NationStates Jolt Archive

No longer should the citizens of all member nations be affected by the dangerous material known as Asbestos.

Asbestos causes Asbestosis and Mesothelioma, two diseases for which treatment is limited and a cure is unknown.

All it takes is one fibre of the Asbestos material to enter the lungs of a factory worker, an innocent child passing by an Asbestos contaminated construction site, or god forbid fibres drifting into a government residence, and then later on in life the people/s affected will contract the diseases mentioned above and suffer and inevitable and uncomfortable death.

I urge all regional delegates to approve this proposal, and then urge all member nations to vote for its enactment.

______


Proposal Name:Asbestos Abolition
"A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Chastmere

Description:

KNOWING that Asbestos related products cause detrimental health effects which often result in death e.g. Asbestosis and Mesothelioma.

KNOWING that there are alternative materials that can be used in certain applications where Asbestos is used.

PROCLAIMS that the following steps be taken in all member nations to preserve the health of their citizens:

1, Declare Asbestos an illegal material, cease production immediately and phase out use within six months of the resolution being passed (to allow for supplies of alternative materials to stockpile),
2, Provide subsidized Asbestos waste disposal to residential zoned areas, in the form of a government cash-back or redemption,
3, Provide support to people/s affected by Asbestos related diseases in the form of counselling and education,
4, Introduce and enforce legislation requiring companies and corporations related to the manufacture of Asbestos products to be liable for present and future compensation obligations.

You can't abolish asbestos. You ban it.

"A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."?


How exactly is this true? Or did you pick Social Justice without reading the effect because it sounded like the correct choice?

I'm not affected one way or another on this, so I'll leave it up to others.

However, pay attention to the previous posts.

"KNOWING that there are alternative materials that can be used in certain applications where Asbestos is used. "

This is true. However, most alternative materials are more costly to acquire, and at times can be less effective than asbestos. This could cause problems for underdeveloped nations to enforce.

"1, Declare Asbestos an illegal material, cease production immediately and phase out use within six months of the resolution being passed (to allow for supplies of alternative materials to stockpile), "

What about asbestos currently stockpiled, or in use? How can we reduce abestos use without incurring signifigant economic damage through rapid removal?

"2, Provide subsidized Asbestos waste disposal to residential zoned areas, in the form of a government cash-back or redemption, "

What about corporate and industrial areas?

"4, Introduce and enforce legislation requiring companies and corporations related to the manufacture of Asbestos products to be liable for present and future compensation obligations. "

Is this a fair treatment to asbestos manufacturers? After all, if their product is used responsibly, then it does not pose a health threat. When properly used, asbestos is not a threat. You wouldn't charge match-making companies compensation for families that burn down their homes through improper use of matches; similarly you shouldn't force asbestos manufacturers to compensate for construction workers and building inhabitants misuses that result in harm.

Just some thoughts

I'm not to keen on banning abestoes manufacturing in all circumstances. It could potentially be used for research and scientific purposes.

By and large, Asbestos is just fine it you leave it alone. It only becomes a problem when you demolish a building with it, or try and pull it out.

Also the health risks tend to be inflated, but that's a discussion for General.

By and large, Asbestos is just fine it you leave it alone. It only becomes a problem when you demolish a building with it, or try and pull it out.

Also the health risks tend to be inflated, but that's a discussion for General.

Seriously. the only real health risks are when its agitated and the free floating particles are inhaled. And that is almost always because some idiot construction worker decided he didn't need to wear a mask.

Asbestos floor tiles. Seriously, the only real health risks are when its agitated and the free floating particles are inhaled. And that is almost because some idiot who walks around from building to building during work in leased buildings decided she did not need to wear a mask.

Had to be devil's advocate on this one. Hack is right.

Had to be devil's advocate on this one. Hack is right.
You saying Hack is the Devil?

Your link no longer works.

You saying Hack is the Devil?

-_-

Hmm....

Sure. In a Blue Dress to boot ;).

Myrth - Same thing.

Frisbeeteria - No it didnt sound the correct choice, but it was a toss up between that and Human Rights, and neither really suited it, so i chose one :)

Thgin - It would be up to the government to stipulate that. Asbestos production would be halted immediately, and phased out of use within 6 months of it being passed, to allow for other materials to become available. Commerical and industrial areas would not get a subsidy (in real life, no-one gets a subsidy in my country). Your analagy is floored, but anyway, the deaths that occur from asbestos is a direct result of them making it. And unless they are massively uninformed, then they know this. Its called corporate responsibility.

Adam Island - Then it would also be up to member nations to decide that on a case by case basis.

Tuesday Heights - Yep, its fixed now.


If the proposal does not reach its quorum, which im doubting if it will, i will use all the things said in this forum in an ammended proposal :)

Thanks :)

One wonders how you make a naturally occuring fiberous material found in plentitude through areas of the planets crust is to be declared "illegal"? Does that mean we have to arrest the planet for producing this mineral?

As for the category, no.... not human rights or social justice... If you had classed it right, you would have placed it under "Enviromental".

Hmm....

Sure. In a Blue Dress to boot ;).

SHHH! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/shiftyeye.gif

One wonders how you make a naturally occuring fiberous material found in plentitude through areas of the planets crust is to be declared "illegal"? Does that mean we have to arrest the planet for producing this mineral?

As for the category, no.... not human rights or social justice... If you had classed it right, you would have placed it under "Enviromental".


I hope thats a joke, because if it isnt, your mentally impaired.

If i chose "Environmental", it would have been classed wrong. This proposal was to preserve the health of member nations citizens, and has nothing to do with the environment.

I hope thats a joke, because if it isnt, your mentally impaired.

If i chose "Environmental", it would have been classed wrong. This proposal was to preserve the health of member nations citizens, and has nothing to do with the environment.

By banning a potentially hazerdous material from manufactures and the market, to keep it from entering the normal enviroment.... It's frikken enviromental. The part about arresting the earth for making asbestos was a joke.... but not the enviromental part... It's not all that different than "Reduce greenhouse gases"... and impacts most of the same industry (Automotive and Construction). It has little to do with moral decency or social justice...

By banning a potentially hazerdous material from manufactures and the market, to keep it from entering the normal enviroment.... It's frikken enviromental. The part about arresting the earth for making asbestos was a joke.... but not the enviromental part... It's not all that different than "Reduce greenhouse gases"... and impacts most of the same industry (Automotive and Construction). It has little to do with moral decency or social justice...


Are you confused? This proposal is NOT about the environment! It may have a positive side affect on the environment (as many resolutions do unintentionally), but it is essentially not about the environment. It is about the health of member nations citizens!


If you believe that, then i suggest you make a suggestion for a 'Health' category to be added, then that would be the proper category, but there isnt, so i had to make a choice between that and Human Rights.

Now that i think about it, Human Rights would have been a better choice.

Are you confused? This proposal is NOT about the environment! It may have a positive side affect on the environment (as many resolutions do unintentionally), but it is essentially not about the environment. It is about the health of member nations citizens!


If you believe that, then i suggest you make a suggestion for a 'Health' category to be added, then that would be the proper category, but there isnt, so i had to make a choice between that and Human Rights.

Now that i think about it, Human Rights would have been a better choice.

It's not about the "health of member's citizens"... it's about removing potentially hazerdous materials from the enviroment that can effect the health of member citizens. The enviromental aspect isn't secondary, it's the main push of your proposal... Geez dude, take your blinders off.

Are you confused? This proposal is NOT about the environment! It may have a positive side affect on the environment (as many resolutions do unintentionally), but it is essentially not about the environment. It is about the health of member nations citizens!

How is removing something from the environment not environmental? Even if you are removing it for health reasons, it's still environmental.

If you believe that, then i suggest you make a suggestion for a 'Health' category to be added, then that would be the proper category, but there isnt, so i had to make a choice between that and Human Rights.

He can make such a suggestion, but it isn't likely to be implemented.

Now that i think about it, Human Rights would have been a better choice.

Um, human rights is for things such as gay marriage and whether or not your government is forcing your wife to be impregnated by the dictator, not something related to taking something out of the environment.

I also might add, Article 5 can be deemed illegal... Since it is worded as to nulify NSUN Res "Common Sense Act II"... If the company had already indicated into the consumer packaging of the content of Asbestos, and it's hazards, they have met all criteria to be protected from litigation. (Since health concerns then become the fault of the consumer as opposed to the manufacturer).

It's not about the "health of member's citizens"... it's about removing potentially hazerdous materials from the enviroment that can effect the health of member citizens. The enviromental aspect isn't secondary, it's the main push of your proposal... Geez dude, take your blinders off.

It is NOT, and i repeat NOT about the environment! I agree it isnt secondary, but it certainly isnt firstly. It is about the HEALTH of member nations citizens! How many times do i have to say this!!! I wrote the frigging thing, i know what its about!

How is removing something from the environment not environmental? Even if you are removing it for health reasons, it's still environmental.

This proposal wasnt removing anything from the environment! By banning Asbestos, it doesnt mean that all Asbestos in the entire world is removed from the environment, it just means its not to be used! It doesnt go anywhere, it stays in the ground where it is harmless!.

