NationStates Jolt Archive

Discuss any issues you have with this proposal here.

Sewage Fertilizer

AWARE OF nations using sewage wastes as fertilizer for human crops.

ALARMED BY the lack of care in treating wastes with enough bacteria in breaking down these wastes.

HAVING HEARD of three cases in the Republic of Dicomte in which victims who ate carrots from crops using sewage fertilizer became blind. It was later found that the fertilizer had flame retardant material which had not broken down at all.

FULLY AWARE that citizens in all nations constantly flush materials which may contain chemicals or other hazardous products down the toilet with little disregard to their actions.

NOTING WITH REGRET, that many nations, including ones in the New Earth Alliance Region, do not have adequate sewage treatment facilities.

REALIZING that crops that are sold for human or farm animal consumption should no longer use fertilizer that comes from sewage treatment facilities.

1) Calls upon all UN nations to no longer use sewage wastes as crop fertilizer.
2) Encourages that nations show it’s citizens that flushing anything other than tissue paper and human wastes are a threat to their food supply.
3) Affirms that all nations who continue to use sewage wastes as crop fertilizer are endangering their own citizens and condemns these nations for such a blatant disregard for human health.
4) Reminds all UN nations that sewage treatment waste facilities are never 100 % effective in breaking down materials naturally and that bacteria cannot break down everything.
5) Considers that a smart alternative for the use of this sludge fertilizer would be to use it as a fertilizer for areas that are not used for human or animal farm consumption.
6) Further resolves that if this resolution is passed, all crops that have used sewage fertilizer must be destroyed so as to ensure that human health is no longer in danger.
7) Declares accordingly that fields who have come under contact of sewage fertilizer be no longer used for a minimum of five years so that the soil will be cleansed from such fertilizer.
8) Congratulates any nations who choose not to use the fields for a longer period of time.
9) Proclaims that if a nation cannot destroy all crops that have used sewage fertilizer because it will bring about food shortages, fellow members of the nation’s region donate food to ensure the safety of the people. If even this is not possible, that nations of other regions donate food.
10) Defines food shortages as a nation not being able to supply for the demand of the food.
11) Authorizes that poverty stricken nations who support this resolution but have little means of enforcing it outside of major urban areas, allow personnel, not military personnel, to come into the nation so as to destroy any dangerous crops.
12) Allows that the nation letting personnel into the country to destroy such crops, choose the personnel who enters the country. This is ensure that no malice takes place and that innocent crops are not destroyed intentionally from enemy nations.
13) Calls upon the main tool of destroying these crops be fire. So as to destroy the crops completely.
14) Notes that nations outside the UN may continue to use such fertilizers for their crops and can possibly sell their agriculture products to UN members so recommends that all nations carefully inspect any foods that come from outside of the UN nations.
15) Encourages that UN members enlighten other countries of the dangers of using sewage fertilizer in the hope that they stop using such fertilizer as well.
16) Regrets that if nations outside the UN still use sewage fertilizer and refuses to sell foods that do not use such fertilizer, that all UN nations cease to be a buyer of foods from these nations.
17) If a UN nation must buy from a nation that uses sewage fertilizer based on dependability, (i.e. that the UN nation must buy from this nation because it sells them eggplant at the only price they can afford it) that the UN nation be supplied by other UN nations at the same or lower price.
18) Considers the option, that if and only if 2/3 of the UN nations support this bill, that the UN set up a committee designed to make sure that the use of sewage fertilizer be never used again unless this resolution be repealed.
19) Reminds all UN members of cases not only in Dicomte, but in the nations of YI-, Nothern Lights, Belka, WJP3, and millions of other nations who have had cases in which persons have become ill in similar ways as mentioned before.
20) Urges all regional delegates to approve of this bill simply because it is for the betterment of society as it works to improve human health consumption.

Got a character count on this?

HAVING HEARD of three cases in the Republic of Dicomte in which victims who ate carrots from crops using sewage fertilizer became blind. It was later found that the fertilizer had flame retardant material which had not broken down at all.

OOC: Now, I'm not 100% on this, but can fictional events that took place in a member nation be used as evidence to support a resolution?

Maybe so, but I don't know. Also, specific mentioning of member nations or regions as part of the proposal is apparently frowned upon by moderators, or the N.S.U.N community as a whole, or something along those lines. I read it somewhere.

