NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings fellow ones!

I have this proposal that I feel its excellent! Let me share it with you, and any comments and sugestions are more than welcomed!

THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN CHANGED TO REFLECT the UN view. you can find the new resolution while you scroll a bit down



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8794720&postcount=25




______________________________
Category: Environmental

Resolution Name: Restrict Uranium Mining

Description:

Fellow friends,

For too long we sat and watched how the Uranium industries devoured our lands and turned them into waste.
And we did nothing. For what? For a piece of prosperity?

Oh but no friends, the time has come to take action. Let's unite and restrict this Uranium Mining Industry!

The following will be enforced:
(1) The worker will come first, not the production
(2) The production rate will be lowered at half
(3) The mining sites will be reducted to 75% of the current situation
(4) The mining sites that endangers the population of that state, will be imediately CLOSED.
(5) Mines that will need a certain forest to get cutted will not receive the functionality approval, therefore this would be illegal.

All the above rules are part of "Law of Uranium Restriction". Any breach will be severely punished.

Industry Affected: Uranium Mining

Proposed by the Protectorate of Tatarica.

*looks through some papers*
it seems that uranium mining is the major industry in our beloved nation. sorry, but no, we wont be supporting this.

I would suggest proof reading in future. What you have is difficult to understand.


Fellow friends,
I'm not sure I've ever heard that expression before. It doesn't sound like a standard greeting in English.

For too long we sat and watched how the Uranium industries devoured our lands and turned them into waste.
And we did nothing. For what? For a piece of prosperity?[/quote
Many nations did not sit and watch, but either: joined in, making as much profit as possible; or prevented it from ever happening. I'm not sure you'll find many in between. And in any case, Uranium mining can be used for entirely peaceful purposes (power, getting nations off of fossil fuels).

[quote]Oh but no friends, the time has come to take action. Let's unite and restrict this Uranium Mining Industry!
I'll leave it to others to point out how little unity there ever is on topics like this.

The following will be enforced:
(1) The worker will come first, not the production
Understandable, but what rules are you putting in place to enforce this? Or is it up to member states?
(2) The production rate will be lowered at half
I presume you mean "lowered to half" of the current rate.
(3) The mining sites will be reducted to 75% of the current situation
Again, grammar problems. Reduced works much better than reducted. Indeed, reduced is the standard past tense form of reduce, which is itself the verb form of "reduction".
(4) The mining sites that endangers the population of that state, will be imediately CLOSED.
Needs serious re-phrasing. What you intend can be worked out, but is very unclear at first glance. Which is all many nations will give this proposal.
(5) Mines that will need a certain forest to get cutted will not receive the functionality approval, therefore this would be illegal.
A certain forest? Which one? What you intend to say is lost in your choice of words here, as before.

All the above rules are part of "Law of Uranium Restriction". Any breach will be severely punished.

Okay. I mostly agree with your ideas. This needs a lot of re-working, however, as in many places the wording is extremely unclear. Work on it for a while, and get other people to proof-read your drafts - they can pick up problems you miss. You also don't say why this needs to be done - are you opposed to the mining process (which is more than just uranium), or to uranium itself?

Either way, this is one of those topics that leaves people divided. Unless you have an incredibly strong campaign, something like this will never come anywhere near quorum - many nations will oppose it simply on principle. However, if you choose to contine with this topic, good luck, and please remember to post drafts up for general discussion before submitting.

Category: Environmental

Resolution Name: Restrict Uranium Mining

Very good so far. :) You have the category and title correct.

Description:

Fellow friends,

For too long we sat and watched how the Uranium industries devoured our lands and turned them into waste.
And we did nothing. For what? For a piece of prosperity?

Oh but no friends, the time has come to take action. Let's unite and restrict this Uranium Mining Industry!

This seems to be mere rhetoric, and not very well written rhetoric. However, I'm guessing that English isn't your first language so I'll let that go for now. :)

The following will be enforced:

Very strong, but good.

(1) The worker will come first, not the production

How so?

(2) The production rate will be lowered at half

You may want to re-write it like so:

Production will be lowered by fifty percent.

(3) The mining sites will be reducted to 75% of the current situation

This needs to be clarified.

(4) The mining sites that endangers the population of that state, will be imediately CLOSED.

Needs some minor rewording, but it's very clear.

