NationStates

"This proposal shall replace GA #298, should the repeal by the mission of Gemeinschaftsland pass, complementing "Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials". Therefore, this shall not cover the transportation of materials, which shall be left to said draft. I thank the mission of Heavens Reach for their assistance in this effort."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of The Ice States

Whereas many toxic materials are necessary raw materials for chemical industry, or the immediate side-products thereof; and

Whereas the irresponsible handling of toxic materials can be grossly harmful to the health of both persons and the environment, such that international action should be taken to regulate the handling of toxic materials in member nations;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a material shall be considered "toxic" in an environment or a quantity such that said material would pose, directly or via contamination of surrounding environments, a significant risk to health or of causing environmental degradation.
   
   
2. No toxic material may be disposed of or otherwise stored in a manner which may contaminate surrounding environments with said material, unless that material is first processed as to minimise its ability to contaminate the surrounding environment. Where said material, after such processing, would still pose a risk of contaminating the surrounding environment, the material may not be disposed of or otherwise stored without being surrounded by an effective physical barrier preventing said toxic material from contaminating the surrounding environment.
   
   
3. Any site in which toxic material is disposed of, processed, produced, or stored must have its immediate surrounding areas regularly tested for toxic material originating from said site.
   
   
4. The Toxic Materials Commission (TMC) is established. Upon the detection of an environment being contaminated by toxic material during storage, production, or disposal of the same, the entity responsible for said incident of contamination must promptly report that incident to the TMC, as well as the member nation of jurisdiction.
   
   
   1. The TMC shall publish the occurrence of said incident without undue delay. Further, should that incident threaten the environment of another nation, the TMC shall provide to that nation a recommended means for minimising or resolving harm, as a result of said incident, to that nation's environment. This shall not include harm sufficiently minimised by 4b efforts which have occurred, are occurring, or are to occur.
      
      
   2. The member nation responsible for said incident shall, to the best of its ability, collaborate with the TMC to remove said toxic material from areas under member or consenting non-member nation jurisdiction contaminated with that material as a result of said incident; except where the TMC has received clear and factual evidence that such removal will cause greater harm to that nation's environment than whatever harm is mitigated by such efforts. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct such removal efforts.
   
   
5. Member nations need not take action against isolated, de minimis violations of Sections 2 - 4, where the quantity of toxic material involved is negligible enough to pose no cognisable hazard to the environment or public health.
   
   
6. All research and data from the jurisdiction of a member nation vis-à-vis the toxicity of materials, or alternatives to toxic materials, must be shared with the TMC, by that member nation or any entity with intellectual property rights over said research or data.
   
   
   1. Such information need not be provided where that nation or entity lacks practical access to such research or data; that research or data has already been received by the TMC; or the accessing, provision, or distribution of that information is demonstrably likely to compromise national security or personal privacy.
      
      
   2. The TMC shall materially compensate any entity with intellectual property rights over said research or data no more or less than necessary to minimise any financial or other material losses which would be otherwise incurred by said entity as a result of the provision or Section 7 distribution of said research or data.
   
   
7. The TMC shall provide to member nations information it has received per Section 6, where such information is likely to help said nations replace, address the dangers of, or reduce toxic materials, except where providing said information is likely to compromise national security or personal privacy.
   
   
8. Previous World Assembly resolutions shall take precedence over this one in the case of contradiction.

Co-author: Heavens Reach. Category is Environmental, All Businesses, Strong.

Knives are often made of sharp metal and can be used to injure or kill people. Are knives toxic?

Article 6 misspells "transpotation."

Is telling an affected member to comply with Article 6b a means of resolution according to Article 6a?

Its All In The Family wrote:Knives are often made of sharp metal and can be used to injure or kill people. Are knives toxic?

A knife is not a substance.

What about the concentration? CO2, in the absence of our greenhouse gas resolution, would be polluted at levels to cause global warming. It is also a deadly substance when the whole atmosphere is CO2.

Its All In The Family wrote:Knives are often made of sharp metal and can be used to injure or kill people. Are knives toxic?

Article 6 misspells "transpotation."

Is telling an affected member to comply with Article 6b a means of resolution according to Article 6a?

"As to knives being toxic, I would argue that -- besides knives not being 'substances' -- just being able to be used to kill is not sufficient to deem there to be a 'serious' health danger 'inherent' to knives."

"We have addressed the mispelling of 'transportation'."

"I fail to see why telling a member nation to comply with Section 6b would not be a means of resolution, as even in such a situation the WASP is obligated to cooperate with the member nation in question (and vice versa)."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

Imperium Anglorum wrote:What about the concentration? CO2, in the absence of our greenhouse gas resolution, would be polluted at levels to cause global warming. It is also a deadly substance when the whole atmosphere is CO2.

