[PASSED] Uranium Mining Standards Act

[Discoveria]

OOC: Uranium radioactivity aside, it's also still a poisonous element. Very poisonous to living creatures just on its own.

So's oxygen in high enough concentrations.

And WA debates.

Is the risk of lung cancer to miners not already covered under GAR#7: Workplace Safety Standards Act?

4) Requires that all workplaces establish minimum standards for Personal Protective Equipment(PPE) to ensure the safety of employees with full understanding of the hazards and environments employees may face.

5) Requires that all employees be provided with or provide their own PPE and that they be required to use them.

7) Requires that all employees be trained to safely handle any hazardous materials they are required to work with or near. And so on...

[Araraukar]

OOC: Uranium radioactivity aside, it's also still a poisonous element. Very poisonous to living creatures just on its own.

So's oxygen in high enough concentrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_in_the_environment#Health_effects Uranium is considered toxic to living creatures, whereas oxygen is only considered toxic to anaerobic ones.

[Hittanryan]

We must vote against this proposal should it reach quorum. Uranium does not, as has been pointed out, emit any kind of hazardous radiation until it has been enriched. In its natural state, uranium is an alpha emitter. Alpha particles (helium nuclei) can be blocked by a sheet of paper, they can't even penetrate your skin. You could safely keep a piece of pitchblende in your pocket and have nothing to fear but dirty pockets. Coal mining poses higher risks to workers than uranium mining most of the time.

If you want to make this about heavy metal contamination of water supplies, a genuine potential problem, then it would be better to make this a more generalized proposal that doesn't blindly narrow itself to a tiny fraction of the mining industry. Nobody wants a repeat of this mass-cadmium poisoning episode that took place in Japan, after all.

[Christian Democrats]

First person to vote on this piece of junk.

Uranium ore does not pose any special radiological dangers to miners. Radiation reaches harmful levels only when uranium is enriched. The main risk for uranium miners is the same as the main risk faced by coal miners: lung cancer, something this proposal fails to address.

Underline mine. Whether or not you deem it special or not, to say there are nil radiological factors involved would be a lie

As you should know, all matter emits radiation.

Egad! That pencil sitting on my desk might cause me radiation sickness!

Not really.

The same goes for uranium ore.



As long as you don't snort it, you'll be fine.

[Auralia]

Opposed, for the reasons already stated by other ambassadors.

[The Saint James Islands]

First person to vote on this piece of junk.

Well I am quite proud to be the second person. And the first one to vote in favour as well.

I do find that Abacathea has quite well heard all of the feedback. (Much better than I ever could. ) I am quite keen to environmental protection, as you can't have much of a tourism business without some natural beauty. The requirements set out in this act are naught but fair, and I see not a blemish that should force me to vote against. I do look forward to seeing more of your work in the future, sir.

[Auralia]

Uranium ore does not pose any special radiological dangers to miners. Radiation reaches harmful levels only when uranium is enriched. The main risk for uranium miners is the same as the main risk faced by coal miners: lung cancer, something this proposal fails to address.

Underline mine. Whether or not you deem it special or not, to say there are nil radiological factors involved would be a lie, hence to requote the section you did, and again i'll underline it

Indeed.

[Christian Democrats]

Underline mine. Whether or not you deem it special or not, to say there are nil radiological factors involved would be a lie, hence to requote the section you did, and again i'll underline it

Indeed.

The obvious solution is to do expensive radiation testing on bananas, lest we all start dying.

[The Scientific States]

I am in support of this resolution, and voted for it.

[Chester Pearson]

UNITED FEDERATION OF CANADA



IMPERIAL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

At the behest of Empress Beatrice, and Prime Minister Jack Layston I have been instructed to cast a vote of AYE for this resolution. Even though our own uranium mining industry make take a hit over this, who really gives a rats ass? We have enough nuclear weapons to blast our enemies into the stone age anyway.

On a side note, since Christian Democrats and those vile little Kennyites are against it, we are voting for it, out of spite.

Best of luck on this one. If it passes, great, and we will oppose any of the zillion immediate repeal attempts. If it fails, well...........

Warmest regards,

[The Saint James Islands]

After a far more careful review of the resolution at vote, I am afraid we have to have a change of heart.

While we applaud the intent of the resolution at hand, we find it to be lacking in weight. The lack of consequences for defying the law make it pointless. The requirement that nations police themselves renders the proposal pointless in that all nations can act as if they are in compliance when they, in reality, are not.

