NationStates

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:09 pm**

The Peoples of the World Assembled,

REALISING that many nations will wish to at some point build nuclear power stations;

AFFIRMING the right of nations to persue peacful nuclear technologies;

APPALLED nonetheless that the nuclear waste poses a threat to lives, if it contaminates the water table, soil or air;

MANDATE that nuclear waste shall be classed as high level radioactive waste if it meets the qualifications as follows, which are defined as "radioactive waste that is radioactive enough for the decay heat to significantly increases its temperature and the temperature of its surroundings;"

FURTHER MANDATE that this waste must be disposed of in such a way as to not pose a threat of contamination to the outside ecosystem;

ESTABLISH the World Assembly Nuclear Regulatory Council (WANRC) to fund the construction of, and research into, methods for the safe disposal of high level radioactive waste in member states;

ALLOW the WANRC to appropriate funds from the WA General Fund to conduct its business;

VEST in the WANRC the authority to impose fines and sanctions against nations who do not dispose of the high level radioactive waste in a safe manner and;

DECREE that money gained from fines shall be placed into the World Assembly Safe Nuclear Technologies Fund and this used to further fund development of safer, cleaner nuclear technologies;

ENCOURAGE the trading of nuclear waste in the hope that member nations may both benefit from purpose built storage facilities, and the inflow of capital that is generated thus.

Thanks for reading, and any suggestions are very welcome, even encouraged

Please bear in mind that this is a very early and very rough draft with lots of room for maneuver.

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:30 pm**

Lets take this bit by bit, shall we?

The Peoples of the World Assembled,

unneccessary, but not objectionable. So far so good

REALISING that many nations will wish to at some point build nuclear power stations;

Obvious point is obvious

AFFIRMING the right of nations to persue peacful nuclear technologies;

More obviosity (thats a word in my language. deal with it.)

APPALLED nonetheless that the nuclear waste poses a threat to lives, if it contaminates the water table, soil or air;

Getting to a point, but appalled that this is making the assumption that nations which have nuclear power pepper the soil with the waste indiscriminately

MANDATE that nuclear waste shall be classed as high level radioactive waste if it meets the qualifications as follows, which are defined as "radioactive waste that is radioactive enough for the decay heat to significantly increases its temperature and the temperature of its surroundings;"

Is there a General Assembly officially approved term for "duh".

FURTHER MANDATE that this waste must be disposed of in such a way as to not pose a threat of contamination to the outside ecosystem;

Mandating that we use a bit of intelligence when disposing of nuclear waste. That is a waste of words.

ESTABLISH the World Assembly Nuclear Regulatory Council (WANRC) to fund the construction of, and research into, methods for the safe disposal of high level radioactive waste in member states;

Now we get down to it. The creation of another committee to poke around in our business.

ALLOW the WANRC to appropriate funds from the WA General Fund to conduct its business;

And siphon money off from the general fund to point out obvious things to nations with nuclear plants.

VEST in the WANRC the authority to impose fines and sanctions against nations who do not dispose of the high level radioactive waste in a safe manner and;

We are fairly certain this makes the proposal illegal.

DECREE that money gained from fines shall be placed into the World Assembly Safe Nuclear Technologies Fund and this used to further fund development of safer, cleaner nuclear technologies;

As does this.

ENCOURAGE the trading of nuclear waste in the hope that member nations may both benefit from purpose built storage facilities, and the inflow of capital that is generated thus.

So now this is the "Nuclear Waste Commerce Act"?

All in all, this needs work, lots of it, to make even a potential resolution. We thank the proposer for allowing the GA to see this first and debate it prior to submission.

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:00 pm**

In general, this proposal seems to be weaving its way around actually accomplishing anything concrete, and just simply setting up another committee to figure out solutions to problems on its own. I, being a very cynical person, don't believe that we can really trust these committees to accomplish what they have been designed to do unless we actually set some serious, realistic goals for them. Just telling them to

...MANDATE that this waste must be disposed of in such a way as to not pose a threat of contamination to the outside ecosystem;

really is not specific enough. We need to think of some ways for them to do this, otherwise the goal is far too vague.

The proposal is also riddled with spelling errors.

I also get a feeling that we've seen something like this before...

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:00 pm**

Well specific goals is absolutely something that can be incorporated into this, however two spelling errors, namely "peaceful" and "pursue" (not counting the British "realising") is hardly "riddled" with errors. What kind of specifics did you have in mind?