(5) Mines that will need a certain forest to get cutted will not receive the functionality approval, therefore this would be illegal.

This needs re-worded as well to make it clear.

All the above rules are part of "Law of Uranium Restriction".

That's not a necessary clause. You can leave it out.

Any breach will be severely punished.

You don't need that clause either. The NS UN does not punish like the real-life UN. (Except through unofficial UN roleplay.)

Overall Comments:

1. The language needs a serious redo, but I don't have time to cover it all at the moment.

2. I would vote against it for the usual national sovereignty reasons.

3. Good idea for a proposal that draws its inspiration from in-game elements.

Thank you all for helping me out!
As many would have guessed, this is my first resolution, so its not perfect.

And Texan Hotrodders, yes, english is not my first language unfortunately, so please excuse my lack of grammar.

But lets get back on topic. If this resolution will pass, I would vote against it.
I do not care if this resolution will be accepted and implemented; I don't quite believe that; but its what this resolution stands for. you can quote me: this resolution is unique.

Now if I may, I would like to answer several questions:
Fellow friends,
we can change this

The following will be enforced:
(1) The worker will come first, not the production
How so?
Well, many nations do not really care what is happening with their minions as long as the cash keeps rolling. I'm planning to change this. If the worker is not safe from hazardous situations, then the mine will be CLOSED no matter what.
Understandable, but what rules are you putting in place to enforce this? Or is it up to member states?
Well, i don't quite want to add anything more to this. This will sound more out of category. But if you have something better in mind, please help me out

(2) The production rate will be lowered at half
You may want to re-write it like so:

Production will be lowered by fifty percent.
this is it! | but I would like to add: "If the production will not satisfy the nation grow, the production rate may rise" or something like it (?)

(3) The mining sites will be reducted to 75% of the current situation

sorry my friends, it appears i truly lack grammar. I wanted to say that 25% of the mining sites will be closed.


Please help me out. thanks

So if this is aproved there woun't be so many nukes right?

HELL YA, I'M UP FOR IT!!

Uranium mining and Arms manufacturing are major industries in my nation...

As such, I cannot support this resolution... Too much demand for fissionable materials for nuclear power-programs abroad for me to support it.

Category: Environmental

Resolution Name: Restrict Uranium Mining

This proposal actually sits a lot better with me on a weapon-restriction type of proposal - mainly because it restricts the continuing construction of nuclear arms, but doesn't detail anything about missiles in existence (which rarely goes well in NS). It's also a pretty decent mild environmental proposal. In fact, the only problem I have with it is its presentation. Work on the grammar of the thing, put it into a more formal presentation if not the official "tag word" style, and don't address the U.N. directly (It's a piece of legislation, not a speech).

I have a plethora of suggestions for you on how to make this look good:

Description:

[B]Fellow friends,

For too long we sat and watched how the Uranium industries devoured our lands and turned them into waste.
And we did nothing. For what? For a piece of prosperity?

Erm, yes, actually. You are going to encounter some resistance from those who take prosperity from uranium. I would suggest leaving this part out entirely. Simply mention the detrimental effects of Uranium Mining:
The U.N.,
RECOGNIZING the dangers of...

Put up a few arguments in this manner - you want to justify it as much as possible, in addition to impressing the audience (which you can do much better by ignoring them). See the forum stickies for directions on how to write a proposal.

Oh but no friends, the time has come to take action. Let's unite and restrict this Uranium Mining Industry!
Again, if this were U.N. legislation, people would laugh at us. Instead, just go with something simple:
The U.N. DECLARES that

The following will be enforced:
(1) The worker will come first, not the production

Far too abstract concepts for a bill. Try "The safety of the worker must be considered before", oh, I don't know, "benefits recieved". Add a little prefix in there too to explain what kind of situations you're talking about - "in mining situations," or whatever you had in mind. You're free to define the scope of the thing however you want.

(2) The production rate will be lowered at half
(3) The mining sites will be reducted to 75% of the current situation

Here you'll run into trouble. Aside from the fact that a percent reduction in any situation can immediately be followed up by reopening and claiming the law as a one-time thing, you also have the problem of nations raising their uranium mining production by 200 percent before the legislation passes. Instead, propose a limit - in this case it doesn't have to be exact - on Uranium Mining based on the level of damage to the environment. I leave it to you to work out the details.

(4) The mining sites that endangers the population of that state, will be imediately CLOSED.

"Any" instead of "the", "endanger" instead of "endangers". I'd recommend "the Nation-State" as opposed to "that state"(and you might want to include something about neighboring states as well - border mining could be dangerous to them.) No comma between state and will, and I wouldn't capitalize close.

(5) Mines that will need a certain forest to get cutted will not receive the functionality approval, therefore this would be illegal.

This is a piece of legislation. Don't argue why something is illegal, DECLARE it illegal. Cutted is not a word. Try this:

Uranium Mines that require the destruction of more than X acres (square meters, whatever) of forest may not be built.

All the above rules are part of "Law of Uranium Restriction". Any breach will be severely punished.

Industry Affected: Uranium Mining

Proposed by the Protectorate of Tatarica.
You don't need these lines, but you might want to keep the bottom two. The signature is fine, but keep in mind that it will say anyways at the top right of the completed resolution.

Take as many of these suggestions as you like (I would, of course, prefer you took all of them) but this proposal is in definite need of a rewrite before it will ever be ready for a resolution. Good idea, though.

Thank you Pojonia, your help will be remembered

Modified:



Category: Environmental
Resolution Name: Restrict Uranium Mining
Description:

The U.N.,
RECOGNIZING the dangers of Nuclear power and The Environmental effects of uranium mining,
NOTING that the effects of mining can go far beyond the small area disturbed in the operation. A mine cannot operate in isolation. It requires the construction of roads, the transport of material and the disposal of wastes.
NOTING the danger of ionising radiation that can come from mining and transporting uranium, accidents, and disposing of nuclear wastes.
FURTHER NOTING that border mining could be dangerous to any Nation-State, and mostly unwanted

DECLARES that the following will be enforced:
(1) In mining situations. the safety of the worker must be considered before
(2) The production of Uranium will be restricted, based on the level of damage inflicted to the environment
(3) Any mining site that endanger the population of the Nation-State will be imediately closed.
(4) Uranium Mines that require the destruction of more than 5000 square meters of forest may not be built.

only 1 question i have: is it much 5000 square meters?

only 1 question i have: is it much 5000 square meters?

No. It's a rectangle 1 metre wide by 5 kilometres (around 3 miles) long, which propbably isn't enough given the need for transport and stuff as well as the mine itself.

I cannot support efforts to restrict uranium mining. If you feel a need to improve the general state of forest protection enforced by the UN, I'm open to persuasion on legislation. However, nuclear power is an absolutely essential tool in efforts to stop climate change, so _Myopia_ will not be voting for any proposal which seeks to restrict uranium mining specifically.

NOTING the danger of ionising radiation that can come from mining and transporting uranium

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is true. The raw uranium ore mined has only a tiny fraction of the radioactive isotope, and even this isotope doesn't emit that much radiation until you put it in a reactor or bomb and cause fission.

You may be right
People are exposed to high doses of ionising radiation when nuclear explosions or nuclear accidents occur. High doses of ionising radiation destroy body tissues, and death occurs immediately or soon after exposure. However, the effects of lower doses may not show up for years after exposure and are due to various changes in DNA molecules and chromosomes.

Did some research:

It is now known that uranium, radioactive in all its isotopes, consists naturally of a mixture of uranium-238 (99.27 percent, 4,510,000,000-year half-life), uranium-235 (0.72 percent, 713,000,000-year half-life), and uranium-234 (0.006 percent, 247,000-year half-life).

The very long half-lives of the majority of naturally-occuring uranium (that is, what is mined) mean that it is only very weakly radioactive. It is the decay products that pose a real danger.

Did some research:



The very long half-lives of the majority of naturally-occuring uranium (that is, what is mined) mean that it is only very weakly radioactive. It is the decay products that pose a real danger.
OOC: also, you would be surprised at the amount of uranium that is in a mine. i previously worked at a mine, noted for its uranium, but is mainly a copper mine. the amount of uranium that came out was way less than the amount of copper. given the fact that in quite a few instances that uranium mining occurs in conjunction with mining of other substances (copper, gold, silver in this case) this resolution either has a big loophole, or affects other industries as well.
IC: either way, we dont support this, for reasons stated above in our previous post

Category: Environmental

Resolution Name: Restrict Uranium Mining

Description:

Fellow friends,

I am not your Friend, We have never been aquainted!

For too long we sat and watched how the Uranium industries devoured our lands and turned them into waste.
And we did nothing. For what? For a piece of prosperity?

The Hibernian Kingdom of venerable Libertarians main industry is Uranium Mining and our economy is a Powerhouse. However our lands are reknowned for its many beautiful Lush Forrests and constantly tops the regional surveys by the UN as being the most ecologically beautiful. There are no wastelands in the Fair and beautiful Uranium creating nation I represent


Oh but no friends, the time has come to take action. Let's unite and restrict this Uranium Mining Industry!

Again i am not your friend and no lets not restrict this activity! would you like to rob the cash from my pockets instead?

The following will be enforced:
(1) The worker will come first, not the production ...... Already done!
(2) The production rate will be lowered at half ....... Not on your nelly!
(3) The mining sites will be reducted to 75% of the current situation...... No Friggin way!
(4) The mining sites that endangers the population of that state, will be imediately CLOSED....... None do so no Probs here!
(5) Mines that will need a certain forest to get cutted will not receive the functionality approval, therefore this would be illegal. ........ Mines are descretely hidden by such forests and are covered by them when the mining has depleted the area of its riches.

All the above rules are part of "Law of Uranium Restriction". Any breach will be severely punished. ...... Blah blah.... By whom?

Industry Affected: Uranium Mining

Proposed by the Protectorate of Tatarica.

Modified:

Category: Environmental
Resolution Name: Restrict Uranium Mining
Description:

The U.N.,
RECOGNIZING the dangers of Nuclear power and The Environmental effects of uranium mining,
NOTING that the effects of mining can go far beyond the small area disturbed in the operation. A mine cannot operate in isolation. It requires the construction of roads, the transport of material and the disposal of wastes.
NOTING the danger of ionising radiation that can come from mining and transporting uranium, accidents, and disposing of nuclear wastes.
FURTHER NOTING that border mining could be dangerous to any Nation-State, and mostly unwanted

DECLARES that the following will be enforced:
(1) In mining situations. the safety of the worker must be considered before
(2) The production of Uranium will be restricted, based on the level of damage inflicted to the environment
(3) Any mining site that endanger the population of the Nation-State will be imediately closed.
(4) Uranium Mines that require the destruction of more than 5000 square meters of forest may not be built.

Here is my suggested rewrite:

Description:

The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the dangers of Nuclear power and the Environmental effects of uranium mining.

NOTING that the effects of mining can go far beyond the small area disturbed in the operation. (A mine cannot operate in isolation. It requires the construction of roads, the transport of material and the disposal of waste.)

NOTING the danger of ionising radiation that can come from mining and transporting uranium, accidents, and disposing of nuclear waste.

FURTHER NOTING that mining operations on a state's border with another nation could be dangerous to any state.

DECLARES that the following will be made law in all member nations:

(1) In mining operations the safety of the worker must be considered as the most important priority.
(2) The production of Uranium will be restricted, based on the level of damage inflicted to the environment.
(3) Any mining site that constitutes a significant health risk to the population of the state will be immediately closed and decontaminated.
(4) Uranium mining operations that require the destruction of more than 5000 square meters of forest may not be built.

5000 square metres of forest is still very little.

If you want protections for the forests, enact a more general thing against mining for anything. Don't single out uranium - especially since the environmental benefits of switching from fossil fuels to nuclear often outweigh the environmental problems of mining - which is why I think assessments need to be based on cost-benefit studies.

Not really sure about this. If you want to gives workers rights then make a general resolution rather than focusing one issue.

5000 square metres of forest is still very little.

If you want protections for the forests, enact a more general thing against mining for anything. Don't single out uranium - especially since the environmental benefits of switching from fossil fuels to nuclear often outweigh the environmental problems of mining - which is why I think assessments need to be based on cost-benefit studies.
Agreed here. our biggest issue with the smallpox resolution was that it is too narrow, only covering a small section. the same can be applied here. Uranium may be the most know, due to the association with radiation and nuclear weapons (which dont always use uranium, quite a few use plutonium), but there are other mining practices for other minerals that are as bad, if not worse. and as _Myopia_ stated, with going away from fossil fuels, nuclear energy is a more viable option.

Category: Environmental
Resolution Name: Restrict Uranium Mining
Description:

The U.N.,
RECOGNIZING the dangers of Nuclear power and The Environmental effects of uranium mining,
NOTING that the effects of mining can go far beyond the small area disturbed in the operation. A mine cannot operate in isolation. It requires the construction of roads, the transport of material and the disposal of wastes.
NOTING the danger of ionising radiation that can come from mining and transporting uranium, accidents, and disposing of nuclear wastes.
FURTHER NOTING that border mining could be dangerous to any Nation-State, and mostly unwanted

DECLARES that the following will be enforced:
(1) In mining situations. the safety of the worker must be considered before
(2) The production of Uranium will be restricted, based on the level of damage inflicted to the environment
(3) Any mining site that endanger the population of the Nation-State will be imediately closed.
(4) Uranium Mines that require the destruction of more than 5000 square meters of forest may not be built.

Havent i already dismissed this? I see no difference from when it was first written. Venerable Libertarians will not support this Measure as it Affects our main Industry. As A large Nation we are dependant on Nucler Power. Workers Rights are already held in high regard and are protected by at least two resolutions that we as members of the UN are already signed up to. Environmental concerns are not of our concern as our environment is envied by our neighbours and is recognised by the UN as being in the top 10,000 nations for best Environment. No, We will not allow you to hurt our economy to help those who have adopted Uranium mining as an industry and have not put in the safe gaurds to ensure the environment and the people working in the industry, are protected.

then you will vote No
I am not saying that this resolution will be voted and implemented because too many of us, are dependant of something, and that something is uranium.

Are you uranium slave? i stand against uranium because most of us accept uranium with no consideration what effects this will have in the future.

And also, this is a GAME. this is not the REAL LIFE. therefore, you will find no coal mining in the game as issues. you will find uranium. so, you will create a resolution against/for uranium. its not me that decided this

I may be too harsh, but this is how you have to be when supporting something. Thanks for all who stood up

come to think about it, this is more suitable

The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the dangers of Nuclear power and the Environmental effects of uranium mining.

NOTING that the effects of mining can go far beyond the small area disturbed in the operation. (A mine cannot operate in isolation. It requires the construction of roads, the transport of material and the disposal of waste.)

NOTING the danger of ionising radiation that can come from mining and transporting uranium, accidents, and disposing of nuclear waste.

FURTHER NOTING that mining operations on a state's border with another nation could be dangerous to any state.

DECLARES that the following will be made law in all member nations:

(1) In mining operations the safety of the worker must be considered as the most important priority.
(2) The production of Uranium will be restricted, based on the level of damage inflicted to the environment.
(3) Any mining site that constitutes a significant health risk to the population of the state will be immediately closed and decontaminated.
(4) Uranium mining operations that require the destruction of more than 5000 square meters of forest may not be built.
only one question: instead of 5000, what number is in your mind?
and please remember:
if you are thinking i have in mind to ban uranium you're missing the whole point. no-one said to ban uranium, just to restric uranium mining so that we will be sure it wont come in conflict with our environment

then you will vote No
I am not saying that this resolution will be voted and implemented because too many of us, are dependant of something, and that something is uranium.

Are you uranium slave? i stand against uranium because most of us accept uranium with no consideration what effects this will have in the future.

And also, this is a GAME. this is not the REAL LIFE. therefore, you will find no coal mining in the game as issues. you will find uranium. so, you will create a resolution against/for uranium. its not me that decided this

I may be too harsh, but this is how you have to be when supporting something. Thanks for all who stood up
coal is mentioned in the general mention to fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas), and there are more environmentally impacting ways of mining coal, both short and long term, than mining uranium. also, you have to remember, other minerals mined have an impact too. mind you, i can see your concerns with radiation, but uranium radiation isnt effective until it is concentrated, and usually then, they seal it in the propper containers.

so are you suggesting to rewrite this resolution?

well, since it has been tried before, and shot down very heavily, i suggest you scrap it, and just state that your nation is a nuclear free zone

so are you suggesting to quit? this is how easily you give up?

"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." - Gimil

so are you suggesting to quit? this is how easily you give up?