This proposal also has a glaring error in scientific reasoning and an error far more serious than the pedantic radiation argument brought up by the Christian Democrats. "iv: Instructs nations who discover flora or fauna indigenous solely to the potential mine site to make documented efforts to relocate either the mine, or the relevant species to ensure that the species suffer as little impact as possible." Ecosystems are not discrete pieces; they are very much more than the sum of their parts. To suggest that complex organisms can be moved from one habitat to another more convenient to industry is foolish and downright dangerous. The mechanisms of evolution also do not allow organisms to adapt to a new environment within a lifetime. Each element of an ecosystem is connected and intertwined with its environment and other organisms within it such that removing one element is detrimental to the rest of the ecosystem. Therefore, this clause is a poison pill.

Thus, we must respectfully withdraw our original vote and lodge a new vote AGAINST this proposal.

---

Sincerely,

John Laughton-Hartley
Ambassador to the World Assembly
The Saint James Islands

[Abacathea]

After a far more careful review of the resolution at vote, I am afraid we have to have a change of heart.

While we applaud the intent of the resolution at hand, we find it to be lacking in weight. The lack of consequences for defying the law make it pointless. The requirement that nations police themselves renders the proposal pointless in that all nations can act as if they are in compliance when they, in reality, are not.

While we understand your view here, the compliance argument is one that more often than not makes us a little aggitated. It is not up to this delegation in our opinion to police the police as it were. Resolutions such as NAPA, On Abortion, PMC and so forth, did not require any such weight or enforcement body to ensure compliance, it was simply expected. If it was discovered at a later date that non compliance was occurring, you left yourself open for the Security Council to have a word. We don't believe in adding this level of additional management into our acts.

This proposal also has a glaring error in scientific reasoning and an error far more serious than the pedantic radiation argument brought up by the Christian Democrats. "iv: Instructs nations who discover flora or fauna indigenous solely to the potential mine site to make documented efforts to relocate either the mine, or the relevant species to ensure that the species suffer as little impact as possible." Ecosystems are not discrete pieces; they are very much more than the sum of their parts. To suggest that complex organisms can be moved from one habitat to another more convenient to industry is foolish and downright dangerous. The mechanisms of evolution also do not allow organisms to adapt to a new environment within a lifetime. Each element of an ecosystem is connected and intertwined with its environment and other organisms within it such that removing one element is detrimental to the rest of the ecosystem. Therefore, this clause is a poison pill.

This if you note, is done under the supervision of a committee set up back when we were a young delegacy in this assembly, who presumably would be aware of what would be consequentially fatal to any species if done incorrectly. We believe that the provisions this act has made will ensure every possible effort at environmental preservation while not placing too heavy a burden on the industry itself.

Thus, we must respectfully withdraw our original vote and lodge a new vote AGAINST this proposal.

---

Sincerely,
(Image)
John Laughton-Hartley
Ambassador to the World Assembly
The Saint James Islands

We sincerely hope you reconsider, we did our bes in the drafting of this act to ensure every possible angle was covered prior to submitting,

Yours,
Jon Chombers

[Hittanryan]

When was the last time the author took a chemistry class? Alpha emitters like uranium-238 are harmless as a radiation hazard unless inhaled or ingested. Virtually any heavy metal poses health risks if inhaled or injested in high enough doses.

Furthermore, why is this limited to uranium mining? One way to refine gold involves entire ponds of sodium cyanide solutions, which will kill anyone much faster than exposure to uranium. Cadmium runoff from zinc mines bioaccumulates in water-borne organisms, what about that? What about mercury, lead, or arsenic?

Unfortunately, the resolution at hand is a half-measure to address a sixteenth of a problem.

[Abacathea]

When was the last time the author took a chemistry class? Alpha emitters like uranium-238 are harmless as a radiation hazard unless inhaled or ingested. Virtually any heavy metal poses health risks if inhaled or injested in high enough doses.

Direct quote from the US EPA;

All uranium isotopes are radioactive. The three natural uranium isotopes found in the environment, U-234, U-235, and U-238, undergo radioactive decay by emission of an alpha particle accompanied by weak gamma radiation. The dominant isotope, U-238, forms a long series of decay products that includes the key radionuclides radium-226, and radon-222. The decay process continues until a stable, non-radioactive decay product is formed (see uranium decay series). The release of radiation during the decay process raises health concerns.

Edit- it is also worth noting that nations shouldn't get blindsided by radioactivity this does address other factors too. It's environmental base not "grr bad radiation!" based.

Furthermore, why is this limited to uranium mining? One way to refine gold involves entire ponds of sodium cyanide solutions, which will kill anyone much faster than exposure to uranium. Cadmium runoff from zinc mines bioaccumulates in water-borne organisms, what about that? What about mercury, lead, or arsenic?

Good question, why is not about those? Why is it not about the sky being purple and magical sprites dousing citizens with liqour and women at their bequest? Simple, the category was Uranium Mining, and I wrote the resolution to the category.

Unfortunately, the resolution at hand is a half-measure to address a sixteenth of a problem.

Only if you see a different problem from the one I'm addressing.

[Retired WerePenguins]

On a side note, since Christian Democrats and those vile little Kennyites are against it, we are voting for it, out of spite.

Hey! Who are you calling "little." We are all average height here! Currently, there are no official registered votes from my region and my off site opinion poll is split with one against and one for mining the Thessadorian ambassador, so that's hardly an indication of regional sentiment either. Therefore, at this present time, since you are saying that we are against it, I am voting for it, out of spite.

[Alqania]

"Well, in the interest of full disclosure, the Alqanian delegation does find this a bit micromanaging", Princess Christine told the chamber. "But on the other hand, the Queendom does not have any uranium resources to mine and this resolution would probably have a positive effect on the environment, so we are prepared to let the WA micromanage other member states this time. We vote in favour."

Edit:

On a side note, since Christian Democrats and those vile little Kennyites are against it, we are voting for it, out of spite.

Hey! Who are you calling "little." We are all average height here! Currently, there are no official registered votes from my region and my off site opinion poll is split with one against and one for mining the Thessadorian ambassador, so that's hardly an indication of regional sentiment either. Therefore, at this present time, since you are saying that we are against it, I am voting for it, out of spite.

"On a side note", the Princess added with a devilish grin, "I understand my cousin lodged a vote in favour in Antarctic Oasis. If there is anything better than a split involving the Thessadorian Ambassador, then surely it would be a three-way involving Her Excellency? And it would seem there has since been an abstention, making it a four-way."

[Scavara]

The Scavaran Representative leaned over to an aide and muttered something indistinct. After jotting down a couple notes on a piece of paper he cleared his throat and adjusted his glasses and rose to address the Assembly.

"My friends, we all understand the importance of good stewardship in regards to our planet. None of us here wish to leave our children and their child a burnt out, festering, rock of toxic waste to live on. However, we must measure the actions we take against the quality of human life above all else. My nation takes extreme and evenly costly measures to ensure our industrial activities are both safe for the workers and the environment around them. But, I fear the specter of "climate change" -something that has happened in our planet's history without direct human causation- may push many of us to seek out measures that will send human society back to the dark ages.

In my home city, a small but dogged group of environmentalists wanted to ban the use of any aerosols including rescue inhalers. Where would that leave the asthmatic members of the community? Now, I'm not trying to equate this resolution with such extremism...but, putting the needs of a few trees and some rabbits before the needs of the people who depend on uranium for their lively-hoods is unethical. Many companies are regulated to the point that they are simply unable to be fiscally solvent. These companies would not survive more regulation. Therefore, they'd be shut down and unemployment would go up. The state would be further burdened by more welfare tax monies being expended when there is no need. The World Assembly has already made numerous resolutions on the upkeep of our eco-system. If those resolutions are insufficient to safe-guard against careless and sometimes criminal actions by corporations then why are they on the books? Is this Assembly's better judgement so poor and its laws so full of holes that we need to make new ones to fill in the gaps? I don't believe that is the case. And therefore I don't see the need to pass the resolution. As such, the delegation from the Republic of Scavara must vote against this resolution."

With that he sat back down and took a sip from his glass of water and shuffled some of his papers.

[Hittanryan]

The Scavaran Representative leaned over to an aide and muttered something indistinct. After jotting down a couple notes on a piece of paper he cleared his throat and adjusted his glasses and rose to address the Assembly.

"My friends, we all understand the importance of good stewardship in regards to our planet. None of us here wish to leave our children and their child a burnt out, festering, rock of toxic waste to live on. However, we must measure the actions we take against the quality of human life above all else. My nation takes extreme and evenly costly measures to ensure our industrial activities are both safe for the workers and the environment around them. But, I fear the specter of "climate change" -something that has happened in our planet's history without direct human causation- may push many of us to seek out measures that will send human society back to the dark ages.

In my home city, a small but dogged group of environmentalists wanted to ban the use of any aerosols including rescue inhalers. Where would that leave the asthmatic members of the community? Now, I'm not trying to equate this resolution with such extremism...but, putting the needs of a few trees and some rabbits before the needs of the people who depend on uranium for their lively-hoods is unethical. Many companies are regulated to the point that they are simply unable to be fiscally solvent. These companies would not survive more regulation. Therefore, they'd be shut down and unemployment would go up. The state would be further burdened by more welfare tax monies being expended when there is no need. The World Assembly has already made numerous resolutions on the upkeep of our eco-system. If those resolutions are insufficient to safe-guard against careless and sometimes criminal actions by corporations then why are they on the books? Is this Assembly's better judgement so poor and its laws so full of holes that we need to make new ones to fill in the gaps? I don't believe that is the case. And therefore I don't see the need to pass the resolution. As such, the delegation from the Republic of Scavara must vote against this resolution."

With that he sat back down and took a sip from his glass of water and shuffled some of his papers.

Nice story. What does that have to do with the resolution being discussed, and why do you hate the scientific community?

[Christian Democrats]

This proposal also has a glaring error in scientific reasoning and an error far more serious than the pedantic radiation argument brought up by the Christian Democrats.

It is not pedantic to point out that two of this proposal's nine clauses are pointless and unscientific.

Direct quote from the US EPA;

All uranium isotopes are radioactive. The three natural uranium isotopes found in the environment, U-234, U-235, and U-238, undergo radioactive decay by emission of an alpha particle accompanied by weak gamma radiation. The dominant isotope, U-238, forms a long series of decay products that includes the key radionuclides radium-226, and radon-222. The decay process continues until a stable, non-radioactive decay product is formed (see uranium decay series). The release of radiation during the decay process raises health concerns.

Your computer is radioactive.

[Abacathea]

This proposal also has a glaring error in scientific reasoning and an error far more serious than the pedantic radiation argument brought up by the Christian Democrats.

It is not pedantic to point out that two of this proposal's nine clauses are pointless and unscientific.

Direct quote from the US EPA;

Your computer is radioactive.

Oh now CD really, this is childish even for you.

[Discoveria]

i: Mandates that nations allowing uranium mining within their territory conduct an annual audit of each operational mine to ensure that basic radiation precautions are in place and being utilized.

ii: Charges all national governance with the responsibility of assessing operational mines for any issues relating to waste product disposal, radiation containment and structural integrity.

Uranium ore does not pose any special radiological dangers to miners. Radiation reaches harmful levels only when uranium is enriched. The main risk for uranium miners is the same as the main risk faced by coal miners: lung cancer, something this proposal fails to address.

AGAINST

You're safe as long as you don't inhale the stuff.

While the ore itself is not an immediate radiation hazard, I'm not sure this argument is sufficient to dismiss all concerns about radioactivity. This site discusses the problem of preventing contamination of water sources.

The radiation is virtually trapped underground; exposures are only possible if contaminated groundwater, that is circulating through the deposit, is used for drinking. Radon is of no concern for deep deposits, though it can travel through underground fissures, since it decays before it can reach the surface.
The situation changes completely, when the deposit is mined: Radon gas can escape into the air, ore dust can be blown by the wind, and contaminants can be leached and seep into surface water bodies and groundwater.

Elsewhere the site says:

To keep groundwater out of the mine during operation, large amounts of contaminated water are pumped out and released to rivers and lakes. When the pumps are shut down after closure of the mine, there is a risk of groundwater contamination from the rising water level.

...

All these piles [of waste rock] threaten people and the environment after shut down of the mine due to their release of radon gas and seepage water containing radioactive and toxic materials.

...

Radon-222 gas emanates from tailings piles [waste uranium milling material] and has a half life of 3.8 days. This may seem short, but due to the continuous production of radon from the decay of radium-226, which has a half life of 1600 years, radon presents a longterm hazard.

And this site discusses the effects of radiation exposure on Native American uranium mine workers, before safety measures were implemented.

The native Indians who worked in [open uranium mines on American Indian tribal lands] were not protected from exposure to radiation, nor were they adequately warned about the dangers. Though it was clear that radiation exposure was linked to cancer in the early 1950s, around the same time that the US Public Health Service also started studying the health of uranium miners, it was not until 1959 that lung cancer was mentioned as a risk in pamphlets given to the workers. In an unpublished doctoral dissertation, A.B. Hungate writes that the reasons for this are: “The government had two interests. First, it needed a steady supply of domestic uranium, and it felt that warning the workers of the hazards would result in the loss of the workforce. Secondly, it wanted an epidemiological testing program to study the long term health effects of radiation.”