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:15 pm**

Sorry. If you've ever seen how terribly obsessive I get over writing, you'd understand that I'll see two spelling errors and start to flip out over it.

Let me think about it for a little while. I can't think of something complete and exact at the moment, but I've got a few ideas.

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:34 pm**

<Deleted.>

Posted: **Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:58 am**

Grays Harbor wrote:
VEST in the WANRC the authority to impose fines and sanctions against nations who do not dispose of the high level radioactive waste in a safe manner and;

We are fairly certain this makes the proposal illegal.

And pointless. I know roleplay wank can be fun for some nations, but it's not as if compliance is optional.

Posted: **Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:14 am**

Anyhow, there is scope for legislation on this matter. Unsafe nuclear storage is a danger that can affect member states across international borders (OOC - the obvious example is Chernobyl - which has had a recorded effect on other nations). Moreover, the risk presented by terrorist organisations obtaining nuclear waste does present a risk to life.

I'm also encouraged by the suggestions within the proposal for member states to collaborate on storage solutions.

I also think there is scope for legislation encouraging member states to collaborate and render aid in major disasters, such as nuclear meltdowns - but I would suggest that best resides in a resolution more targeted at humanitarian aid during disasters (heck - there might be one already...)

I've rewritten the original draft with the first two points in mind, and taking out the awful committee. Feel free to rip it to shreds - it only took me 10 minutes to do.

The General Assembly

AFFIRMING the right of nations to persue peacful nuclear technologies;

NOTING the benefits of the application of nuclear technologies;

AWARE that nuclear waste poses a sustained threat to life;

NOTING the potential security threats presented by terrorist organisations obtaining nuclear waste to use to endanger life;

DETERMINED that this waste must be disposed of in such a way as to not pose a threat of contamination to the outside ecosystem;

MANDATES that nuclear waste shall be classed as high level radioactive waste if it meets the qualifications as follows, which are defined as "radioactive waste that is radioactive enough for the decay heat to significantly increases its temperature and the temperature of its surroundings;"

ENCOURAGES the collaborative efforts of member states to develop solutions for the safe storage or disposal of nuclear waste;

ENCOURAGES the dissemination of best practices and research by member states for the safe storage and/or disposal of nuclear waste;

MANDATES that member states take measures to ensure the security of any nuclear waste storage or disposal solution.

Posted: **Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:09 pm**

I think it is possible to promote responsible waste disposal without a committee as the honoured ambassador Hirota has just done, but I think it would be worth the risk to tighten up the definition of nuclear or toxic waste in a direct yet watertight-as-possible way.

Posted: **Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:42 am**

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I think it is possible to promote responsible waste disposal without a committee as the honoured ambassador Hirota has just done, but I think it would be worth the risk to tighten up the definition of nuclear or toxic waste in a direct yet watertight-as-possible way.

Could always keep it simple...

DEFINES radioactive waste as the by-product of industrial or military processes which presents a risk of low or high level radiation.

Posted: **Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:07 am**

Hirota wrote:
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I think it is possible to promote responsible waste disposal without a committee as the honoured ambassador Hirota has just done, but I think it would be worth the risk to tighten up the definition of nuclear or toxic waste in a direct yet watertight-as-possible way.

Could always keep it simple...

DEFINES radioactive waste as the by-product of industrial or military processes which presents a risk of low or high level radiation.

OOC: Even if the risk is so low that it's relatively harmless? For example, some mine spoil might contain minute traces of radioactive minerals and yet emit less radiation than the relevant area's natural surface -- containing higher levels of such materials -- already does...
And, of course, the term "radiation" (by itself) covers not only the 'ionising radiation' about which some people might reasonably have some concerns but also radiant heat, light, and radio waves...

Posted: **Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:53 am**

Don't things like x-rays also emit radiation?

Posted: **Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:54 pm**

Grays Harbor wrote:Don't things like x-rays also emit radiation?

X-rays ARE radiation, as I understand it. A form of it anyways.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:43 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
Hirota wrote:
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I think it is possible to promote responsible waste disposal without a committee as the honoured ambassador Hirota has just done, but I think it would be worth the risk to tighten up the definition of nuclear or toxic waste in a direct yet watertight-as-possible way.

