[PASSED] Asbestos Consumption, Disposal+Worker Protection

[Kenmoria]

"I would put another clause in the preamble about the dangers of asbestos, since you currently have two stating its advantages and only one on its disadvantages."

[Erithaca]

When I first read this I was also confused by the word extraction thinking it meant removal. Only after reviewing some relevant literature did I see it meant effectively mining. So I would encourage revising that word for added clarity.
I will change it to mining.
I still think that there should be another clause on safe disposal. When I said that I didn't mean how you take it away from the site but rather where does it go in the end. I am not sure on the science and engineering behind this but would expect the resolution to at least provide guidance to states on final disposal. There may be existing legislation on hazardous waste disposal but I have not reviewed the body of law for that.
There are no previous resolutions on the topic. A clause on the matter have been added.
Jeremić ABF

Ooc. House of cards rule prevents explicit references to earlier resolutions if I understand it correctly. So consider changing that in the preamble.

I will remove that part of the preamble.

"I would put another clause in the preamble about the dangers of asbestos, since you currently have two stating its advantages and only one on its disadvantages."
I will add another clause about friability.

[Kenmoria]

Most of this reads as something any reasonable nation would do in the first place. Does this really need to be enshrined within international law? Does the World Assembly really need to be in the business of regulating renovations and construction codes? Is that not why nations rely on municipal governments to do those tedious tasks?

I see no real pressing need for any of this, and as such there is no way I can ever support this, in any shape or form.

Larry Chaffee
World Assembly Representative

"There are several things that any reasonable nation would do, but one has to remember that a large percentage of countries in the World Assembly are not reasonable. If the WA were not to enforce the mandates contained within this draft, there is a high chance several member states would ignore the carcinogenic effects of asbestos and continue to use it with disregard for their citizen's health. As such, Kenmoria declares its support for this proposal."

[Erithaca]

Most of this reads as something any reasonable nation would do in the first place. Does this really need to be enshrined within international law? Does the World Assembly really need to be in the business of regulating renovations and construction codes? Is that not why nations rely on municipal governments to do those tedious tasks?

I see no real pressing need for any of this, and as such there is no way I can ever support this, in any shape or form.

Larry Chaffee
World Assembly Representative

"There are several things that any reasonable nation would do, but one has to remember that a large percentage of countries in the World Assembly are not reasonable. If the WA were not to enforce the mandates contained within this draft, there is a high chance several member states would ignore the carcinogenic effects of asbestos and continue to use it with disregard for their citizen's health. As such, Kenmoria declares its support for this proposal."

I agree. The World has its fair share of Psychotic Dictatorships, who don't care about people dying of lung cancer. I agree with your principle that the GA should refrain from intervention, but this is necessary.

[Kenmoria]

"You're missing crocidolite from the list of asbestos types."

[Erithaca]

"You're missing crocidolite from the list of asbestos types."

Of course! I will add it.

[Kenmoria]

"You're missing crocidolite from the list of asbestos types."

Of course! I will add it.

Also, the newly-added crocidolite has messed up the list labelling, you have two subclauses “e”s.

[Araraukar]

I agree. The World has its fair share of Psychotic Dictatorships, who don't care about people dying of lung cancer. I agree with your principle that the GA should refrain from intervention, but this is necessary.

OOC: You realize that "Psychotic Dictatorship" is a nation category that you get if your major three stats are low enough? I tend to go between corrupt and psychotic dictatorship on Araraukar a lot, but I have 114th healthiest citizens in the world, currently. In addition to which, not everyone roleplays their issue choices, and making a single mistake on an issue can literally drop many of your stats by 50%, like I found to my detriment last year...

[Erithaca]

I agree. The World has its fair share of Psychotic Dictatorships, who don't care about people dying of lung cancer. I agree with your principle that the GA should refrain from intervention, but this is necessary.

OOC: You realize that "Psychotic Dictatorship" is a nation category that you get if your major three stats are low enough? I tend to go between corrupt and psychotic dictatorship on Araraukar a lot, but I have 114th healthiest citizens in the world, currently. In addition to which, not everyone roleplays their issue choices, and making a single mistake on an issue can literally drop many of your stats by 50%, like I found to my detriment last year... >:(

I think you know what I meant. Some nations are literal psychotic dictatorships without respect for their ctizen's safety.

Of course! I will add it.

Also, the newly-added crocidolite has messed up the list labelling, you have two subclauses “e”s.

I will change the labelling.