Plus, this may be considered more of a national issue than an international one. Nations may decide that they will do whatever they want with their sewage, and may argue that if the Republic of Dicomte had citizens go blind, why dosen't the Republic of Dicomte enforce it, and leave other nations to their own sewage-using devices.

On top of that, the resolution is very long. Long enough, in fact, that many nations may choose not to read it. This is a problem when so many votes are required to even get it to the N.S.U.N as a potential resolution.

These are just a few problems I can see. In it's current form, I will virtually guarantee that this won't get off the ground.

Nothing against the concept though - it seems to be more sound than at least half the proposals currently on the proposal list.

IC: The People's Republic of Coquetvia wishes to commend the Republic of Dicomte for their obvious concern for their own citizens and the citizens of nations worldwide.

However, whilst noble in aim, this proposition does not have the support of the People's Republic of Coquetvia in it's current form.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia sees too many problems with the resolution as it stands, and will not consider the matter again until an extensive redraft is completed.

Discuss any issues you have with this proposal here.

Sewage Fertilizer

AWARE OF nations using sewage wastes as fertilizer for human crops.

ALARMED BY the lack of care in treating wastes with enough bacteria in breaking down these wastes.

HAVING HEARD of three cases in the Republic of Dicomte in which victims who ate carrots from crops using sewage fertilizer became blind. It was later found that the fertilizer had flame retardant material which had not broken down at all.

FULLY AWARE that citizens in all nations constantly flush materials which may contain chemicals or other hazardous products down the toilet with little disregard to their actions.

NOTING WITH REGRET, that many nations, including ones in the New Earth Alliance Region, do not have adequate sewage treatment facilities.

REALIZING that crops that are sold for human or farm animal consumption should no longer use fertilizer that comes from sewage treatment facilities.


.... why not?



1) Calls upon all UN nations to no longer use sewage wastes as crop fertilizer.


We have little choice, but are exponentially ahead of most nations in our treatment regimens... we have to be.



2) Encourages that nations show it’s citizens that flushing anything other than tissue paper and human wastes are a threat to their food supply.


:eek: Wait, what about penguins? It took forever to get them to use the blasted things... seriously - remove "human" and put in "bodily".



3) Affirms that all nations who continue to use sewage wastes as crop fertilizer are endangering their own citizens and condemns these nations for such a blatant disregard for human health.

:(



4) Reminds all UN nations that sewage treatment waste facilities are never 100 % effective in breaking down materials naturally and that bacteria cannot break down everything.

And you limit yourself to bacteria why?



5) Considers that a smart alternative for the use of this sludge fertilizer would be to use it as a fertilizer for areas that are not used for human or animal farm consumption.

Oh, we do that too...



6) Further resolves that if this resolution is passed, all crops that have used sewage fertilizer must be destroyed so as to ensure that human health is no longer in danger.

It's not in danger now....



7) Declares accordingly that fields who have come under contact of sewage fertilizer be no longer used for a minimum of five years so that the soil will be cleansed from such fertilizer.

FIVE YEARS??? Starvation is appealing to you???



8) Congratulates any nations who choose not to use the fields for a longer period of time.

Because, say, they're all dead?



9) Proclaims that if a nation cannot destroy all crops that have used sewage fertilizer because it will bring about food shortages, fellow members of the nation’s region donate food to ensure the safety of the people. If even this is not possible, that nations of other regions donate food.

Not relevant. All UN nations must follow passed resolutions and be in compliance, so this won't happen as written. Rewrite needed between seven and nine.



10) Defines food shortages as a nation not being able to supply for the demand of the food.

Duh.



11) Authorizes that poverty stricken nations who support this resolution but have little means of enforcing it outside of major urban areas, allow personnel, not military personnel, to come into the nation so as to destroy any dangerous crops.

Not needed, see above.


12) Allows that the nation letting personnel into the country to destroy such crops, choose the personnel who enters the country. This is ensure that no malice takes place and that innocent crops are not destroyed intentionally from enemy nations.


Not needed, see above.



13) Calls upon the main tool of destroying these crops be fire. So as to destroy the crops completely.

Aww, no ocean dumping?



14) Notes that nations outside the UN may continue to use such fertilizers for their crops and can possibly sell their agriculture products to UN members so recommends that all nations carefully inspect any foods that come from outside of the UN nations.

"You can do what you have been doing, probably..."



15) Encourages that UN members enlighten other countries of the dangers of using sewage fertilizer in the hope that they stop using such fertilizer as well.


.... right....



16) Regrets that if nations outside the UN still use sewage fertilizer and refuses to sell foods that do not use such fertilizer, that all UN nations cease to be a buyer of foods from these nations.

Might want to reword this.



17) If a UN nation must buy from a nation that uses sewage fertilizer based on dependability, (i.e. that the UN nation must buy from this nation because it sells them eggplant at the only price they can afford it) that the UN nation be supplied by other UN nations at the same or lower price.

:confused:



18) Considers the option, that if and only if 2/3 of the UN nations support this bill, that the UN set up a committee designed to make sure that the use of sewage fertilizer be never used again unless this resolution be repealed.


Illegal. Proposals are "all or nothing".



19) Reminds all UN members of cases not only in Dicomte, but in the nations of YI-, Nothern Lights, Belka, WJP3, and millions of other nations who have had cases in which persons have become ill in similar ways as mentioned before.
20) Urges all regional delegates to approve of this bill simply because it is for the betterment of society as it works to improve human health consumption.

Our answer - "get better tech".

Let me check - Are you advocating a banning of the use of manure as a fertiliser? That's been in use for millenia. And it's what 'sewage' comprises of.

They're banning the use of human manure. Amazingly, for such a disease-ridden species, human manure is actually one of the cleanest when it comes to bacteria and diseases, at least compared to other bodily productions. Humans prefer to concentrate the largest amount of bacteria and disease within saliva.

... and it does matter how you treat it, and with what.

They're banning the use of human manure. Amazingly, for such a disease-ridden species, human manure is actually one of the cleanest when it comes to bacteria and diseases, at least compared to other bodily productions. Humans prefer to concentrate the largest amount of bacteria and disease within saliva.
But sewers are constantly filled with chemicals as well as human manure.

But sewers are constantly filled with chemicals as well as human manure.
But surely that is a problem for your plumbers to fix. If you have dangerous chemicals leaking into your sewage system, then you could likely have dangerous chemicals also entering your clean water system.

Just use Soylant... its a lot easier and requires no growing or fertilizers...

Just use Soylant... its a lot easier and requires no growing or fertilizers...
But Soylent green is people!

Oh, uh, got a bit confused there. Thought you meant Soylent, when you said soylant. Obviously different, because soylent is mainly comprised of soya and lentils, plus a few... extras. I'm not sure what soylant is made of.

But Soylent green is people!

Oh, uh, got a bit confused there. Thought you meant Soylent, when you said soylant. Obviously different, because soylent is mainly comprised of soya and lentils, plus a few... extras. I'm not sure what soylant is made of.

Oh no.. your quite right.. its my bad I spelled it wrong.. Soylent Green... no growing or fertilization required..

i think you are right and that this issue needs to be taking into the un's hands.

I can just see the headlines now...

"UN Makes Shit Resolution, Citizens Appalled"

I can just see the headlines now...

"UN Makes Shit Resolution, Citizens Appalled"


And if that isn't enough to make nations want to vote in favour, I don't know what will be. :)

As for the proposal, I think the idea is novel! I'd like to see the resolution focused a bit more. Stylistically, I think a few of the clauses might be dropped and more white space added -- and the reason I think this is important is due to a potential short attention span on the part of many players.

For example:
"18) Considers the option, that if and only if 2/3 of the UN nations support this bill, that the UN set up a committee designed to make sure that the use of sewage fertilizer be never used again unless this resolution be repealed."

I'd drop this, because in the game we typically just assume that all nations support UN resolutions. How they roleplay them is their business (unless you happen to be a facist, in which case you want everybody jumping when you tell them to jump) -- but I think things like "unless this resolution be repealed" are already implied.

I'd also remove:
"20) Urges all regional delegates to approve of this bill simply because it is for the betterment of society as it works to improve human health consumption."

This is making a reference to the proposal process.

The following should actually be a Preamble:

"19) Reminds all UN members of cases not only in Dicomte, but in the nations of YI-, Nothern Lights, Belka, WJP3, and millions of other nations who have had cases in which persons have become ill in similar ways as mentioned before."

Change this to ...

