[PASSED] Uranium Mining Standards Act

[Abacathea]

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.

Neither clause i or ii mention ore at all. They refer to the mine itself. Not sure where you found your soapbox CD but it really is time to hand it back.

[Omigodtheyclonedkenny]

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

Whichever political think-tank you've got conducting research for you, I'd demand my money back.

For the record, those "vile little Kennyites" you speak of (and a perfectly apt description it is) have foolishly invested their WA vote in us -- for whatever reason we don't know -- and we are currently willed to support this act. At first it was because we are not at all averse to making all those big bad nuclear powers (including that detestable nation we recently liberated ourselves from) more accountable for the incredible danger they daily subject the world and its fragile environment to, but now we're more inclined to do so just so we can shove our "yes" vote in your fat faces. Therefore:

Omigodtheyclonedkenny's vote for Uranium Mining Standards Act has been noted.

Have a nice day.

[Lun Noir]

We were initially going to cast a vote in favor of this in the interest of workplace safety for miners, after hearing the deliberation on this act, that stance has changed. In particular, the point brought up by the esteemed representative of Discoveria has brought to light the redundant nature of this resolution. GAR #7 is in alignment with Lun Noir's expectations of worker's protection already, and covers a broader scope. Some points that others have made also do convincingly diminish the effectiveness of the environmental protections this resolution may have offered.

We must therefore vote nay.

However, we would be strongly supportive of a resolution which was broadened to require the documentation of any environmental impacts of any and all mining activity, as well as establishing an agency to help conduct those studies and make recommendations on minimizing environmental damage.

[WallaWakkaWalla]

Anything warmer than 0 K emits radiation.

I'm going to ask for the indulgence of the GA for a moment to relay a short, but relevant story. When I was a young child, I was told that drugs were bad. I was then told that Caffeine is a drug. Therefore, based on the logic presented, I believed that Caffeine is bad, and proceeded to destroy my dad's coffee machine in order to save him. Obviously, this was an gross over-simplification of the logic. That was the story, now for the relevancy. Using CD's quote, and working from the thought, I won't use fact here otherwise I'll be giving away my whole point, that radiation is bad.

IF Radiation is bad;
and IF Anything warmer then 0 K emits radiation;
THEN Anything warmer then 0 K is bad;
THEREFORE we should all kill ourselves because we are obviously bad bad things because we are over 300 K at normal operating temperature, thus we must be putting out a lot of radiation.

Now with that indulgence out of the way, to the real matter at hand. W3 is voting YEA on this resolution, as we have recently found a large uranium deposit within out borders and otherwise have no laws concerning safety and extraction beyond mining in general, thus this gives us a framework to work from.

[Abacathea]

We were initially going to cast a vote in favor of this in the interest of workplace safety for miners, after hearing the deliberation on this act, that stance has changed. In particular, the point brought up by the esteemed representative of Discoveria has brought to light the redundant nature of this resolution. GAR #7 is in alignment with Lun Noir's expectations of worker's protection already, and covers a broader scope. Some points that others have made also do convincingly diminish the effectiveness of the environmental protections this resolution may have offered.

We must therefore vote nay.

However, we would be strongly supportive of a resolution which was broadened to require the documentation of any environmental impacts of any and all mining activity, as well as establishing an agency to help conduct those studies and make recommendations on minimizing environmental damage.

With exception of this being broad to cover ALL mining operations that's exactly what this resolution does. I'm not entirely sure what part of it has misled you to otherwise short of the apparent constant steam rolling this into a radioactive pigeon hole which it shouldn't be in.

[Retired WerePenguins]

IF Radiation is bad;
and IF Anything warmer then 0 K emits radiation;
THEN Anything warmer then 0 K is bad;
THEREFORE we should all kill ourselves because we are obviously bad bad things because we are over 300 K at normal operating temperature, thus we must be putting out a lot of radiation.

I don't want to spoil an other perfectly stupid argument over the term "radiation" but I would like to point out that a perfect "white body" (the exact opposite of a black body) will not emit radiation no matter what its temperature. It also doesn't absorb any radiation. Touching such a body is probably not a good idea because it certainly can conduct heat towards anything that contacts it. Since a white body can neither absorb or emit radiation it "looks" like a perfect mirror.