Do you think that this is ready to be submitted?

[Kenmoria]

"I would add the word “other” after “any” in 4e."

Do you think that this is ready to be submitted?

(OOC: I can see no pressing issues, and it looks good for submission to me, but it might be worth waiting longer to see if anyone else has something to say. Also, the bolding isn't necessary in posts.)

[Araraukar]

I think you know what I meant. Some nations are literal psychotic dictatorships without respect for their ctizen's safety.

OOC: And some are ultra-capitalist nations who don't care about worker safety if it costs them money. Your point being?

As for ready to submit, no, unless you prefer dealing with the issues via a Legality Challenge. Your "Reaffirming GA #7" makes this whole thing sound like an amendment. Why? You don't need to mention GA #7 at all and your proposal will be fine. What minor duplication I can see won't be reason enough to be a problem, but "reaffirming" a whole resolution? That will be.

Also, I question the need or sensibility of mentioning specific minerals - hell, I question the idea of going after asbestos alone in the first place - instead of just banning production and use of asbestos, and then defining the physical properties of the material instead. Add in carsinogenicity and you have a catch-all definition, instead of letting nations get around this by claiming their asbestos doesn't come in any of those minerals.

And for the love of all that's good and kind, use the list code for your subclauses. If you don't know how, just ask, we'll help you. And lose the italics. You don't need IA swinging his weight against your proposal just because of italics.

Now then, clause #2 seems to ban removing asbestos entirely? Since allowing things "in which only non-friable materials are handled", when your preamble says asbestos is friable, makes it look like you're not allowed to touch asbestos. Especially asbestos lining that's not in good condition (thus property owner wanting to get rid of it). Also, 2.d. right now reads as "deliberate exposure to asbestos shall only be allowed in air monitoring and control", which doesn't sound right. The bit after the "and" there is also clause 2.a. in its entirety.

The bit about asbestos mining ban - is that just when you're specifically mining for asbestos, or are you literally banned from removing those minerals from the ground (to, for example, get to the minerals underneath)? Because if the latter, that's going to be an issue.

Also, in clause 5, shouldn't the order of magnitude be employer - manufacturer - member nation, and not the other way round?

I would also suggest not using "skip" in 7.b. to mean a rubbish bin. "Waste container" sounds more professional. Also the subclauses of clause 7 should probably form an "and" list, so that you require all of those to be fulfilled at the same time.

Now, the big question is how did you intend to justify placing this in Health and not Environmental? Especially Health: Healthcare, as I don't see anything in this that would raise healthcare expenses. (Quite the contrary, since lower exposure rates would mean healthier citizens.) You don't even mandate prepaid healthcare to people who were exposed to asbestos, even if it's the employer's fault or due to an accident or whatnot.

[Erithaca]

"I would add the word “other” after “any” in 4e."

Do you think that this is ready to be submitted?

(OOC: I can see no pressing issues, and it looks good for submission to me, but it might be worth waiting longer to see if anyone else has something to say. Also, the bolding isn't necessary in posts.)

Sorry, on mobile, it looked like quite a bit. I have added your suggestion for 4e.

My comments are in bold.

I think you know what I meant. Some nations are literal psychotic dictatorships without respect for their ctizen's safety.

OOC: And some are ultra-capitalist nations who don't care about worker safety if it costs them money. Your point being?

There is no point nitpicking my every word. I meant that there are some nations that don't care about their citizen's welfare.

As for ready to submit, no, unless you prefer dealing with the issues via a Legality Challenge. Your "Reaffirming GA #7" makes this whole thing sound like an amendment. Why? You don't need to mention GA #7 at all and your proposal will be fine. What minor duplication I can see won't be reason enough to be a problem, but "reaffirming" a whole resolution? That will be.

Alright then. I will remove that clause. It doesn't seem like an amendment to me at all though.

Also, I question the need or sensibility of mentioning specific minerals - hell, I question the idea of going after asbestos alone in the first place - instead of just banning production and use of asbestos, and then defining the physical properties of the material instead. Add in carsinogenicity and you have a catch-all definition, instead of letting nations get around this by claiming their asbestos doesn't come in any of those minerals.

OOC: Those 6 minerals are the definition of asbestos. They make up what asbestos is and are used in several institutions such as the EU. Anything else is simply not asbestos- there is no "other kind".

And for the love of all that's good and kind, use the list code for your subclauses. If you don't know how, just ask, we'll help you. And lose the italics. You don't need IA swinging his weight against your proposal just because of italics.