OBSERVING that many nations have reported cases in which the public has become ill,

But move it near the top of your resolution. If somebody challenges you, you can then talk about your nations and others. You certainly don't want to reference "millions of other nations", because NationStates currently only has 127,000 and NationStates has barely broken the 1-million mark IIRC.

I honestly see a great deal of unique promise in this resolution. If you'd like, Wednesday night I will be happy to reformat your text and reword the resolution some and show you how my government would like to see the resolution written.

OOC: The other thing I think you'll want to do for the UN forum is find some real world reports. People are going to make up arguments for and against this idea. While they can fantasy / roleplay, I'd like to see some real world reports, as many players will dismiss tech-wanking in favour of a resolution that addresses a real world problem.

But surely that is a problem for your plumbers to fix. If you have dangerous chemicals leaking into your sewage system, then you could likely have dangerous chemicals also entering your clean water system.
You haven't read the whole proposal. We are concerned of people flushing chemicals down the toilet.

I'm sure most of you think this resolution is a joke, but Dicomte is serious. This is a major problems that many nations choose to ignore simply because there is no other use for the wastes. But using it this way is dangerous. If it is really needed, I will post sources from real life that actually show that this is a problem in Canada and other nations.

I thank Mikivity for the suggestions. I shall seriously consider doing the changes you mentioned. You are free to reword it if you so please and I will mention your name in the proposal seeing that it would be wrong for me to take all the credit.

Sincerely,
Dicomte

I thank Mikivity for the suggestions. I shall seriously consider doing the changes you mentioned. You are free to reword it if you so please and I will mention your name in the proposal seeing that it would be wrong for me to take all the credit.


I'm not looking for credit, but thanks! My government just wants to see the NationStates United Nations talk about public health, of which sanitation is an important component, and hope that this honored body will give your government's idea its fair time on the UN floor!

[edit: and no, I instantly realized your proposal was serious. Sanitation was a serious issue in industrial nations 100-years ago, and still is today in many third-world nations. Not everybody can start off with space faring tech.

It is good to see that someone else actually cares of such a serious issue.

So what does everybody else feel of this proposal?

It is good to see that someone else actually cares of such a serious issue.

So what does everybody else feel of this proposal?

Though I made light of it earlier, I do think that sewage is a serious issue. It's just that I think it's more appropriate for the individual nations to handle, perhaps in cooperation with their close neighbors if necessary.

Though I made light of it earlier, I do think that sewage is a serious issue. It's just that I think it's more appropriate for the individual nations to handle, perhaps in cooperation with their close neighbors if necessary.
Which brings up an interesting question, what if the nation sells it's fertilizer to another nation? I'll have to think of that.

Which brings up an interesting question, what if the nation sells it's fertilizer to another nation? I'll have to think of that.

What you may want to consider is doing a proposal on the sale and transport of toxic materials over international borders without the consent of all nations involved. I would be more likely to support that, or at least be neutral on it.

Question is, is it viable? In many areas where tech. isn't up to modern standards manure is one of the only readily available fertilisers. If that is taken away wouldn't low tech nations face lower harvests and eventually even famine? If this proposal does go through the UN would have to at least organise fertiliser shipments to affected areas.

What about enforcing a ban on using unsanitised manure? A solar drying system, although it may be slightly aggravating on the nose is quite easy and cheap to set up. Any manure processed this way would be safe to use. (and who the hell has heard of flame retardants being in human manure?)

What about biomass generators? They are some of the most effective power sources for low tech nations and these to are run on manure. Are you going to ban these as well?

You realize that this effectively renders our off-world and undersea colonies untenable?

Such closed systems must recycle human wastes into fertiliser to survive.

What you may want to consider is doing a proposal on the sale and transport of toxic materials over international borders without the consent of all nations involved. I would be more likely to support that, or at least be neutral on it.

Actually this is another incredibly great idea! It is focused, and would probably appeal to many nations that feel the UN has gone too far, by clearly focusing on an international problem.

But sewers are constantly filled with chemicals as well as human manure.

That's why you need waste treatment plants that are capable of separating organic from inorganic, then harmful from harmless.

I like this proposal... but the others are right, it does need redrafting.
(OOC: I've done a lot of research on cholera if that'd be helpful... in many cases it's spread through the use of untreated fertiliser)
I'll keep my eye on this one ^^

The People's Republic of Coquetvia would again like to state that if the above concept were re-drafted, we would likely support it through proposal and resolution stages.

Protecting the health and welfare of our citizen's is paramount to the People's Republic of Coquetvia.

However, a final version of this proposal would have to be seen by Coquetvian representatives before the People's Repubilc of Coquetvia could guarantee unqualified support for this proposal.

That's why you need waste treatment plants that are capable of separating organic from inorganic, then harmful from harmless.
This is much harder than you make it sound. That is why I said that it can never be 100% effective. This is because bacteria cannot get rid of everything in the world.

It is good to see that someone else actually cares of such a serious issue.

So what does everybody else feel of this proposal?

How dows everyone else feel about the issue??? Let's examine the issue from a UN prospective shall we???

1) Third world nations will now be upgraded, by this proposal. They have to do it....How are they going to pay for it??? Are the the first world nations going to do it??? I'd like my check made out tooo.....


2) UN is a universal group. What works on one planet, won't work on another. Will your sewage problem effect my planet??? I don't think so, unless you would like to rocket some over. In which case, I'll consider it an act of war.

3) Oh, there is no three....You know why????


THIS IS A REGIONAL MATTER, at best. Your sewage problems are not the universes issues.

I urge every nation that doesn't exist in the proposer's region to decline approval of something that doesn't effect you.

If you have a problem with sewage, I urge you to take it up with your region, where garbage like this belongs.

This is a complete, and utter, waste of time and energy. This NOT an international problem.

This is much harder than you make it sound. That is why I said that it can never be 100% effective. This is because bacteria cannot get rid of everything in the world.

To need something is the simplest act in the world. To actually get it is a different matter.

You are forgetting something: You are only looking at bacteria. Bacteria can only be improved so far before they are no longer bacteria. However, a machine will remain a machine up until you give it sentience. Work on the machines, not the bacteria.

THe proble, DLE, isn't that bacteria can't get rid of everything. The problem is that you don't want it to. In basic terms, there are two types of bacteria, good and bad. Yes, the bad can be destroyed by the good. But, without the bad, the good have nothing to feed off of.

You need both types in the universe, and you can't have one with the other. Kind of like life and death.

THe proble, DLE, isn't that bacteria can't get rid of everything. The problem is that you don't want it to. In basic terms, there are two types of bacteria, good and bad.

Wrong. Bacteria *can* get rid of everything; they merely need the adapatations to render it possible. If that bacteria exists, it is perfectly possible to genetically engineer one - they're even able to do that in RL atm. What you mean is... the bacteria *you don't have* can't get rid of everything.
Oh... and calling bacteria 'good' and 'bad' is both a gross generalisation and fairly poor in terms of science, even for a layman.. [I assume you're a layman, I apologise if I'm wrong]

Yes, the bad can be destroyed by the good. But, without the bad, the good have nothing to feed off of.

Wrong again I'm afraid... the 'good' (by which I assume you mean bacteria which don't harm humans - non-pathogenic bacteria) can survive perfectly adequately alone. Out of the millions of seperate species of bacteria living in the human gut, only a handful are pathogenic... and all live on our system, not each other. If you took one bacteria out and put it in agar jelly it would survive and replicate perfectly normally.
Bacteria can, as a rule, survive alone. The reason pathogens exist is that it's all but impossible to get rid of them.

2) UN is a universal group. What works on one planet, won't work on another. Will your sewage problem effect my planet??? I don't think so, unless you would like to rocket some over. In which case, I'll consider it an act of war.

The very nature of sewage (human and animal sewage at least) is that it is toxic. That doesn't change when you change planet; the waste is still nitrogenous, and therefore still toxic. It still contains the same chemicals, and so the same microbes are capable of living in it, unless you have a different type of atmosphere (in which case, chances are some other pathogens will exist to bring you diseases. If you don't have them now, you will have them now, you will do. It's scientifically unfeasible for a planet which can be inhabited to not throw up bacteria.
However, you're right that what works on one planet in particular may not work on another. Nevertheless, if we can assume that the UN is made up of humans (A generalisation; correct me if I'm wrong, I'm relatively new here), we can set up guidelines. That's what we're here for.

THIS IS A REGIONAL MATTER, at best. Your sewage problems are not the universes issues.

The majority of UN resolutions are regional insofar as they act on specific nations. However, resolutions can be made which pass a standard which must be kept to, for the good of all the UN's people. That is the spirit of many resolutions already passed (e.g. health + safety area resolutions).

This is a complete, and utter, waste of time and energy. This NOT an international problem.

The best precedent I can draw from from a quick scan of the first few pages of resolutions (even in these few pages there are many others I could use) is resolution #9 - 'Keep the World Disease-Free!'. The spirit is the same, and even some of the points tie in to the general nature of this debate. If you want to make this type of point, you'd need to repeal this resolution and all others like it (on the grounds that it 'isn't international') before your claim held any weight.

To need something is the simplest act in the world. To actually get it is a different matter.

Wise, profound words. They don't actually help, but I liked them ^_-

You are forgetting something: You are only looking at bacteria. Bacteria can only be improved so far before they are no longer bacteria. However, a machine will remain a machine up until you give it sentience. Work on the machines, not the bacteria.

It depends on your technological area. Theoretically speaking, machines are more versatile and could effectively do anything... but you'd need the knowledge to be able to create them, and that is far, far easier said than done. If you take the real world example - machines can't synthesize human insulin. But putting specific genes in a bacteria mean that the bacteria *can* create insulin. Sometimes a nations technology base means that it simply isn't viable to throw money into machines because the biological alternative is far easier to reach.



Yiplonia still waits for a redraft to back :P

Wise, profound words. They don't actually help, but I liked them ^_-

Wisdom always helps. Even if the helping is just to mock others.

It depends on your technological area. Theoretically speaking, machines are more versatile and could effectively do anything... but you'd need the knowledge to be able to create them, and that is far, far easier said than done. If you take the real world example - machines can't synthesize human insulin. But putting specific genes in a bacteria mean that the bacteria *can* create insulin. Sometimes a nations technology base means that it simply isn't viable to throw money into machines because the biological alternative is far easier to reach.

I was looking more at the modern era. Even in the modern era, the technology exists for such as I was speaking. If you go to more advanced eras, you have plenty of other options for what to do with it.

This is much harder than you make it sound. That is why I said that it can never be 100% effective. This is because bacteria cannot get rid of everything in the world.

Again, why are you depending on bacteria for everything?

I have a question, do you want to focus on wastewater treatement or drinking water quality? Perhaps we can find something to get us all moving in the same direction.

Wrong. Bacteria *can* get rid of everything; they merely need the adaptations to render it possible. If that bacteria exists, it is perfectly possible to genetically engineer one - they're even able to do that in RL atm. What you mean is... the bacteria *you don't have* can't get rid of everything.
Oh... and calling bacteria 'good' and 'bad' is both a gross generalisation and fairly poor in terms of science, even for a layman.. [I assume you're a layman, I apologise if I'm wrong]

I would love to see this. Layman?? Yes, I am. I haven't spent my life studying the organism. However....I would state that if one organism kills another.... Does the other die too??? No, it doesn't. Unless you are a biologist, you may want to do some research...I have done some.

I don't disagree with that genetically engineered bacteria is going on. ANd I'm glad it is...Otherwise, we wouldn't be figuring out a lot of diseases now would we? You want to cure the world's diseases...Start at the bottom and work your way up. ;)


Wrong again I'm afraid... the 'good' (by which I assume you mean bacteria which don't harm humans - non-pathogenic bacteria) can survive perfectly adequately alone. Out of the millions of seperate species of bacteria living in the human gut, only a handful are pathogenic... and all live on our system, not each other. If you took one bacteria out and put it in agar jelly it would survive and replicate perfectly normally.
Bacteria can, as a rule, survive alone. The reason pathogens exist is that it's all but impossible to get rid of them.

Correct, thanks for the science lesson. However....This is the internet, just how scientific do assume most people to be. Sorry, but I'll continue to use my layman's terms as they help people understand where scientific terms will confuse. But, you have just contridicted (Sp?) yourself. Bacteria can survive alone, but can rid of everything?? Is that really everything?? I think not. But, thanks for agreeing with me, even if indirectly.

The very nature of sewage (human and animal sewage at least) is that it is toxic. That doesn't change when you change planet; the waste is still nitrogenous, and therefore still toxic. It still contains the same chemicals, and so the same microbes are capable of living in it, unless you have a different type of atmosphere (in which case, chances are some other pathogens will exist to bring you diseases. If you don't have them now, you will have them now, you will do. It's scientifically unfeasible for a planet which can be inhabited to not throw up bacteria.
However, you're right that what works on one planet in particular may not work on another. Nevertheless, if we can assume that the UN is made up of humans (A generalisation; correct me if I'm wrong, I'm relatively new here), we can set up guidelines. That's what we're here for.

