NationStates Jolt Archive

I have recently submitted a proposal to the United Nations on the subject of safety in the realm of nuclear facilities and mining for nuclear fuels. I believe this to be of the utmost importance to the international community in order to prevent, as lesser developed nations begin building and operating nuclear facilities and more developed nations have them built by the lowest bidder, catastrophic incidents such as Chernobyl's meltdown in the late 1980s.

The text of the proposal follows. I would urge the Delegates to quickly provide a quorum for this necessary piece of international legislation.

---

Nuclear Facility Guidelines
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: Uranium Mining

Description: RESOLUTION: Due to the increased use of nuclear power, and thus the subsequent construction of nuclear reactors in far greater numbers, sometimes with dangerously low or even nonexistant safety standards, there shall be implemented strict and universal guidelines, to be determined by an international team of top-level nuclear scientists, on the processes of mining, refining, and expending nuclear fuel as well as the construction of nuclear power facilities.

I am of course willing to field any questions (be it during the proposal phase or, at the will of the delegate quorum, beyond) related to the Nuclear Facility Guidelines. Any such questions should be posted in this thread or telegrammed to me directly to make sure I don't miss them, though the first option is preferable just to make sure I'm not asked the same thing a few hundred times. :lol:

The Empire will gladly vote for your propostion for neculear regulations.

Instead of allowing the continued use of nuclear power/weapons we should be making sure that nuclear weapons and nuclear power is banned in all UN member nations.

Sounds good to me.

Instead of allowing the continued use of nuclear power/weapons we should be making sure that nuclear weapons and nuclear power is banned in all UN member nations.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the eventual banning of nuclear WEAPONS, nuclear power itself is a useful and, when properly handled, VERY clean method of supplying citizenry of nations with the necessary electricity. There are other cleaner methods, yes, such as hydroelectric dams and wind-driven power, but both of those systems create less power than a nuclear power facility and are unreliable in how much power they will continually provide.

Thus with the proper guidelines and regulations, which is what I am attempting in this proposal, nuclear power can easily become the safest, most efficient, and most practicable CLEAN source of energy.

seems good. yes, ill vote for it.

Jixie

The Republic of Dovaan would like to HIGHLY encourage ALL UN Delegates to approve this proposal quickly! This is an issue that has been forgotten for too long and we must pass a resolution now to avert sure near term nuclear disaster. Please help me in getting more UN Delegates to support this common sense resolution.

The Armed Republic also voices support for the implementation of certain safeguards, but believes that the United Nations should not be permitted to halt the construction or purchase of nuclear weapons by those states wishing to build up a defensive nuclear deterrent.

Please pass the word of this proposal on to other UN Delegates. It is very important this piece of legislation passes to avert crisis in the future.

The Armed Republic also voices support for the implementation of certain safeguards, but believes that the United Nations should not be permitted to halt the construction or purchase of nuclear weapons by those states wishing to build up a defensive nuclear deterrent.

This proposal has nothing to do with nuclear arms, simply nuclear power

Thank you for the clarification Cockarus

I don't see what the big deal is. We don't waste money on silly saftey concerns, we just place our reactors along the border of our country, so they're far away from the main population.

I don't see what the big deal is. We don't waste money on silly saftey concerns, we just place our reactors along the border of our country, so they're far away from the main population.

For the greater good of society as a whole this proposal should be passed into resolution status and further passed into U.N. law. If one of your reactors goes critical and melts down not only will it harm the environment around the reactor area, but wind patterns will push the radioactive materials inevitibly to major population centers, be they your own or someone elses.

Do you really wish to risk such an international incident which could result in a loss of prosperity and well-being for your nation?

I once again urge all delegates to take a look and approve this piece of legislation which I believe to be VITAL to our continued prosperity in a nuclear age.

For the greater good of society as a whole this proposal should be passed into resolution status and further passed into U.N. law.
...
Do you really wish to risk such an international incident which could result in a loss of prosperity and well-being for your nation?

I couldn't have said it better myself....therefore I didn't! :)

So Cockarus what your saying is NOT the outlawing of nuclear weapons but a reduction? If that's the case I'm all for it.

I am not at all speaking of nuclear weapons, I apologize if this is difficult to comprehend. By nuclear power I mean nuclear fusion/fission as a source of power, much like the current oil and coal burning power plants present throughout the world.

Nuclear Power Plants are an excellent source of energy, but very dangerous if not built, maintained, and operated within a strict set of safety guidelines. THIS is why I have called for a U.N. resolution on the issue; a uniform and universal set of guidelines will ensure that no nation puts others at risk of a nuclear meltdown which could spread radioactivity across other areas as well as their own.

These guidelines must rightly be decided by a coalition of nuclear scientists, who understand fully how to work with such materials and may suggest courses of action to construction engineers, taken from all nations currently using nuclear energy as a source of power in equal part (call it two (2) representative scientists from each nuclear-powered U.N. member nation).

Once the guidelines have been set up, all that will be required is the usual maintenance of such a program: ensuring everyone is up to par with the guidelines, bringing new nuclear-powered members under the guidelines, etc.

Why can't I delete this?

This is a good resolution. The real-world UN already does something similar for Nuclear energy plants.

But as far as the seperate topic of reducing nuclear weapons, I think that's a good idea too. I was thinking about writing a serious resolution about that but I don't know if it has already been proposed and debated recently.

This is a good resolution. The real-world UN already does something similar for Nuclear energy plants.

But as far as the seperate topic of reducing nuclear weapons, I think that's a good idea too. I was thinking about writing a serious resolution about that but I don't know if it has already been proposed and debated recently.

As long as compliant nations can keep thier nukes for self defense, I'm in.

Kalemshann: Of course they can. This will not affect weapons in anyway is what Cockarus has been saying.

The only connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear power is that the used fuel from nuclear power reactors is refined into the explosive material for nuclear weapons, and my proposal in no way suggests that the used fuel must be used in a certain way, nor will the guidelines speak of this beyond ensuring that it is disposed of responsibly and safely (be that into nuclear weapons or whatever).

The proposal will have no impact on nuclear weapons.

*bump*

Endorsements would be much appreciated. The proposal is currently (as of 3:21 am central time, December 23rd) on page 11.

Yes please, I urge all nations to endorse this and tell their UN Delegates to endorse it. It's just plain common sense!!

It would be good to include scientific experts other than strictly "nuclear", such as metallurgists (whose knowledge is important for the casting and composition of containment systems) and others.

We feel our facilities are safe but would like to support this on general principles.

Oh, and there should be standards for staffing of facilities as well. Cost-cutting in the area of persoannel could be fatal; these persons must be highly trained.

I am disgusted that too many nations do not see the perils of nuclear power and capabilities - whether they be used for energy or not. We should not appease by allowing nukes with 'certain guidelines' but rather completely rid the world of nuclear power in all its forms.

Using current technologies, nuclear power is safer and cleaner than electricity generated from burning fossil fuels.

Using current technologies, nuclear power is safer and cleaner than electricity generated from burning fossil fuels.

We musn't take the option of nuclear power but rather look for greener and more sustainable, and safer, options of energy production.

It would be good to include scientific experts other than strictly "nuclear", such as metallurgists (whose knowledge is important for the casting and composition of containment systems) and others.

We feel our facilities are safe but would like to support this on general principles.

Oh, and there should be standards for staffing of facilities as well. Cost-cutting in the area of persoannel could be fatal; these persons must be highly trained.

My definition of a scientist in the nuclear field is any whose work is involved in the creation, maintenance, etc. of a nuclear facility, be that a physicist, metallurgist, engineer, whatever. I thank you for your support, and would acknowledge the standards for staffing would be among the guidelines set up for proper maintenance of the reactor systems and the plant as a whole.

And to our dear friend from Catholic Europe: Your adamant rebuke of this proposal and all nuclear technology speaks volumes of a backwardness on your part. Nuclear energy is among the cleanest and safest and most productive forms on the planet, when held under proper guidelines and regulations.

While I appreciate your personal desire to avoid nuclear power, the truth of the matter is that while nuclear WEAPONS are indeed an international threat and affair, nuclear POWER is a threat to no one at all so long as the proper international GUIDELINES are in place. Thus you have no place to demand the banning of nuclear power globally. If you would rather use other forms of power production that is indeed your perogative, but to try and deny the whole world this efficient, clean, and generally safe form of power production is beyond ludicrous.

... that was odd, it logged me in under one of my non-UN nations, heh.

My country will support this resolution.

