote:Jakuso wrote:
Yakus does produce oil products, including UNLEADED petroleum. We use UNLEADED petroleum mostly, but there are SOME who still use LEADED fuels. And also, it would not really benefit us to ban leaded fuels.
For your viewing pleasure: A list of how it would benefit you to restrict leaded fuel use.
Even small amounts of leaded fuel use can cause negative health effects, especially in children, and can accumulate in soil in amounts far above natural negligible amounts.
If only a small population uses leaded fuels, then your fuel companies are likely spending more money on delivering, storing, and distributing the fuel than it would cost to subsidize conversion. This is because carrying another product in sufficient quantity increases fixed costs.
Modern unleaded fuel is more efficient, resulting in less fuel use overall.
Now, as stated earlier, just because something in your nation is not a problem does not mean that it should be ignored. Genocide isn't a problem in Defwa but we'd still prefer to have legislation on it. One of the main ideas behind legislating through the WA that ignore serious problems is to force them to do the right thing.
by Bananaistan » Sat Aug 09, 2014 1:02 am
by Defwa » Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:14 am
Jakuso wrote:Defwa wrote:For your viewing pleasure: A list of how it would benefit you to restrict leaded fuel use.
Even small amounts of leaded fuel use can cause negative health effects, especially in children, and can accumulate in soil in amounts far above natural negligible amounts.
If only a small population uses leaded fuels, then your fuel companies are likely spending more money on delivering, storing, and distributing the fuel than it would cost to subsidize conversion. This is because carrying another product in sufficient quantity increases fixed costs.
Modern unleaded fuel is more efficient, resulting in less fuel use overall.
Now, as stated earlier, just because something in your nation is not a problem does not mean that it should be ignored. Genocide isn't a problem in Defwa but we'd still prefer to have legislation on it. One of the main ideas behind legislating through the WA that ignore serious problems is to force them to do the right thing.
But that's our decision. The Yakusan Environmental Agency have researched the topic and have found no actionable risk. We haven't noticed any related health problems of people living in areas where there is a presence of leaded fuel use. But our opinion on this matter is very much divided back at the Yakusan Foreign Ministry. We could, if we see suitable reason, come to a different conclusion for our vote on this proposal.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement