[LAST CALL] Safe Transport Of Radioactive Substances

[Allenstadt]

I've cleared up the language and stuff, so here goes! Don't be afraid to criticize it!
This is more or less my final draft, but if you have any changes, please post below!

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety

The World Assembly,
Noting that multiple nations in the multiverse require radioactive substances for civilian and defense purposes,

Ensures their safe transport as well as the safety of the public, environment, and workers handling the substance as well as the duties of the entities transporting the substance.

This Resolution hereby defines a 'Radioactive Substance' as a substance which emits radioactivity at a scale high enough to harm any sapient creature.

1. All radioactive substances must be stored inside lead or other high-density material containers which must be thick to prevent any harm to anybody standing outside or handling those substances.

2. No radioactive substances may be removed except at their designated areas and must not be released at any place where they may harm the environment or the public, except in the case of an accident where not removing the substance could arguably harm a greater number of persons.

3. Any vehicles transporting such goods must take precautions to ensure that in case of a leak, as few people as possible are exposed to radiation.

4. All entities that import or export such substances must publicly declare the amount of radioactive substances imported or exported annually

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

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

7. Any vehicle which has been contaminated by radiation is to be disposed of or destroyed safely with minimal danger to any person or the environment.

8. All corporations transporting these substances must be properly inspected to comply with safety standards, and only approved companies may transport these substances. Any others may only transport these substances after an independent and exhaustive enquiry. Those corporations which, due to negligence, allow radiation to be leaked, harming workers, the public, or the environment, must have their license revoked and may be prosecuted.

9. All entities must deny persons with health risks which may be exacerbated by radiation from working with radioactive substances.

10. Reasonable precautions shall be taken to ensure that these substances do not fall into the hands of forces hoping to destabilize their region or the multiverse at large by using such substances in weaponry.

[Honeydewistania]

I've cleared up the language and stuff, so here goes! Don't be afraid to criticize it!

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety

The World Assembly,
Noting that multiple nations in the multiverse require radioactive substances for civilian and defense purposes,

Hereby ensures their safe transport as well as the safety of the public, environment, and workers handling the substance as well as the duties of the governments and companies transporting the substance.

Hereby usually indicates what follows it is a clause with effect, so I’d recommend you remove it. Also your preamble should state why this is an international problem.

This Resolution hereby defines a 'Radioactive Substance' as a substance which emits radioactivity at a scale high enough to harm any sapient creature.

Fair enough definition, though I’d state to what extent must the harm be, like saying it is at a scale high enough to cause short term or long term harmful impacts to health.

1. All radioactive substances must be stored inside lead or other high-density material containers which must be thick enough to prevent any harm to those standing outside.

Any harm? You should clarify it a bit more, like "thick enough to prevent the radioactivity from causing harm to those handling the radioactive substances"

2. No radioactive substances may be removed except at their designated areas and must not be released at any place where they may harm the environment or the public, except in the case of an accident where not removing the substance could arguably harm a greater number of persons.

Added an an.

3. Any such vehicles as mentioned above should take precautions to ensure that in case of a leak, as few people as possible are exposed to radiation.

You haven’t mentioned vehicles in the resolution so far.

4. The amounts of these substances imported and exported each year shall be publicly reported annually.

Reported by who? And why is this needed?

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

Removed a t.

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

Why?

7. Any vehicle which has been contaminated by radiation is to be disposed of or destroyed safely with minimal danger to any person or the environment.

Maybe say that only vehicles which are contaminated to the extent they are no longer safe to be used by people or to transport other goods?

8. All corporations transporting these substances must be properly inspected to comply with safety standards, and only approved companies may transport these substances. Any others may only transport these substances after exhaustive enquiry.

You should put all entities, since not all nations have corporations.

9. All entities must deny persons with health risks which may be exacerbated by radiation from working with radioactive substances.

Instead, say that people with health risks which may be exacerbated by radiation with radioactive substances must be prohibited from working with said substances.

Reasonable precautions shall be taken to ensure that these substances do not fall into the hands of non-governmental forces hoping to destabilize their region or the multiverse at large by using such substances in weaponry.

Non-governmental seems a bit arbitrary, just say any force hoping to use these substances for weaponry to destabilise regions.

Overall, not bad. A few tweaks here and there, though I’d be wary that there may be extant resolutions that do some or all of this.

[Allenstadt]

Thank to the AN, I've fixed most of the prominent issues.
Extraterrestrial transport may be necessary for, say, nuclear-powered space stations, so i haven't changed that.