I will find out the list code and use it. OOC: I will remove the italics, even though that is how IRL GA resolutions are done.

Now then, clause #2 seems to ban removing asbestos entirely? Since allowing things "in which only non-friable materials are handled", when your preamble says asbestos is friable, makes it look like you're not allowed to touch asbestos. Especially asbestos lining that's not in good condition (thus property owner wanting to get rid of it). Also, 2.d. right now reads as "deliberate exposure to asbestos shall only be allowed in air monitoring and control", which doesn't sound right. The bit after the "and" there is also clause 2.a. in its entirety.

I will remove the part about friability from 2.

The bit about asbestos mining ban - is that just when you're specifically mining for asbestos, or are you literally banned from removing those minerals from the ground (to, for example, get to the minerals underneath)? Because if the latter, that's going to be an issue.

I will make it refer to mining for asbestos.

Also, in clause 5, shouldn't the order of magnitude be employer - manufacturer - member nation, and not the other way round?

Good idea. I wil change it.

I would also suggest not using "skip" in 7.b. to mean a rubbish bin. "Waste container" sounds more professional. Also the subclauses of clause 7 should probably form an "and" list, so that you require all of those to be fulfilled at the same time.

You are right. "Waste container" would be better. 7 is already written in a way inclusive of every measure. It is an "and" list.

Now, the big question is how did you intend to justify placing this in Health and not Environmental? Especially Health: Healthcare, as I don't see anything in this that would raise healthcare expenses. (Quite the contrary, since lower exposure rates would mean healthier citizens.) You don't even mandate prepaid healthcare to people who were exposed to asbestos, even if it's the employer's fault or due to an accident or whatnot.
The Area of Effect is wrong. I will change it to "Environmental", which, while being slightly odd, is the most appropriate.

The proposal has been submitted.

[Christian Democrats]

Presumably, most nations have already banned asbestos, and its uses are limited, so this proposal should probably be placed in the Mild subcategory.

[Erithaca]

Presumably, most nations have already banned asbestos, and its uses are limited, so this proposal should probably be placed in the Mild subcategory.

I have put it in the Mild category. Thanks for the advice!

[A Bright Future]

I wish this resolution all the bestos!

[Araraukar]

so this proposal should probably be placed in the Mild subcategory.

OOC: That AoE/Strength change still needs to be added to the actual proposal rules sticky, by the way.

I wish this resolution all the bestos!

*sets the pun on fire*

[Imperium Anglorum]

*sets the pun on fire*

Failure to light.

[Araraukar]

*sets the pun on fire*

Failure to light.

OOC: But they've just banned asbestos, it'll burn. *turns up the heat*

[Aclion]

OOC: *adds chlorine trifluoride.*
Are you running a campaign?

[Erithaca]

OOC: *adds chlorine trifluoride.*
Are you running a campaign?

*ducks under table, sheltering resolution text from the fire, makes a proposal about volatile gases. *
For real life- related reasons, I have postponed the submission until next week. I will run a campaign then. For now, it is open for suggestions.

[Edrarin]

"After consultation with my colleagues, the Edrarin Federation supports this proposal. Seeing that the widespread use of asbestos is illegal in Edrarin, we give you our full support and offer you the best for this proposal"

[A Bright Future]

*sets the pun on fire*

Having reviewed the relevant internet encyclopedia entries, we have come to the conclusion that the difficulties with setting the aforementioned expression on fire may lie in the fact that it is not a pun, or 'paronomasia', but in fact a malapropism. Try setting that on fire!

Stickler Pedantić
Professor Emeritus of Annoyance and Irriation
ABF City Polytechnic

[Araraukar]

Stickler Pedantić
Professor Emeritus of Annoyance and Irriation
ABF City Polytechnic

*sets on fire*

OOC: As for mentioning the minerals, if asbestos doesn't exist in any other form, then why do you need to list the minerals at all? EDIT: And I still would suggest adding an "and" at the end of the second-to-last subclause of clause 7. Additionally, are you trying to mandate that all waste is tested for asbestos contents, or is that only for waste suspected of containing asbestos? And how do you measure the percentage? Weight? Volume? Other? And what if you're dumping a really big pile of rubbish at once that sill has a big pile of asbestos in, let's say pure dust form, but as a whole load it doesn't amount to that 0.1%?

[Erithaca]

The proposal has been submitted.

[Kenmoria]

The proposal has been submitted.

Good luck with submission.