Ooc: CO2 would only be toxic at very high doses, at which point I would doubt that the health danger truly is inherently serious.

Edited to add in Ooc.

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:"CO2 would only be toxic at very high doses, at which point I would doubt that the health danger truly is inherently serious."

OOC. But this is the case with all substances. Yes, you can die from touching two drops of certain mercury compounds with your hand (https://www.medpagetoday.com/publicheal ... sues/80958). But you won't die if you touch literally two molecules of that same substance.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:"CO2 would only be toxic at very high doses, at which point I would doubt that the health danger truly is inherently serious."

OOC. But this is the case with all substances. Yes, you can die from touching two drops of certain mercury compounds with your hand (https://www.medpagetoday.com/publicheal ... sues/80958). But you won't die if you touch literally two molecules of that same substance.

(Ooc: If the dose required for it to kill is so exceedingly low, I would argue that in practice the health risk associated with mercury is inherently serious.)

OOC. You need to say that this toxic substance is dangerous in quantities and concentrations that people might actually encounter in their lives. The specific compound that tragically killed that scientist is metabolised into the poison methylmercury, which you have almost certainly already consumed in your life, if you have ever eaten seafood.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC. You need to say that this toxic substance is dangerous in quantities and concentrations that people might actually encounter in their lives. The specific compound that tragically killed that scientist is metabolised into the poison methylmercury, which you have almost certainly already consumed in your life, if you have ever eaten seafood.

Ooc: The definition has been changed to only classify materials as "toxic" when in toxic quantities, as I discussed with the co-author. Does this address your concerns?

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC. You need to say that this toxic substance is dangerous in quantities and concentrations that people might actually encounter in their lives. The specific compound that tragically killed that scientist is metabolised into the poison methylmercury, which you have almost certainly already consumed in your life, if you have ever eaten seafood.

Ooc: The definition has been changed to only classify materials as "toxic" when in toxic quantities, as I discussed with the co-author. Does this address your concerns?

I think this resolution would simply get into ever more circular arguments on the grounds that the NS multi-verse recognises "sapients" and something toxic to one specie might be a nutrient to another (especially for those with sci-fi RPs).

Simone Republic wrote:

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:Ooc: The definition has been changed to only classify materials as "toxic" when in toxic quantities, as I discussed with the co-author. Does this address your concerns?

I think this resolution would simply get into ever more circular arguments on the grounds that the NS multi-verse recognises "sapients" and something toxic to one specie might be a nutrient to another (especially for those with sci-fi RPs).

Ooc: I'm not too interested in accomodating for "tHe SaPiEnT pOtAtOeS oF cOnTrArIaN eXtRaOrDiNaIrE cAn OnLy EaT mErCuRy AnD bReAtHe CaRbOn MoNoXiDe" wank.

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:

Simone Republic wrote:
I think this resolution would simply get into ever more circular arguments on the grounds that the NS multi-verse recognises "sapients" and something toxic to one specie might be a nutrient to another (especially for those with sci-fi RPs).

Ooc: I'm not too interested in accomodating for "tHe SaPiEnT pOtAtOeS oF cOnTrArIaN eXtRaOrDiNaIrE cAn OnLy EaT mErCuRy AnD bReAtHe CaRbOn MoNoXiDe" wank.

That would be preposterous indeed. Akin to accommodating for giant dinosaurs in the workplace, even. I wholeheartedly agree.

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:

Simone Republic wrote:
I think this resolution would simply get into ever more circular arguments on the grounds that the NS multi-verse recognises "sapients" and something toxic to one specie might be a nutrient to another (especially for those with sci-fi RPs).

Ooc: I'm not too interested in accomodating for "tHe SaPiEnT pOtAtOeS oF cOnTrArIaN eXtRaOrDiNaIrE cAn OnLy EaT mErCuRy AnD bReAtHe CaRbOn MoNoXiDe" wank.

OOC: If they can provide the biochemistry to support it, I don't see why it would be "wank", but perhaps a more realistic example would be lifeforms that use hydrogensulphide as their energy source (these exist in RL), which is toxic to humans - though of course quantity is again the issue there too, but then it is with anything and everything. Drinking too much water will kill you too.

Far Away Enough, as a nation that relies on the use of nuclear power, but which is also concerned with being as environmentally friendly as possible, takes issue with a few minor parts of this proposal.

Clause 2 gives us some concerns. Primarily, the idea that it's totally fine to just "do your best" even if your best is not considered good enough by many others. While clause 8 outlines WASP's responsibility to help nations understand how they might disuse these materials, it makes no proposal towards member nations being beholden to this information, and clause 9 allows any nation that does in fact decide to continue doing whatever they want, so long as they can prove that they're doing their best, to benefit from the World Assembly financially supporting a system which cannot economically survive on its own within the legislation we have created.