[Airandia]

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.

This article is a bit incoherent. Is almost impossible to relocate a mine, since the minerals are place-fixed resources. The WA can not force a nation to abandon the exploitation of an uraninun mine, because this is potentially dangerous for the economy of some countries, and even the world disponibility of uranium; threatening the energy production. Airandia itself is a great productor of refined and enriched uranium for pacifical uses, and here the goverment and the companies are highly engaged with the environmental protection.
The government of Airandia think that this point needs to be modified. If "indigenous" flora or fauna is discovered nearby an uraniun mine, the WA only can urge the country and the working companies to develop and perform sure extraction operations, with low impact on this biodiversity.

[Christian Democrats]

"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.

Neither clause i or ii mention ore at all. They refer to the mine itself.

Yes, ore is in mines. Enriched uranium, which is actually dangerous, is not found in nature.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

whereas oxygen is only considered toxic to anaerobic ones.

It'll kill you too in high enough concentrations.

[WallaWakkaWalla]

IF Radiation is bad;
and IF Anything warmer then 0 K emits radiation;
THEN Anything warmer then 0 K is bad;
THEREFORE we should all kill ourselves because we are obviously bad bad things because we are over 300 K at normal operating temperature, thus we must be putting out a lot of radiation.

I don't want to spoil an other perfectly stupid argument over the term "radiation" but I would like to point out that a perfect "white body" (the exact opposite of a black body) will not emit radiation no matter what its temperature. It also doesn't absorb any radiation. Touching such a body is probably not a good idea because it certainly can conduct heat towards anything that contacts it. Since a white body can neither absorb or emit radiation it "looks" like a perfect mirror.

Actually I was trying to make the point that trying to oversimplify something like radiation is stupid, by taking said oversimplification to a logical conclusion. Hence the explanatory story before it.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Actually I was trying to make the point that trying to oversimplify something like radiation is stupid, by taking said oversimplification to a logical conclusion. Hence the explanatory story before it.

And I was trying to avoid the point that you are being "stupid." I double checked the resolution and the only place it comes up is in the term "basic radiation precautions" (clause i). Now we can go on forever how the term "radiation" is an overloaded word. We can also go on about the current word limitation in resolutions. Given that limitation and the context, it is clear that we are talking about particle radiation resulting from nuclear decay and not black body radiation. I should also point out that clause v deals with contamination, not radiation.

[Lun Noir]

We were initially going to cast a vote in favor of this in the interest of workplace safety for miners, after hearing the deliberation on this act, that stance has changed. In particular, the point brought up by the esteemed representative of Discoveria has brought to light the redundant nature of this resolution. GAR #7 is in alignment with Lun Noir's expectations of worker's protection already, and covers a broader scope. Some points that others have made also do convincingly diminish the effectiveness of the environmental protections this resolution may have offered.

We must therefore vote nay.

However, we would be strongly supportive of a resolution which was broadened to require the documentation of any environmental impacts of any and all mining activity, as well as establishing an agency to help conduct those studies and make recommendations on minimizing environmental damage.

With exception of this being broad to cover ALL mining operations that's exactly what this resolution does. I'm not entirely sure what part of it has misled you to otherwise short of the apparent constant steam rolling this into a radioactive pigeon hole which it shouldn't be in.

In further reviewing, the only true objection we have is the redundancy with GAR 7. While this does not necessarily mean more rules, it will just likely result in a duplication of forms and inspections that we will need to go through in our uranium mining operations.

However, the inroads to documenting the impacts of the mine are something we are interested in.

That said, we are actually going to abstain from this vote and, should it fail to pass, would eagerly look for a slightly reworded resolution covering all mines and without the redundant provisions for worker's safety.

[The Akashic Records]

In further reviewing, the only true objection we have is the redundancy with GAR 7. While this does not necessarily mean more rules, it will just likely result in a duplication of forms and inspections that we will need to go through in our uranium mining operations.

However, the inroads to documenting the impacts of the mine are something we are interested in.

That said, we are actually going to abstain from this vote and, should it fail to pass, would eagerly look for a slightly reworded resolution covering all mines and without the redundant provisions for worker's safety.