[Honeydewistania]

Thank to the AN, I've fixed most of the prominent issues.
Extraterrestrial transport may be necessary for, say, nuclear-powered space stations, so i haven't changed that.

I mean, why helicopters? Why is airborne unacceptable but shipping, pitting it in an armoured car is?

[Attempted Socialism]

I'll start by noting (And applauding) marked improvements from your first draft, to the one you sent me, to this. You are not ready to submit this (yet) but there is a promise here and a willingness to work with feedback.
However, there are some flaws that I suggest working on in general. First, when drafting you can fix egregious things at once but most times getting a few rounds of feedback may be useful before drafting a new version. Giving both yourself and others time to consider means there's less rush, itself a benefit, but more deliberation also means you're more certain that each new edit will fix issues for good without introducing new ones or create clunky language. Engage with regulars for feedback; ask questions or even ask for suggestions on how to phrase it if you want. The drafting process can be a great collaborative thing. As just one example, in the telegram I suggested you removed 'company' and 'government' in clause 5, in favour of 'entity'. I then missed the repeat use in clause 8, and non-government forces in clause 10, as Honeydewistania subsequently pointed out. Going over your draft a few times, checking for consistency and how changes in one clause might affect another, or if a reasonable suggestion can be reused elsewhere, would improve your drafting process.
Secondly, while there is a great deal of leeway in terms of how to write WA resolutions, there are some traditions (Which can be flaunted, don't get me wrong, but do so with care). For instance, the tradition of writing the entire resolution as a run-on sentence is just one way of writing, and you're free to not follow it. However, the way you do so right now is not ideal. You have the World Assembly in the beginning, noting something. Then a shift to the active voice, "ensures", which here is a declaration of intent. "Defines" is good, but all subsequent clauses are disjointed. I suggest you pick a form and stick with it. The way to change your current draft would be to have some version of "the World Assembly implements the following regulations" before your defines sentence, and edit that one to fit.

I don't have time for more in-depth feedback for probably a few days, but then again perhaps you have also heard enough from me for a while.

[Honeydewistania]

I recommend reading the similar resolution Araraukar linked in the other thread

[Ransium]

Please limit yourself to one thread per draft. Generally you’d want to edit your OP with your new draft and post letting people know you’ve updated it.

[Allenstadt]

This will soon be submitted! thoughts?

[Honeydewistania]

I telegrammed you my edits and you ignored it. It is not ready for submissikn

[Attempted Socialism]

This will soon be submitted! thoughts?

Not ready. Give it at least 2 weeks before you even think about submitting, respond to suggestions and criticism, and it might become ready. And I'll just remind you that last time you made this mistake, an easy TG campaign from little me cost you about 1/3 of your delegate support.

[WayNeacTia]

This will soon be submitted! thoughts?

It's been a grand total of four whole days. Maybe patience is something that you can exercise here?

[Picairn]

OOC: Opposed from Section 6. Why is there a ban on transporting radioactive material by aircraft, but transporting it extra-terrestrially is fine?

[Allenstadt]

OOC: Opposed from Section 6. Why is there a ban on transporting radioactive material by aircraft, but transporting it extra-terrestrially is fine?

Extra-terrestrial is necessary for nuclear-powered space stations and is indispensable. An aircraft mishap could result in contamination of thousands of sqkm.
However, I do think maybe I should remove this clause altogether...

[Araraukar]

OOC post. You got me out of bed to reply to this properly, and considering I currently move about with crutches, that's an achievement.

I've cleared up the language and stuff, so here goes! Don't be afraid to criticize it!
This is more or less my final draft, but if you have any changes, please post below! I'll submit this in two days at 1200 IST.

This makes it sound like you want other people to rewrite your draft for you. Are you willing to make edits based on credible criticism, or are you going to stubbornly submit the current draft anyway?

The World Assembly,
Noting that multiple nations in the multiverse require radioactive substances for civilian and defense purposes,

Ensures their safe transport as well as the safety of the public, environment, and workers handling the substance as well as the duties of the entities transporting the substance.

This is your entire preamble. A good preamble answers three questions: WHAT is the problem you're trying to solve? WHY do you need international legislation to do so? And WHY is the issue not already addressed by existing legislation?

Currently your preamble doesn't really answer any of the questions properly.

So, WHAT is the problem you're trying to solve? Do you think national experts on radioactive substances are idiots who haven't figured out that they need to be transported safely? Looking at Real Life we can tell that's not the case, and that spills into the environment happen because of accidents or natural disasters.