My nation will support this proposal

Perhaps my government is a little late to express its opinion on this issue, however:

We need to operate small high maintenance reactors for institutional use. Neutron beams, which for countries with low amounts of power infrastructure, can only be generated in a nuclear reactor. They are necessary to study the structure of bulk materials, metals, as other techniques such a scanning electron microscopy can only see the very surface.
Many space probes have also used small nuclear reactors for propulsion and power.

Secondly it is necessary to separate the issues of mining, power generation, and disposal.

Uranium oxide and other ors are almost insoluble making them unlikely to be a widespread radiation source; most countries may find that their greatest radiation source is from radon gas “naturally” produced.

Uranium hexafluoride gas enrichment facilities should be banned or at least isolated to geographic locals that contain accidental discharges. Whenever possible, magnetic isotope separation should be encouraged. Iraqi scientists at least had the decency to have such a system, which they were running round the country after the first war on flatbeds to hide it.

The greatest safety problem at Chernobyl was its use of a graphite moderator and a water cooling system, the reactor went red hot which heated the graphite so it burnt in the water releasing hydrogen gas which pressurized the reactor to an explosion point. All reactors to be constructed should be designed without this “flaw,” and a new pebble bed design which places tiny pellets of fuel in ceramic casings (The Dragons Egg anyone?... no..) and cools the reactor with helium permeating the pellets. This design can not go critical, proves convenient packages for pellet disposal, and may be cheaper providing pellet processing costs are not excessive.

The expenditure of spent fuel is the most problematic aspect, however there is no pollution until you try to dispose of it, most reactors safely maintain their own spent fuel on site. If you put it into the ground the first fear is that it will contaminate groundwater and be spread around, the second it that someone will dig it up. One can make it chemically intert and insoluable but if it is radioactive it has a nasty tendancy to become something else that may not be insoluable like potassium or sodium. Some techniques for fusing the waste into a kind of glass may be better than others but if a perfect geological location, which may not be in a developed country, is not found we may be better off not putting it into the ground.

The whole gist of this is that this UN legislation should not affect Uranium Mining, greater underground disposal safety comes from better mining where the waste is disposed of. It might even promote mining as old mines could be put to use.

Will existing nuclear countries be able to switch over to this new technology?
Their old reactors are dangerously radioactive and need to safely shutdown and monitored, their concern will be that by keeping them running they are at least making money.

Will developing countries be able to use this technology?
Nuclear power has never been cheap, but every country out there building reactors knows how dangerous they can be. There are very few reasons to take an unsafe route. In principle the UN should ban the sale of old reactors, transplanting, it’s been done to save costs. One country has a dead old hulk of a reactor and another can save a few credits on parts. Even quantities of beryllium metal on the open market have been traced back to Russian reactors in the eighties, radioactive when it shouldn’t have been.

Oh, and nuclear reactors are not required for nuclear weapons. One could ban uranium mining however it is also produced as a byproduct of other mining.

I’m not really an expert on uranium mining, but the safety precautions should mirror those used in other mining industries. It produces rock/dirt waste which should not be dumped into waterways or allowed to produce rainwater runoff. Certainly this is not a task for top level nuclear scientists who are paid the big bucks

Despite a facility being built by a lowest bidder doesn’t mean that it can not be maintained properly. Will the UN provide money for maintenance and shutdown of old reactors? How will this money be delegated? Will the poor pay for the rich early adopters? Perhaps the answer is to have a UN core of engineers which can efficiently assist countries in shutdown procedures with local support and who are able to self manage and take on the most dangerous reactors first. Put out little PR bulletins, these countries SW of so and so’s reactor should make plans to evacuate if the wind currents push potential radioactive fallout their way. Or do we force their country into a nation wide blackout? Which countries to we buy a new reactor for?

The saddest thing I have ever seen was a Japanese commercial probably sponsored by their government where “Mr. Plutonium” drinks a glass of plutonium to represent how safe nuclear power is. Folks do not ever do that! It is one of the most lethal substances known. Breeder reactors, most common in Europe, which produce the stuff to “extend” our fuel supply should be banned, they are perfectly safe however with their never being an accident so far. It can be found in spend reactor fuel and probably should be separated so that it does not get out into the environment. Frankly extracting it from pebble bed fuel would be a mess.

Right about now Ive written too much, we dismissed the power issue, I like natural gas and ethanol.

!Radiothermic generators, and “Hawking” radiation!

Endorsements needed!!! Currently (4:38 am central time USA, Dec. 24th) at the bottom of page 7 of the proposals!

*bumpity bump*