To be frank, there's a reason that only Uranium Mining could be affected, despite the fact that an All Business proposal being able to affect all mining, as it would also be affecting irrelevant things such as the Basket-weaving industry, or the Book publishing industry, to name a few.

Partial duplication, I think, should be okay, since I've seen quite a number of precedents when it comes to Human Rights and The Charter of Civil Rights.

An environmental resolution should do just that; focus on the environmental aspect of the business, not what other side effects it might have, if it demands a 10 000 character resolution. As far as I read it, there's nothing saying that nations can't be more strict in their implementation of the law.

[Abacathea]

Neither clause i or ii mention ore at all. They refer to the mine itself.

Yes, ore is in mines. Enriched uranium, which is actually dangerous, is not found in nature.

Again I don't see the word ore....
Yikes CD this obsession with radioactivity on your part...
I'm sure you'd just love this.

[Midwestren America]

I WILL NOT COMPLE WITH THIS PROPOSAL

[Midwestren America]

IF THIS LAW PASSES I SHALLE DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO DESTROY THIS CORRUPT WA.

[Separatist Peoples]

I WILL NOT COMPLE WITH THIS PROPOSAL

If you are a member of the World Assembly, you are forced to comply with this resolution. The gnomes rewrite your laws to force your nation into compliance. There is no way to avoid this. If you don't like the way the World Assembly works, you are welcome to resign.

[Abacathea]

I WILL NOT COMPLE WITH THIS PROPOSAL

If you are a member of the World Assembly, you are forced to comply with this resolution. The gnomes rewrite your laws to force your nation into compliance. There is no way to avoid this. If you don't like the way the World Assembly works, you are welcome to resign.

I should hope it's the gnomes that rewrite their laws, I hate to think how they'd look otherwise...

[The Dourian Embassy]

Uranium mining is incredibly detrimental to the health of the workers exposed to it. There are approximately 25 different diseases almost exclusively associated with uranium mining. I would've been happier with this resolution if it assigned some responsibilities for non-active mines as well, but as it doesn't bar such in future legislation, I'm alright with it as-is.

And as the author of WA# 7, I'm not particularly bothered by the light duplication present here. 7 was an omnibus of sorts, and has a clause specifically allowing further restrictions if the WA determines it is needed.

[Retired WerePenguins]

I WILL NOT COMPLE WITH THIS PROPOSAL

I don't know what comple is, but I don't think I want to do it with this proposal either. It sounds kind of gross, actually.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Yes, ore is in mines. Enriched uranium, which is actually dangerous, is not found in nature.

Again I don't see the word ore....
Yikes CD this obsession with radioactivity on your part...
I'm sure you'd just love this.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

The ambassador from Christian Democrats is engaging in hyperbole, but they do raise a good point: uranium ore in its raw, mined form poses little radiological danger. It isn't until the ore is processed, refined, and the uranium in it concentrated that its radiation becomes a hazard.

That said, uranium doesn't pose just a radiation hazard. It is a heavy metal, and toxic even without accounting for its radioactivity. The standards laid forth in this proposal would be good practice for any heavy metal extraction process.

[Karpathos]

Against. NatSov stuff.

[WallaWakkaWalla]

Against. NatSov stuff.

Then my suggestion for you is to leave the WA, because eventually, EVERYTHING here can be argued down as NatSov.

[United Federation of Canada]

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

Whichever political think-tank you've got conducting research for you, I'd demand my money back.

For the record, those "vile little Kennyites" you speak of (and a perfectly apt description it is) have foolishly invested their WA vote in us -- for whatever reason we don't know -- and we are currently willed to support this act. At first it was because we are not at all averse to making all those big bad nuclear powers (including that detestable nation we recently liberated ourselves from) more accountable for the incredible danger they daily subject the world and its fragile environment to, but now we're more inclined to do so just so we can shove our "yes" vote in your fat faces. Therefore:

Omigodtheyclonedkenny's vote for Uranium Mining Standards Act has been noted.

Have a nice day.

Somehow I am willing to be the Conglomerate that secretly runs your nation, may have something to say about this.

[Karpathos]

Against. NatSov stuff.

Then my suggestion for you is to leave the WA, because eventually, EVERYTHING here can be argued down as NatSov.

I need my wa for infiltration and stuff.