As for the first WHY, you mention "safety of the public, environment and workers", but don't mention why that matters. If you think national experts are such idiots that you need this proposal to tell them how to do their jobs, you should definitely also spell out why radioactive substances are such a hazard. I mean, hells, radioactive substances and radiation are used in medicine as markers, medications and treatment! They can't be that dangerous if they're injected into a living body, right? So, your preamble needs to convince people you not only know your subject (which currently it's not doing), but that this is something that is internationally important to legislate on. If you restricted this to transport crossing international boundaries, then it would make more sense, but you don't. Why should (as an example), Araraukar care what happens within the borders of Sierra Lyricalia, which is not just in another solar system, but in another universe? Or vice versa.

The latter WHY, as in, why do you think additional legislation is needed on top of existing, is a harder one to answer, but should definitely be done in the preamble, given these resolutions (not in a particular order) exist:

Reducing Spills and Leaks
International Transport Safety
Uniform Labeling of Hazardous Goods
Preparing for Disasters
Nuclear Disaster Response Act
Nuclear Waste Safety Act
Nuclear Testing Protocol (clauses 6 and 7 specifically)
Safeguarding Nuclear Materials
Workplace Safety Standards Act

So given all of those together (there may be others, those were just the ones that came to mind or were easily searched for), do we really NEED your proposal? The last one, GA #7, alone, seems to cover everything in your proposal, albeit in more general terms. And while minor duplication to go more in debth is okay, given the other resolutions in the list, the only new things your proposal includes are the ones that make no sense (clause 6 especially - which I'll get to later in more detail).

The overlap is serious enough that your proposal may be illegal for duplication.

This Resolution hereby defines a 'Radioactive Substance' as a substance which emits radioactivity at a scale high enough to harm any sapient creature.

Random capitalization of Words. They are not proper nouns (as in names) and are not capitalized throughout, so they shouldn't be capitalized here either. These things matter to make this appear more professional.

Furthermore, "radioactivity" is a word that has the necessary clue in it; "activity". Activity is not something that can be emitted (otherwise we'd have no lazy people), rather, it is the descriptory word for the process of material sending out emissions that we call radiation. And given you don't specify serious harm, you've just included, for example, all organic material (radioactive carbon is what carbon dating is based on, it is in all living things, and bananas are not the only food with radioactive potassium), such as the food that people need to eat to survive. Given the regulations that follow, I don't think you intended for that. To illustrate the issue better, I'm going to replace "radioactive substances" with "bananas" in the following.

Also, this should be numbered clause 1.

1. All bananas must be stored inside lead or other high-density material containers which must be thick to prevent any harm to anybody standing outside or handling those substances.

Again, the "any harm" is such a strong wording that it causes issues. I doubt you know the different types of radiation well enough to understand this. Alpha particles are stopped by air or a sheet of paper. Beta particles are stopped by water or protective clothing. Gamma rays are not stopped by anything short of several kilometres of air or several metres of water, lightweight building materials and lead, and probably not even those. That's why people working in nuclear power plants need to carry dosimeters, which measure how much radiation they have been exposed to during their time at the plant; some gamma rays will always get out.

2. No bananas may be removed except at their designated areas and must not be released at any place where they may harm the environment or the public, except in the case of an accident where not removing the substance could arguably harm a greater number of persons.

What are "designated areas"? If you're requiring bananas be stored within several metres of lead in a designated storage area, then you are contradicting your own proposal. Also, check the resolutions I listed - cleaning after an accident is pretty clearly dealt with by them. You can't contradict anything they say on the matter. Basically, this is already covered.

3. Any vehicles transporting bananas must take precautions to ensure that in case of a leak, as few people as possible are exposed to radiation.

This is sensible and in fact so sensible it's already covered by existing resolutions. Except for applying to bananas, but that's the problem created by the definition.

4. All entities that import or export bananas must publicly declare the amount of radioactive substances imported or exported annually

The ending of the clause should have a comma or a period. Also, what amount exactly are you looking for? Do you know what radioactivity actually means? It means that the atom splits or otherwise spits out particles that reduce the number of protons in the nucleus, which changes the element that the atom is of. So for there to be radioactive emissions at all, part of your cargo is going to be turning into something else. Or do you want to know the measured activity of the cargo transported? Or the amount of bananas and then estimates of how much radioactive material they contain?

And what counts as "publicly declaring"? Reading it from a paper out loud from a soapbox in the middle of a marketplace?

Why does this matter?

