NationStates

Toxic Heavy Metals Act

Category: Environmental | Area of Effect: All Businesses | Proposed By: Kaboomlandia

The World Assembly,

Realizing that toxic heavy metals are an international concern due to their toxicity and potential for bioaccumulation, thus negatively affecting personal health and natural ecosystems;

Acknowledging that toxic heavy metals and their compounds steadily build up through food chains, poisoning organisms and affecting sapient beings that make their livelihood off the land and sea;

Seeking to create sensible legislation that steadily replaces them with safer alternative materials at a pace appropriate to each member state;

The General Assembly hereby,

1. Defines "toxic heavy metals" as any relatively dense metal or metalloid, or any compound thereof, that is noted for its potential toxicity by the World Assembly Scientific Programme;
   
   
2. Requires member states to research alternatives to reduce the use of, and where technologically and economically feasible, phase out the use of toxic heavy metals and their compounds;
   
   
3. Encourages member states to cooperate in such research where possible, to save time, costs, and prevent overlapping research;
   
   
4. Further requires member states to educate citizens about the dangers of toxic heavy metals, as well as make a reasonable effort to safely dispose of such chemicals;
   
   
5. Prohibits the intentional discharge of toxic heavy metals into the natural environment, including bodies of water;
   
   
6. Bans the disposal of toxic heavy metals where there is a high probability of environmental contamination;
   
   
7. Mandates that landfills used to hold toxic heavy metals be properly lined to prevent against leaching;
   
   
8. Further mandates that employees of workplaces in member states utilizing such toxic heavy metals follow extant World Assembly law on hazardous material safety, including but not limited to proper labelling and personal protective equipment;
   
   
9. Exempts the use of toxic heavy metals in military applications, so long as due care is taken to ensure safe disposal of said toxic heavy metals and/or their compounds, as covered by existing international law.

Co-authored by [nation=short]Wrapper[/nation].

Tell me what you think, give criticism, etc.

"Wait, you want us to stop using mercury, mining for it, etc. But yet research safer ways to use it, and dispose of it. Are you trying to say as soon as we find it in our nations, to dispose of it. And how are we suppose to research it if we can not use it in any way within our borders. Mercury is dangerous, but to outright ban it for all economical use is outrageous, the safety implements are not, don't get me wrong, but to outright ban it's uses?"

Ferret Civilization wrote:"Wait, you want us to stop using mercury, mining for it, etc. But yet research safer ways to use it, and dispose of it. Are you trying to say as soon as we find it in our nations, to dispose of it. And how are we suppose to research it if we can not use it in any way within our borders. Mercury is dangerous, but to outright ban it for all economical use is outrageous, the safety implements are not, don't get me wrong, but to outright ban it's uses?"

What I'm saying is for nations to get rid of the mercury they have, safely, and research safer alternatives to it. Alcohol, for example, is much safer for use in thermometers.

Ferret Civilization wrote:"Wait, you want us to stop using mercury, mining for it, etc. But yet research safer ways to use it, and dispose of it. Are you trying to say as soon as we find it in our nations, to dispose of it. And how are we suppose to research it if we can not use it in any way within our borders. Mercury is dangerous, but to outright ban it for all economical use is outrageous, the safety implements are not, don't get me wrong, but to outright ban it's uses?"

It says "safer alternatives to Mercury."

Povinksi wrote:It says "safer alternatives to Mercury."

Where? All I see is the word "ban".

John Turner wrote:

Povinksi wrote:It says "safer alternatives to Mercury."

Where? All I see is the word "ban".

Read clause seven.

Kaboomlandia wrote:

John Turner wrote:
Where? All I see is the word "ban".

Read clause seven.

Which is made completely contardicted by:

3. Prohibits the use of mercury in electrical devices, such as batteries and electrodes;

4. Enacts a ban on the use of elemental mercury in non-electrical purposes, including:
thermometers and barometers;
electrolysis, such as producing sodium hydroxide and chlorine from brine;
mining, such as gold and silver mining

6. Bans the continued operation or construction of any new mercury mines worldwide;

You can't just tack on a clause at the end and say it is so. That my young friend is called contradiction. We pretty much all know how I feel about this, so I am not going to waste the words saying it.

"So just get rid of the mercury we have, okay then, that's expensive enough, let's just put research on top on that. Yes I am fully aware that's not required, but that puts a nation behind a bit. And how to get rid of it properly, another major expense and waste of land, giant containment containers are the only option for some, especially if they have to rely on mercury as a common source. That's two mandatory expenses, plus one if a nation doesn't want to get throw back a couple of years in products.

Then what is with this recommendation on #8. Not all nations are advanced enough to do that, or rich enough to pull the expenses you are implying off. If you are going to do this, do it under a humanitarian issue and not a economical one, help restrict it on people, not business, otherwise nations will not be able to get out of the poor situation they might be in to have to use the health risk stuff. Just a consideration before this draft gets through and ruins another economic sector."

Kaboomlandia wrote:1. Defines "mercury" as the 80th element in the Periodic Table of Elements, existing in liquid form at room temperature;

"Dictionary wanking will happen no matter what, so your best bet here is to ditch the definition and refer to mercury as elemental mercury once at the beginning, and note that it will be referred to simply as mercury for the rest of the resolution."

2. Defines "bioaccumulation" as the gradual and steady collection of mercury in organisms, most commonly fish and seafood;

"I would not define bioaccumulation as something solely attributed to mercury."

3. Prohibits the use of mercury in electrical devices, such as batteries and electrodes;

"That is a serious issue for the use of tampering detonators on self-destruct charges. Mercury is used to complete a circuit when a device is tilted inappropriately, and is a mainstay on highly sensitive military equipment. In fact, its a common liquid-state connector."

4. Enacts a ban on the use of elemental mercury in non-electrical purposes, including:

• thermometers and barometers;
• electrolysis, such as producing sodium hydroxide and chlorine from brine;
• mining, such as gold and silver mining

"And in those instances where no reasonable alternative can be found? Measuring implements are easy enough, but mining doesn't always have a cost effective replacement. Doing this would cripple many operations."

5. Implores member states to educate citizens about the dangers and toxicity of mercury, as well as make every effort possible to safely dispose of mercury;

"Reasonable."

6. Bans the continued operation or construction of any new mercury mines worldwide;

"Which would simply increase the trade from less environmentally nonmembers, who will have even fewer environmental regulations than member states."

7. Urges nations to research and use safer alternatives to mercury;

"And what does a nation do if there are none? Do without? Do without mercury in detonators, industrial insecticides, black lights, topical antiseptics, florescent lights, chemistry research...There are simply those instances where mercury is critical, and you've gutted those instances."

8. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall prevent member states from enacting their own regulations regarding mercury, as long as they do not conflict with the terms of this resolution.[/box]

"You can legalize mercury, but only if you ban it, eh? This is not a well executed idea."

OOC: Not to say much, but I think there's a brighter future dealing with methanol poisoning than legislating on widely-used-in-small-quantities mercury.

I've take some of your suggestions from all of you, and taken less of an outright-ban stance on mercury.

Elke and Elba wrote:OOC: Not to say much, but I think there's a brighter future dealing with methanol poisoning than legislating on widely-used-in-small-quantities mercury.

Yes, but mercury gets into the environment and builds up, which is where it gets nasty.

Kaboomlandia wrote:I've take some of your suggestions from all of you, and taken less of an outright-ban stance on mercury.

Elke and Elba wrote:OOC: Not to say much, but I think there's a brighter future dealing with methanol poisoning than legislating on widely-used-in-small-quantities mercury.

Yes, but mercury gets into the environment and builds up, which is where it gets nasty.

So does carbon monoxide. Should we ban that too?

John Turner wrote:

Kaboomlandia wrote:I've take some of your suggestions from all of you, and taken less of an outright-ban stance on mercury.

Yes, but mercury gets into the environment and builds up, which is where it gets nasty.

So does carbon monoxide. Should we ban that too?

Well, Chester, if Kaboom finds a way to reduce CO or mercury through corrective measures, mild yet effective legislation and the like rather than outright bans, I am all for it.

Elke and Elba wrote:if Kaboom finds a way to reduce CO or mercury through corrective measures, mild yet effective legislation and the like rather than outright bans, I am all for it.

I am all for mild reductions. Flat out wholesale bans? Hell no.

John Turner wrote:

Elke and Elba wrote:if Kaboom finds a way to reduce CO or mercury through corrective measures, mild yet effective legislation and the like rather than outright bans, I am all for it.

I am all for mild reductions. Flat out wholesale bans? Hell no.

"Total agreement to that."

"Well, now this has no teeth. Which is acceptable, but brings up the question of what the point is? This does nothing but asks nations politely, which could be done without a resolution. This now solves nothing. You've taken one extreme and replaced it with another."

John Turner wrote:

Elke and Elba wrote:if Kaboom finds a way to reduce CO or mercury through corrective measures, mild yet effective legislation and the like rather than outright bans, I am all for it.

I am all for mild reductions. Flat out wholesale bans? Hell no.

Thank you all for your feedback, I'll find ways to make it more of a reduction, rather than a ban.

"I also don't think you've really read my criticisms, as your definition of mercury looks worse than ever. I suggested you ditch the definition part entirely. Now its just a trainwreck."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I also don't think you've really read my criticisms, as your definition of mercury looks worse than ever. I suggested you ditch the definition part entirely. Now its just a trainwreck."

Apologies. It appears I misread your earlier comment, and have ditched the definition accordingly.

OOC: Isn't Mercury used in vaccine preservation agents?

"This is very nice, but it doesn't require member nations to do anything. It's all just suggestions."

Wallenburg wrote:"This is very nice, but it doesn't require member nations to do anything. It's all just suggestions."

"It urges member nations. Should it pass, you WILL damn well be urged." Clover said "There is nothing wrong with mild resolutions designed to urge nations in a specific direction. In the case of environmental legislation, given the vast diversity of this assembly, its often the best way to ensure you won't run into technological or economic conflicts."

Wallenburg wrote:"This is very nice, but it doesn't require member nations to do anything. It's all just suggestions."

The only thing it explicitly requires is for governments to inform their citizens of the dangers of mercury, and to do everything in their power to safely dispose of mercury.

Normlpeople wrote:OOC: Isn't Mercury used in vaccine preservation agents?

Yes, but it is known to cause autism. I cannot believe I am saying this, but this may actually be a workable resolution, if it is tightened up a bit. I would like to see commercial bans on mercury across the board, whilst exempting military applications. If that can be made to happen, The Federation will gladly throw it's entire diplomatic clout behind this effort.

John Turner wrote:

Normlpeople wrote:OOC: Isn't Mercury used in vaccine preservation agents?

Yes, but it is known to cause autism. I cannot believe I am saying this, but this may actually be a workable resolution, if it is tightened up a bit. I would like to see commercial bans on mercury across the board, whilst exempting military applications. If that can be made to happen, The Federation will gladly throw it's entire diplomatic clout behind this effort.

OOC:I am sorry to burst your bubble, but the quantities used do not cause autism.