"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." - Gimil
if this hadn't come up before, or at least hadn't been shot down as much, we would state 'we comend you, but we wont support it. as it is, this has come up quite a number of times, and it was shot down heavily (i think it was either a nuclear missile... or maybe an anti-matter bomb, unsure, but it came from the direction of DLE), our only suggestion is to not follow through with it. some countries actually take a hostile reaction to this kind of bill, and as you seem to be kind of new, we dont want you destroyed so soon. and this is coming from someone who had a proposal to ban tobbacco heavily shot down
we admire your determination, but a little bit of research and for thought to check if this had been raised before, and the outcome, wouldnt go astray

so are you suggesting to quit? this is how easily you give up?

"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." - Gimil

Ooooh, one of those..... *evil grins*

Ooooh, one of those..... *evil grins*

whaT? :confused:

then you will vote No
I am not saying that this resolution will be voted and implemented because too many of us, are dependant of something, and that something is uranium.

Dependency is not necessarily a bad thing. Uranium doesn't look like running out soon, and properly handled, has very little environmental impact. _Myopia_ mines its own uranium, and so doesn't have issues with dependency on other supplies from other nations. So really, I don't see any problem with uranium as a fuel.

Are you uranium slave? i stand against uranium because most of us accept uranium with no consideration what effects this will have in the future.

We consider very carefully all the effects uranium will have. We conduct extensive cost-benefit analyses on every proposal for a mining operation or power plant, and we recognise that we will have to phase out uranium usage within two or three hundred years as deposits are used up.

We are developing a more sustainable nuclear industry through the use of more advanced reactors. Our ordinary water moderated reactors react uranium-235 to produce energy, and also react uranium 238 to produce plutonium-239, which we can then react in fast breeder reactors, which are also used to churn out extra plutonium by putting in more U-238. We are now developing advanced reactors which can take this plutonium 239 and also uranium 233. By extracting more energy from our nuclear fuels this way, we can make supplies last longer, and we also decrease the radioactivity of the waste produced at the end. (OOC: this is not made up - India in reality is at roughly this stage in the development of the technology).

We also take great care to encase nuclear waste in sufficient amounts of concrete and lead, and bury it deep under the desert area of _Myopia_, where it will have minimal impact on people and other organisms.

And also, this is a GAME. this is not the REAL LIFE. therefore, you will find no coal mining in the game as issues. you will find uranium. so, you will create a resolution against/for uranium. its not me that decided this

The great thing about the NSUN is that you can surpass the relatively restricted range of ideas dealt with in the issues. I've never seen an issue about Habeas Corpus, or protecting aid workers from legal action, or granting diplomts immunity from prosecution, and yet we have UN legislation on all 3. We have no issues about oil tanker, but a resolution banning single-hulled tankers. Not one issue mentions needle sharing, but we have an entire resolution devoted to dealing with it.

Don't feel that you can't make a resolution, simply because there isn't an issue about the subject or there isn't a category specifically geared towards the subject, as with the Environmental: uranium mining issue. Just write a resolution insisting that all mining operations must be approved by comprehensive environmental cost-benefit assessments, and put it down as environmental: all businesses.

I will think about it. any thoughts?

come to think about it, this is more suitable


only one question: instead of 5000, what number is in your mind?

I'm thinking more like 1000000. That would be more reasonable, in my opinion.

You know when this resolution passes your economy will suffer (greatly I reckon) from it right?

Right. Got to start protecting the environment

Hirota, as a worldwide leader in Uranium mining, rejects this proposal outright.

We reject any effort to restrict our production. Hirota already has an excellent safety record, and we don't have any trees left to protect.

Venerable Libertarians having resumed the responsibilities of delegate Mirrors the thoughts of our fellow Uranium Mining Industrialists, Hirota.

We shall see to it that this measure fails.

Without uranimum mining we have no economy. Without uranium mining, we cannot build illicit nuclear weapons. Without illicit nulcear weapons we cannot suppress our disidents in mass!! Dirkstoria will not agree with this proposal!!

you're missing the whole point. no-one said to ban uranium, just to restric uranium mining so that we will be sure it wont come in conflict with our environment

you're missing the whole point. no-one said to ban uranium, just to restric uranium mining so that we will be sure it wont come in conflict with our environment

WE don't need to restrict uranium mining, as we're already protecting our environment sufficiently. Which is why you can't demand that all nations restrict uranium mining - some are already in an acceptable situation, so it would be better to just insist that mining not be allowed to do harm to the environment disproportionate to its benefits. And PLEASE make it about ALL mining, as uranium mining is no worse than the rest.

yeah, I'm trying to figure out how.
I'll need to reedit all the resolution :/