[SUBMITTED] Safe Transport Of Radioactive Substances

[Allenstadt]

This is the finished thread, please post here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=491555&p=37692581#p37692581
That is my final draft!

[Honeydewistania]

You should unsubmit this, there are a few problems. After a five second glance you mention humans only, and that's going to get major opposition from those who don't have humans as the dominant species

[Attempted Socialism]

Since you have already submitted, there is nothing to think. Whatever we say, we can't change the resolution as submitted, only try to convince you to pull it and draft it in here.

[Tinhampton]

This was submitted as Regulation/Safety. Here is the campaign TG sent to all delegates except the author (themselves the WAD of The Democratic Sphere) to raise awareness at 04:19:30 BST on Sunday:

Hello Esteemed delegates!

I come asking you to approve my General Assembly resolution 'Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances'.

This resolution will ensure that all radioactive substances will be transported safely, and will protect the workers transporting it.\

I have included the proposal link. Please read it and approve it!

page=UN_proposal/council=1

[Picairn]

3. Any ships, trains, or other vehicles carrying such substances must be publicly declared and listed.

"Why is this clause necessary? Won't this declaration mark these vehicles as easy targets for terrorists and spies to steal radioactive substances for nefarious purposes?"

[Allenstadt]

You should unsubmit this, there are a few problems. After a five second glance you mention humans only, and that's going to get major opposition from those who don't have humans as the dominant species

That's why I included the 0.5 mSv/month, which is the tolerance limit for most species.

3. Any ships, trains, or other vehicles carrying such substances must be publicly declared and listed.

"Why is this clause necessary? Won't this declaration mark these vehicles as easy targets for terrorists and spies to steal radioactive substances for nefarious purposes?"

The routes or destinations need not be listed, only the fact that they carry these goods.

[Attempted Socialism]

I'll point out a few of the very easy errors you've made, which a few days of drafting would have corrected. I won't engage in the substance, as it is still submitted. I wish to stress that correcting these issues does not make your resolution ready for submission, it only corrects what a first day of drafting would spot.

1. All radioactive substances must be stored inside lead or other high-density material containers which must be thick enough to prevent anyone standing directly outside the container to feel no ill effects.

This double negation means the mandate necessitates at least some ill effects; to implement this resolution, workers must get at least some radiation poisoning.

2. All radioactive substances may not be removed except at their designated areas and must not be released at any place where they may harm the environment or the public.

So some removal is OK. Further, with released, any place and harm being slightly ambiguous, accidents are illegal and removal of radioactive material in case of accidents is illegal.

3. Any ships, trains, or other vehicles carrying such substances must be publicly declared and listed.

No obvious grammar issues.

4. Any such vehicles as mentioned above should take reasonable precautions to ensure for protections of workers on such ships if there is a problem resulting in a leak of radioactive substances, and have protocols to ensure that in case of a leak, radiation may not leak out to the public or surrounding environment

This is a mandate on the radiation. The protocols could say "arrest the radiation" and still comply with the resolution as written.

4. Any exports or imports of such substances must also be publicly declared and comply by these regulations.

No obvious grammar issues.

5. Any workers transporting these substances must be provided with free protection gear by the company or government transporting these substances. If they or anyone else requires medical care/attention due to being exposed to substances they are transporting, the Company or Government responsible must pay for this healthcare and funeral costs, if necessary.

Since company is ambiguous and the "or" is open for blame-shifting, I don't think this will have the intended effect.

6. Radioactive Substances may not be transported by airplanes, helicopters, or any method which involves the substance being airborne.

No obvious grammar issues.

7. Any vehicle which contains radiation due to a leak must be safely disposed.

Is this a removal or release? Because that's illegal.

8. Individual civilians may not transport radioactive substances excepting special need and a permit from their respective government.

But if you're two in the car, it's OK.

Pull it, work over your draft for some weeks, then consider a submission.

[Merni]

You should unsubmit this, there are a few problems. After a five second glance you mention humans only, and that's going to get major opposition from those who don't have humans as the dominant species

That's why I included the 0.5 mSv/month, which is the tolerance limit for most species.

Most species on Earth.

[Picairn]

OP seems to forget that we have pan-Galactic empires and alien civilizations here on NS.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Even forgetting about roleplayed realities, there are these resolutions already in effect that are quite relevant...

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

Fairly sure there are other relevant ones, but those were what jumped up as fairly obvious, when looking at the passed resolutions thread.

[Attempted Socialism]

Full disclosure: I felt this resolution had so many obvious and debilitating flaws that my 5-minute editing pass caught that it urgently requires a redraft. So I sent out a TG to the WA delegates who have currently approved, with the following message:

Dear Delegate,

You have approved the General Assembly resolution “Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances”. I kindly ask that you withdraw that approval, as the resolution in question was not drafted on the forum, and it shows.
I don’t doubt the good intentions of the author, but even a quick editing pass on the resolution would have improved it immensely, as I will show. Veteran drafters on the board also suggested to the author to withdraw the resolution and draft it on the forums.

I will highlight just two errors in grammar and language that I spotted and noted to the author within 4 hours that alone are enough to warrant a pull for further drafting.
First, clause one states:
1. All radioactive substances must be stored inside lead or other high-density material containers which must be thick enough to prevent anyone standing directly outside the container to feel no ill effects.
The two underlined parts are together a double negation. That means you must feel at least some ill effect by standing directly outside a container of radioactive substance. In contradiction of the desired goal of the resolution, the illegal thing would be to have a safe enough transport system that workers never got radioactive poisoning.
The second clause states:
2. All radioactive substances may not be removed except at their designated areas and must not be released at any place where they may harm the environment or the public.
This clause contains two issues. First, because ”all” radioactive substances may not be removed, this actually implies that it is OK to remove some radioactive substances. Further, with “release” being ambiguous, this bans removal of radioactive materials in case of an accident. The resolution as written would require radioactive material to be left if e.g. a train derails and catches fire.

These two issues are not the only wrong things about the resolution, but the fact I could spot them within 4 hours shows how needed the drafting process is. I ask that you withdraw your approval and tell the author you still support the idea, but it needs more work.
Link to the resolution:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1599921851
Link to the forum drafting thread where these errors are also pointed out:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=491209

Best regards,
Attempted Socialism.

I hope enough delegates react that we won't see this version of the resolution reach the floor, and induces the author to take the drafting process a bit more serious.

[Ardiveds]

What do you think of this?

6. Radioactive Substances may not be transported by airplanes, helicopters, or any method which involves the substance being airborne.

"Ambassador, how exactly do you transport radioactive materials between planets without getting them airborne?"

[Fre Cruth]

I really like this, I think it is well worded and well thought out. I can see where people are coming from about the backlash that animals are not included in the first clause but honestly don't see the need. If we are safely transporting radioactive materials for humans than it is most likely Safe for animals. Also the reality it that humans are the main priority anyways.

[Kenmoria]

I really like this, I think it is well worded and well thought out. I can see where people are coming from about the backlash that animals are not included in the first clause but honestly don't see the need. If we are safely transporting radioactive materials for humans than it is most likely Safe for animals. Also the reality it that humans are the main priority anyways.

(OOC: The GA considers legislation from a more general sapient perspective, rather than focusing on an anthropocentric viewpoint. This proposal ought to be withdrawn for further work.)

[Attempted Socialism]

I hope that the author will reconsider their drafting process now that the initial proposal failed to reach the floor. By my count, it would have failed even without my TGs.