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

So if I need a medical check-up because of suspected exposure, because I was stupid enough to take off my filter mask because it was hot, and might have inhaled radioactive dust, but was found to not have been exposed after all, the transporting company now must pay for my healthcare costs the rest of my life, and for my funeral, and care for my children (free childcare? sweet!), despite there being no detrimental health effects for me? Or is the "entity responsible" here me, because I took off my protective gear?

Also, see resolution #7, the meat of this is already covered.

6. Bananas may not be transported by airplanes, helicopters, or any method which involves the substance being airborne, except for extraterrestrial transport.

Aside from bananas, remember what I said about radioactive substances used in medicine as markers for imaging (usually injected into the bloodstream and used to get a more detailed image of the organs being examined) or treaments (radioactive radiation destroys cancer cells same as regular cells)? That's where the air travel ban becomes especially problematic, because the treatments are generally safe due to the low halflife of the radioactive substances (meaning, they become safe substances quickly enough to not cause additional health issues to the people they're used on), and if you had to transport them from where they are made (in particle accelerators) to where they want to be used (I don't know if any RL hospitals have their own particle accelerators to make these medicines, but it sounds at the very least a very rare thing, if some do), via land or sea, they would be useless when they arrived to the patient to be treated.

You also haven't given any indication of why, within the borders of a nuclear facility, it's more dangerous to lift something with a helicopter than with a crane. More cranes topple over every day than helicopters crash.

7. Any vehicle which has been contaminated by radiation is to be disposed of or destroyed safely with minimal danger to any person or the environment.

...why? Isn't the point of having dedicated transport vehicles that only those vehicles get contaminated, instead of all of them. And why not just cleanse the contamination when it's possible? I mean, have you ever heard of washing? Do you also throw away your dishes after you've used them once?

8. All corporations transporting bananas must be properly inspected to comply with safety standards, and only approved companies may transport these substances. Any others may only transport these substances after an independent and exhaustive enquiry. Those corporations which, due to negligence, allow radiation to be leaked, harming workers, the public, or the environment, must have their license revoked and may be prosecuted.

What safety standards? If you're making mandates about standards, spell them out.

Wouldn't the "any others" become "approved companies" (you've used "entities" before, use that here too, instead of corporations or companies, because for example the military tends to be neither) after the enquiry? And why are only negligent corporations to be punished? And where did you fart the licenses out of all of a sudden? Approved =/= licensed.

The parts that make sense are already covered by existing resolutions.

9. All entities must deny persons with health risks which may be exacerbated by radiation from working with bananas.

Okay, I'll bite. Give me an example of such a health risk. Also, if I decide to ignore risk to my own health to clean up a spill site so that hundreds of thousands of others don't get exposed, why should you have any right to tell me I can't? Would you rather die of radiation, rather than let me, a volunteer, take the risk of doing so? Especially if I know how to do it as safely as possible, while you have no clue. (See Fukushima cleanup volunteers for a RL example.)

10. Reasonable precautions shall be taken to ensure that bananas do not fall into the hands of forces hoping to destabilize their region or the multiverse at large by using such substances in weaponry.

If the "region" refers to the gameside regions, then the proposal is illegal for metagaming. If you didn't, you could replace "region or the multiverse at large" by "nation", as that would be a much more likely level of organization. Also, how would you use bananas in weaponry? In addition to which, there are several resolutions on the topic of wrong hands (see also GA #10, which wasn't listed earlier) getting ahold of radioactive materials for weaponry.

So, again, covered by existing resolutions.

All in all, this is either already covered, incomprehensible or goes against common sense. NOT READY FOR SUBMISSION.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The interpretation that bananas give enough radiation to harm people, in my view, definitely violates RNT. No reasonable nation would interpret any thing that emits less radiation than the variance in background radiation as being harmful.

[Araraukar]

The interpretation that bananas give enough radiation to harm people, in my view, definitely violates RNT. No reasonable nation would interpret any thing that emits less radiation than the variance in background radiation as being harmful.

OOC: You are hilariously missing the point. But I'll address that when I get back to the computer, probably tomorrow. EDIT: Even if the apparent point missing is deliberate, it still amused me. Thank you.

[WayNeacTia]

The interpretation that bananas give enough radiation to harm people, in my view, definitely violates RNT. No reasonable nation would interpret any thing that emits less radiation than the variance in background radiation as being harmful.

OOC: You are hilariously missing the point. But I'll address that when I get back to the computer, probably tomorrow. EDIT: Even if the apparent point missing is deliberate, it still amused me. Thank you.

Credit, where credit is due. You choice to replace the words "radioactive substances" with "bananas" was absolute 100% solid gold.