Quite true...However, who says it's a problem in my country? My countrymen don't. It's going somewhere. Oh...and throwup?? Who's using generalizing, and theorizing, now? You don't know that....I do know that you can't prove that.

Sewage is not an issue in every country, don't add it to my problems, I have my own, and don't need yours.


The majority of UN resolutions are regional insofar as they act on specific nations. However, resolutions can be made which pass a standard which must be kept to, for the good of all the UN's people. That is the spirit of many resolutions already passed (e.g. health + safety area resolutions).


Correct....And I will fight it with every resolution, if I have to. Unfortunately, this is the case. 99% of the resolutions that come through and bogus, do nothing, mean nothing, and are only useful on Earth, in a particular region of the planet.

Are there some I agree with? Certainly, any resolution that is international in nature. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this international in nature. Your country's problems are not mine, so don't issues into my country, thanks.


The best precedent I can draw from from a quick scan of the first few pages of resolutions (even in these few pages there are many others I could use) is resolution #9 - 'Keep the World Disease-Free!'. The spirit is the same, and even some of the points tie in to the general nature of this debate. If you want to make this type of point, you'd need to repeal this resolution and all others like it (on the grounds that it 'isn't international') before your claim held any weight.


Hmm....Didn't agree with that one either, thanks.





Understand...I'm not trying to argue, but if you are a scientist...Tell me so, and prove it. I like to learn more about things I don't have comeplete information on. My science classes in school were a few years, so things may have changed, but understand... My teachers and holymen hated me...I question everything, and won't stop until I get the answers. ;)

Let Dicomte make something clear.

We are not banning manure. What we hope to get rid of is the use of sludge that comes from sewage plants as fertilizer. This is a threat to every nation, third world or even the richest out there. The most common way sewage plants break down human wastes is by bacteria. What is often not taken into account is the fact that more than human wastes are not flowing down the toilet. From a personal experience in rea life- My mother used to flush dirty oil and bleach down the toilet. No joke. I only got her to stop after showing her that what she was flushing down the toilet came back as fertilizer.

I am not a scientist, but the bacteria used in sewage plants would most likely not be effective enough in breaking down oil. It just passes by, unable to be broken down, and is made into a sludge which is then used as fertilizer. This is a blatant danger to humans because they may eat the food that used such fertilizer.

Also I would like to point out that 3rd world nations probably don't even have sewage plants and don't use such fertilizer. So in one way, they aren't poisoning there food supply.

I will get the redraft done on Friday.

I would love to see this. Layman?? Yes, I am. I haven't spent my life studying the organism. However....I would state that if one organism kills another.... Does the other die too??? No, it doesn't. Unless you are a biologist, you may want to do some research...I have done some.

Well... I'm an A level biology student sitting on a high A and I'm studying Bioinformatics at university next year, I'm not sure if that counts. I'm not quite sure what point you're making... in terms of bacteria, it's not usually as simple as 'one organism kills another'... rephrase your point please?

Correct, thanks for the science lesson. However....This is the internet, just how scientific do assume most people to be. Sorry, but I'll continue to use my layman's terms as they help people understand where scientific terms will confuse. But, you have just contridicted (Sp?) yourself. Bacteria can survive alone, but can rid of everything?? Is that really everything?? I think not. But, thanks for agreeing with me, even if indirectly.


Um... again I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Bacteria alone can survive alone, yes. Bacteria can be engineered (or even evolve) to break down anything, yes. An example of a bacteria engineered to break down something odd is in the bacterium currently being developed to consume polymers and break them down (i.e. to get rid of plastic bags without burning them and polluting). Nothing that currently exists in nature can break that substance down, but we're creating one, and having limited success. 'get rid of' is kinda a bad turn of phrase I guess... really it means they can break down the substance involved in such a way as to allow them to derive nutrients from it.

Quite true...However, who says it's a problem in my country? My countrymen don't. It's going somewhere. Oh...and throwup?? Who's using generalizing, and theorizing, now? You don't know that....I do know that you can't prove that.

Sewage is not an issue in every country, don't add it to my problems, I have my own, and don't need yours.