I also might add, Article 5 can be deemed illegal... Since it is worded as to nulify NSUN Res "Common Sense Act II"... If the company had already indicated into the consumer packaging of the content of Asbestos, and it's hazards, they have met all criteria to be protected from litigation. (Since health concerns then become the fault of the consumer as opposed to the manufacturer).

Well, there isnt an article 5, but you mean article 4.

I put that in for this specific reason:
When it became known that Asbestos was a harmful material, manufacturers were slow to the plate, and it didnt become widely publicly known that it was a harmful material until some years later. Its what companies do, milk products for all they've got.

You say consumers. Consumers directly buy very little Asbestos products, as they are mainly used in the construction industry. Thus these 'end consumers' would not be aware of the consequences of Asbestos product use.


But it doesnt matter now. It didnt reach its quorum.

This proposal wasnt removing anything from the environment! By banning Asbestos, it doesnt mean that all Asbestos in the entire world is removed from the environment, it just means its not to be used! It doesnt go anywhere, it stays in the ground where it is harmless!

And a proposal that forces cars to use hydrogen isn't removing fossil fuels from the environment, just that they are not used. They don't go anywhere, just stay in the ground where they remain harmless.

Sounds environmental to me.

It is NOT, and i repeat NOT about the environment! I agree it isnt secondary, but it certainly isnt firstly. It is about the HEALTH of member nations citizens! How many times do i have to say this!!! I wrote the frigging thing, i know what its about!
If it's not painfully obvious to the rest of us, it doesn't much matter what you intended it to be.

Not that it matters now, but we're talking about interpretation of NS rules in association with your proposal. A number of the respondents to this topic have long histories of both proposal writing and proposal defeating. When we attack the wording, it doesn't necessarily mean we're making a personal attack on you or your ideas. What we hope to do here in the UN forum is put your words into a perspective that makes sense to us.

Short answer - if it can be misinterpreted, it will be. We'd like to avoid that.

Wow. What have I been smoking all these years, thinking the clean air and clean water acts were about the environment. Nor is arbor day now for that matter, as trees clear the air and promote human health.

The resolution will effect human health, however, it does so by improving the environment. That is what Qualifies it as an environmental resolution.

A lot of you have said it is environmental.

Care to explain in the context of the proposal??

A lot of you have said it is environmental.

Care to explain in the context of the proposal??

Asbestos is a natural compound.

It is dangerous when introduced into the ambeint air as its aerodynamic shape and size may allow it to pass through the nasal cavity, down the bronchial tubes, and into the lugs where it can cause abrasions.

You are seeking to ban its current uses so as to prevent it from entering the ambient air and causing health problems. Last time I checked, air is part of the natural environment. This resolution seeks to prevent it from entering the air (environment) via human activity. Therefore, it is an environmental resolution that affects human activity and health.

Asbestos is a natural compound.

It is dangerous when introduced into the ambeint air as its aerodynamic shape and size may allow it to pass through the nasal cavity, down the bronchial tubes, and into the lugs where it can cause abrasions.

You are seeking to ban its current uses so as to prevent it from entering the ambient air and causing health problems. Last time I checked, air is part of the natural environment. This resolution seeks to prevent it from entering the air (environment) via human activity. Therefore, it is an environmental resolution that affects human activity and health.

I understand where your coming from, but its just like saying ban smoking because the smoke can be passively inhaled due to it being in the air and other people breathing it. The cigarette would be the cause, not the smoke in the air, that causes detrimental effects.

Its not about the environment, its about health. All toxins are in the environment in some way, but it doesnt make it environmental, it makes it a health issue.

I understand where your coming from, but its just like saying ban smoking because the smoke can be passively inhaled due to it being in the air and other people breathing it. The cigarette would be the cause, not the smoke in the air, that causes detrimental effects.

Its not about the environment, its about health. All toxins are in the environment in some way, but it doesnt make it environmental, it makes it a health issue.

To be honest with you. Humans are selfish. Nearly all environmental concerns have to do with humans. If we didn't know about it, or were affected by it, we probably wouldn't care or do anything about it.

Cigaretter smoke. It is banned in public areas exactly for the reason afforementioned. So is lead in gasoline, for that same reason. It also applies to sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide regulations. When we are regulating human activity that pollutes the environment and causes health problems to humans and animals, it is an environmental resolution. You are proposing to regulate a human activity that introduces asbestos to the environment for health reasons, that it regulates an activity that pollutes the environment and is harful to ourselves and critters it is an environmental resolution.