Secondly, clause 3a states that toxic materials may not be stored in a body of water. This could expose Far Away Enough to some contention as we have to suddenly take our nuclear waste out of storage pits filled with water in our nuclear power facilities, if that would indeed be considered a "body of water". As we hopefully all know, pursuant to the idea laid out in clause 4a, that stored toxic materials must be surrounded by an effective physical barrier, which for nuclear materials, water is an incredibly effective physical barrier.

A response to these concerns would be greatly appreciated. As it stands, Far Away Enough is on the fence about whether this proposal is doing enough.

Potted Plants United wrote:

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:Ooc: I'm not too interested in accomodating for "tHe SaPiEnT pOtAtOeS oF cOnTrArIaN eXtRaOrDiNaIrE cAn OnLy EaT mErCuRy AnD bReAtHe CaRbOn MoNoXiDe" wank.

OOC: If they can provide the biochemistry to support it, I don't see why it would be "wank", but perhaps a more realistic example would be lifeforms that use hydrogensulphide as their energy source (these exist in RL), which is toxic to humans - though of course quantity is again the issue there too, but then it is with anything and everything. Drinking too much water will kill you too.

I am sure there will be bears that feed on asbestos and extend their lives through mesothelioma pretty soon, as per Wallenburg.

I think the topic is too wide. The pesticides one that Cretox and I wrote (repeal GA#374, he wrote almost all of it and I wrote one paragraph) had to deal with issues like what happens if a can of pesticides is dropped and whether such a thing is a toxin in the first place, and a lot of pedantic arguments. This is going to get a lot worse.

Far Away Enough wrote:Far Away Enough, as a nation that relies on the use of nuclear power, but which is also concerned with being as environmentally friendly as possible, takes issue with a few minor parts of this proposal.

Clause 2 gives us some concerns. Primarily, the idea that it's totally fine to just "do your best" even if your best is not considered good enough by many others. While clause 8 outlines WASP's responsibility to help nations understand how they might disuse these materials, it makes no proposal towards member nations being beholden to this information, and clause 9 allows any nation that does in fact decide to continue doing whatever they want, so long as they can prove that they're doing their best, to benefit from the World Assembly financially supporting a system which cannot economically survive on its own within the legislation we have created.

Secondly, clause 3a states that toxic materials may not be stored in a body of water. This could expose Far Away Enough to some contention as we have to suddenly take our nuclear waste out of storage pits filled with water in our nuclear power facilities, if that would indeed be considered a "body of water". As we hopefully all know, pursuant to the idea laid out in clause 4a, that stored toxic materials must be surrounded by an effective physical barrier, which for nuclear materials, water is an incredibly effective physical barrier.

A response to these concerns would be greatly appreciated. As it stands, Far Away Enough is on the fence about whether this proposal is doing enough.

"If the WASP provides information via Section 8 that would indeed assist them in processing such materials per Section 2, that would increase 'the technological and economic capacity of the member nation of jurisdiction'; accordingly, a member nation would have to take greater steps to process materials per Section 2."

"Section 3a now specifies that it cannot be stored in any natural environment or open atmosphere -- a storage pit with water is not a 'natural environment', nor is it 'open atmosphere'."

Simone Republic wrote:

Potted Plants United wrote:OOC: If they can provide the biochemistry to support it, I don't see why it would be "wank", but perhaps a more realistic example would be lifeforms that use hydrogensulphide as their energy source (these exist in RL), which is toxic to humans - though of course quantity is again the issue there too, but then it is with anything and everything. Drinking too much water will kill you too.

I am sure there will be bears that feed on asbestos and extend their lives through mesothelioma pretty soon, as per Wallenburg.

I think the topic is too wide. The pesticides one that Cretox and I wrote (repeal GA#374, he wrote almost all of it and I wrote one paragraph) had to deal with issues like what happens if a can of pesticides is dropped and whether such a thing is a toxin in the first place, and a lot of pedantic arguments. This is going to get a lot worse.

Ooc: I've added Section 7 to address issues of "dropping a can of pesticides technically being illegal", though I do think the clarification that a material is only considered "toxic" where administered in a toxic quantity still minimises any such issue.

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:

Simone Republic wrote:
I think this resolution would simply get into ever more circular arguments on the grounds that the NS multi-verse recognises "sapients" and something toxic to one specie might be a nutrient to another (especially for those with sci-fi RPs).

Ooc: I'm not too interested in accomodating for "tHe SaPiEnT pOtAtOeS oF cOnTrArIaN eXtRaOrDiNaIrE cAn OnLy EaT mErCuRy AnD bReAtHe CaRbOn MoNoXiDe" wank.

I mean... While the GA is human centric, you have to admit there is a diverse cast of actually well made xenobiologies amongst some of it's most avid posters. Not to wank myself off, but my own Lonari have lithium as a binding agent, not nitrogen. Which uh... Means if the proposal doesn't specify it is toxicity based to each nation's own regard of toxicity, and not a particular one like that of human biology, compliance means ritual suicide due to human health and safety standards having gaps that would just outright kill us if forced to adapt. Nitrogen would just straight decimate us in some cases. But at the same time, I don't think you want what people called "Lonari Fuchsia" in reference to Pacific Rim touching your exposed skin either.

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:"If the WASP provides information via Section 8 that would indeed assist them in processing such materials per Section 2, that would increase 'the technological and economic capacity of the member nation of jurisdiction'; accordingly, a member nation would have to take greater steps to process materials per Section 2."

"Section 3a now specifies that it cannot be stored in any natural environment or open atmosphere -- a storage pit with water is not a 'natural environment', nor is it 'open atmosphere'."

It is greatly appreciated that you have provided that amendment to Section 3a, however we still disagree that Section 2 is actually good enough. I believe you mean Section 9, not Section 8, and as it currently stands in your proposal, Section 9 only outlines the responsibility of WASP to provide information, and it cannot actually compel any better behaviour from a member nation. As I stated in my previous concerns, it leaves room for a member to act in bad faith by taking funds to continue a bad practice, and it seems that it could be too easy to prove that their economic or technological capacity is not there, no matter how much information they receive. Still, this is a step in the right direction.

Lounarei wrote:I mean... While the GA is human centric, you have to admit there is a diverse cast of actually well made xenobiologies amongst some of it's most avid posters. Not to wank myself off, but my own Lonari have lithium as a binding agent, not nitrogen. Which uh... Means if the proposal doesn't specify it is toxicity based to each nation's own regard of toxicity, and not a particular one like that of human biology, compliance means ritual suicide due to human health and safety standards having gaps that would just outright kill us if forced to adapt. Nitrogen would just straight decimate us in some cases. But at the same time, I don't think you want what people called "Lonari Fuchsia" in reference to Pacific Rim touching your exposed skin either.

Some nations identify as being from outer space, which seems a bit too far away to me. Some nations could settle on just being far away enough or even closer. However, to answer your question, Far Away Enough feels that Section 1 as it currently stands already satisfies that need. A material is deemed "toxic" when it's liable to pose a serious health risk. If it is not toxic to your people, then how can it possibly be considered to be posing a serious health risk?

Far Away Enough wrote:

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:"If the WASP provides information via Section 8 that would indeed assist them in processing such materials per Section 2, that would increase 'the technological and economic capacity of the member nation of jurisdiction'; accordingly, a member nation would have to take greater steps to process materials per Section 2."

"Section 3a now specifies that it cannot be stored in any natural environment or open atmosphere -- a storage pit with water is not a 'natural environment', nor is it 'open atmosphere'."

It is greatly appreciated that you have provided that amendment to Section 3a, however we still disagree that Section 2 is actually good enough. I believe you mean Section 9, not Section 8, and as it currently stands in your proposal, Section 9 only outlines the responsibility of WASP to provide information, and it cannot actually compel any better behaviour from a member nation. As I stated in my previous concerns, it leaves room for a member to act in bad faith by taking funds to continue a bad practice, and it seems that it could be too easy to prove that their economic or technological capacity is not there, no matter how much information they receive. Still, this is a step in the right direction.

"A member nation having access to more information vis-a-vis toxic materials, whether that be because it is prohibited by the WASP or not, will necessarily increase its technological capacity to engage in Section 2 treating."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

Ooc: This is a bump.

"We appear to have indeed mustered the perfect proposal."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

"This looks familiar! Support, no reservations as of now."
-Ray DuBois

Support. I'm not 100% sold on the intellectual property exception in 8b, but the rest looks good.

Vehement support.

"Opposed. The General Fund is not a bottomless pit.

"Furthermore, the definition seems incredibly broad and open ended. Second hand smoke, for example, would fall within it. In section 3, the term "natural environment" is used and the carrying etc of toxic materials in such a thing is banned. What exactly is a natural environment and does mean that the transportation of certain materials from their source, eg a mine perhaps, to some other location where it might be processed, perhaps a factory, is effectively banned?"

"Speaking personally, I am not entirely sold on this proposal, as others have highlighted certain flaws, particularly section 8b. However, this proposal appears to do more good than harm, and is in line with domestic enviornmental legislation already in place. Support."