Don Yellowman, president of the Forgotten Navajo People, described the extent of exposure to radiation and toxic metals. Native Indian miners would drink radioactive water that had contained heavy metals, dripping off of the walls deep in the mines. Some of the miners had to travel long distances to the mines, so their families would come with them. Children would play in the area around the mine and family members would prepare and eat meals there. Other reports state that workers, primarily non-whites, were ordered into the mines shortly after explosions were set off to gather up rocks and bring them out for processing. Also, miners would go home at night covered in toxic radioactive dust, exposing their families to health risks.

[Christian Democrats]

Oh now CD really, this is childish even for you.

Anything warmer than 0 K emits radiation.

<snip>

According to this website:

Although some opponents of uranium mining claim that radiation from uranium mining operations puts the public at risk for increased rates of cancer, scientific studies have confirmed that it has not resulted in higher rates of cancer for members of the general public living in the vicinity of mines. Dr. John D. Boice, Jr., a professor of medicine at the Vanderbilt School of Medicine and Science Director for the International Epidemiological Institute, has conducted extensive public health studies of populations surrounding uranium mining and milling operations in Texas, New Mexico and Colorado. In four separate studies using data spanning 50 years, Dr. Boice examined the public health records of thousands of residents living in close proximity to uranium mining and milling operations. In all four studies, Dr. Boice found no difference in rates of cancer and cancer mortality in those communities compared to communities in other parts of the states.

As you know, statistics ought to be preferred to anecdotes.

The occupational safety hazards of uranium mining are the same as those for coal mining. Don't breathe the stuff in.

As Auralia points out above, uranium ore is as radioactive as bananas.

[Puerto Serbia]

After reading this I'm forced to concurr with my other conterpart uranium isn't dangerous until the stage of enrichment , so with that being said my vote stand on the council.
Thank you for your time!

[Discoveria]

<snip>

According to this website:

Although some opponents of uranium mining claim that radiation from uranium mining operations puts the public at risk for increased rates of cancer, scientific studies have confirmed that it has not resulted in higher rates of cancer for members of the general public living in the vicinity of mines. Dr. John D. Boice, Jr., a professor of medicine at the Vanderbilt School of Medicine and Science Director for the International Epidemiological Institute, has conducted extensive public health studies of populations surrounding uranium mining and milling operations in Texas, New Mexico and Colorado. In four separate studies using data spanning 50 years, Dr. Boice examined the public health records of thousands of residents living in close proximity to uranium mining and milling operations. In all four studies, Dr. Boice found no difference in rates of cancer and cancer mortality in those communities compared to communities in other parts of the states.

As you know, statistics ought to be preferred to anecdotes.

The occupational safety hazards of uranium mining are the same as those for coal mining. Don't breathe the stuff in.

An obvious question arises: how do we know whether the reason there is no increased mortality is because the risk is inherently low rather than because radiation safety precautions, of the type this proposal seeks to mandate, have reduced the risk to statistically insignificant levels?

Secondly, should we not proceed with precautionary measures anyway? We know that uranium milling and refining does create health risks for communities in the vicinity (there is a Spanish study here on it).

From a Canadian paper discussing nuclear industry risks:

Given that the dissemination of contaminated material, particularly the long-lived radioisotopes, into the environment is essentially irreversible, and that these will remain toxic for thousands of years, a precautionary approach is advisable. Much genetic damage is irreversible, and may be cumulative, so this becomes doubly important. We as family doctors are concerned about the public health risks of every stage of the nuclear industry.

...

The scientific community generally agrees that there are no “safe” levels of exposure to ionizing radiation, and that any exposure carries the risk of harm. “Acceptable” levels are based on “acceptable harm”.

As Auralia points out above, uranium ore is as radioactive as bananas.

(Image)

You're missing the point. We're not just talking about immediate risks to human health. Environmental contamination can create problems with the use of water resources and land. Instead of all that ore sitting underground, it is being brought to the surface and dispersed as dust and in water. This would be an environmental concern even if the area around the mine were totally devoid of human settlement.

Much of the literature addresses the greater risks of uranium milling as opposed to mining. It's not clear whether this proposal would include these facilities (if it does, the case for protecting human health gets stronger) but the facilities in question are generally "around mining operations" and might therefore be subject to clause v.

[Christian Democrats]

We know that uranium milling and refining does create health risks for communities in the vicinity (there is a Spanish study here on it).

"To ascertain solid tumor mortality in towns near Spain's four nuclear power plants and four nuclear fuel facilities from 1975 to 1993, we conducted a mortality study based on 12,245 cancer deaths in 283 towns situated within a 30-km radius of the above installations."

As I have said, enriched uranium is hazardous to human health.

Clauses (i) and (ii) deal with mines; they deal with uranium ore, which is not radiologically dangerous.