Could always keep it simple...

DEFINES radioactive waste as the by-product of industrial or military processes which presents a risk of low or high level radiation.

OOC: Even if the risk is so low that it's relatively harmless? For example, some mine spoil might contain minute traces of radioactive minerals and yet emit less radiation than the relevant area's natural surface -- containing higher levels of such materials -- already does...
And, of course, the term "radiation" (by itself) covers not only the 'ionising radiation' about which some people might reasonably have some concerns but also radiant heat, light, and radio waves...

I'll leave the decision on this to the original nation, but I'm inclined to agree regarding low level radiation.

Re: Heat, light, radio etc, I'd be more inclined to call that background radiation....provided it does not have implications to health.

X-rays are generally weak enough to be low level radiation - but there is an interesting issue with radiation therapy where it is used to treat cancers - and does have the unfortunate effect of harming the patient. However, X-rays for medical purposes and radiotherapy would not be applied using radioactive waste.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:49 am**

BURNINATI0N wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:Don't things like x-rays also emit radiation?

X-rays ARE radiation, as I understand it. A form of it anyways.

Thank you for the clarification.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:29 pm**

The Peoples of the World Assembled,

I prefer, "The General Assembly," because its less bombastic, but thats entirely up-to-you, the UN actually prefers your way.

REALISING that many nations will wish to at some point build nuclear power stations;

Try, "Realizing that many nations wish to, or have already constructed nuclear power stations;"

AFFIRMING the right of nations to persue peacful nuclear technologies;

Peaceful? Hhhm... try, reasonably clean and efficient technologies.

APPALLED nonetheless that the nuclear waste poses a threat to lives, if it contaminates the water table, soil or air;

You might want to mention that this nuclear waste can be dumped internationally, or spread to other countries... making this an international issue.

MANDATE that nuclear waste shall be classed as high level radioactive waste if it meets the qualifications as follows, which are defined as "radioactive waste that is radioactive enough for the decay heat to significantly increases its temperature and the temperature of its surroundings;"

DEFINES nuclear waste as high level radiological waste that "is radioactive enough for the decay heat to significantly increases its temperature and the temperature of its surroundings";

FURTHER MANDATE that this waste must be disposed of in such a way as to not pose a threat of contamination to the outside ecosystem;

Isn't that impossible without billions of eduards? Wouldn't that prevent millions of fledgling nations from investing in nuclear technology?

We would prefer if this legislation deplored the disposing of nuclear waste outside of the WA nation in question, without permission.

ESTABLISH the World Assembly Nuclear Regulatory Council (WANRC) to fund the construction of, and research into, methods for the safe disposal of high level radioactive waste in member states;

Okay. Kind of costly, unless some other nation has already done the research. Nuclear plants cost billions of eduards, this would surely bankrupt the General Fund.

ALLOW the WANRC to appropriate funds from the WA General Fund to conduct its business;

VEST in the WANRC the authority to impose fines and sanctions against nations who do not dispose of the high level radioactive waste in a safe manner and;

DECREE that money gained from fines shall be placed into the World Assembly Safe Nuclear Technologies Fund and this used to further fund development of safer, cleaner nuclear technologies;

ENCOURAGE the trading of nuclear waste in the hope that member nations may both benefit from purpose built storage facilities, and the inflow of capital that is generated thus.

Why not just demand that nations should dispose of high level radioactive waste in a safe manner? Because this current system would bankrupt smaller nations, and give wealthier nation's a way to make more profit.

My main point for this proposal, would be to focus your proposal on an international issue, there is no regulation on international nuclear waste dumping, and that seems like an issue of grave importance.

Posted: **Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:19 pm**

There seems to be confusion here about "radiation" I think the proposer has gamma rays in mind. They are high-energy, high frequency electromagnetic emissions. Heat is infra-red radiation, a lower frequency. There is also a danger from the charged particles - alpha radiation is helium nuclei and beta radiation is electrons or positrons - if ingested. The fourth product of nuclear fission is neutrinos, which are believed to be harmless, and we can do nothing about them anyway. Neutrons however can initiate further nucleat fusion.
We need further research on the technicalities. However, the proposal should be against dumping in oceans, in the atmosphere and near space and in seismically unstable areas.

NationStates

[Draft] Nuclear Waste Disposal Act

[Draft] Nuclear Waste Disposal Act