As per throwing up a species of bacteria - it is scientifically proven that any contained system (such as a planet or planetoid) will tend towards more complex systems over time. This is why life evolved on our planet, first through basic protazoa. It will find a way, so long as the conditions exist to make it habitable in some way.
As per it being 'your problem' or not... well, not everything is your problem is it now. But the guidelines in question would be a *MINIMUM* requirement. If you don't have a problem, you won't have to change anything. So you won't be 'getting other peoples problems', merely helping to ensure that other people handle those problems fine.

Correct....And I will fight it with every resolution, if I have to. Unfortunately, this is the case. 99% of the resolutions that come through and bogus, do nothing, mean nothing, and are only useful on Earth, in a particular region of the planet.

Are there some I agree with? Certainly, any resolution that is international in nature. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this international in nature. Your country's problems are not mine, so don't issues into my country, thanks.

Again, if it doesn't affect you, it's not your problem. Just some writing. Nothing that controls your nation in any way. If you want to fight every resolution go ahead - if you pass so much as one repeal I'll be amazed. Until those currently standing resolutions are repealed, your argument doesn't hold water. The UN has shown that it, as a body, *WANTS* to deal with those matters, and until you prove otherwise, you'll just have to live with it.

Hmm....Didn't agree with that one either, thanks.

Get it repealed then! Or else accept that sometimes the UNs wishes don't square up to your own. That is the case in one or two points for myself, but I have accepted the UNs wishes and made the nescessary changes. I'm that sort of dictator.

but if you are a scientist...Tell me so, and prove it

I'm afraid short of explaining the Biology or Chemistry syllabus' to you I can't really prove it. You'll have to take my word on it.

I have a question, do you want to focus on wastewater treatement or drinking water quality? Perhaps we can find something to get us all moving in the same direction.

Don't hold me to this because I'm not certain, but I *think* the original proposal was intended to make waste processing better simply for usage on crops and so on. Of course the final resolution could be expanded to include drinking water etc. but considering the redraft is mostly to decrease the size of the proposal I'm not sure that's wise.

Let Dicomte make something clear.

We are not banning manure. What we hope to get rid of is the use of sludge that comes from sewage plants as fertilizer. This is a threat to every nation, third world or even the richest out there. The most common way sewage plants break down human wastes is by bacteria. What is often not taken into account is the fact that more than human wastes are not flowing down the toilet. From a personal experience in rea life- My mother used to flush dirty oil and bleach down the toilet. No joke. I only got her to stop after showing her that what she was flushing down the toilet came back as fertilizer.

I am not a scientist, but the bacteria used in sewage plants would most likely not be effective enough in breaking down oil. It just passes by, unable to be broken down, and is made into a sludge which is then used as fertilizer. This is a blatant danger to humans because they may eat the food that used such fertilizer.

And let me make something clear: What you are doing is unnecessary. You are banning the use of something that a simple improvement in sewage treatment plants can easily deal with while managing to save money in the long run. Have people improve their sewage treatment plants and watch as the poisoning problem miraculously fades away.

Also I would like to point out that 3rd world nations probably don't even have sewage plants and don't use such fertilizer. So in one way, they aren't poisoning there food supply.

And in another way, they probably are.

I will get the redraft done on Friday.

This should be interesting.

And let me make something clear: What you are doing is unnecessary. You are banning the use of something that a simple improvement in sewage treatment plants can easily deal with while managing to save money in the long run. Have people improve their sewage treatment plants and watch as the poisoning problem miraculously fades away.

Let me mention something posted before.

Um... again I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Bacteria alone can survive alone, yes. Bacteria can be engineered (or even evolve) to break down anything, yes. An example of a bacteria engineered to break down something odd is in the bacterium currently being developed to consume polymers and break them down (i.e. to get rid of plastic bags without burning them and polluting). Nothing that currently exists in nature can break that substance down, but we're creating one, and having limited success. 'get rid of' is kinda a bad turn of phrase I guess... really it means they can break down the substance involved in such a way as to allow them to derive nutrients from it.

Note that plastic bags cannot be broken down and if one was to flush that down the toilet, no matter how many improvements the sewage plant made, it would not be able to get rid of the plastic bags.

Let me mention something posted before.

Um... again I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Bacteria alone can survive alone, yes. Bacteria can be engineered (or even evolve) to break down anything, yes. An example of a bacteria engineered to break down something odd is in the bacterium currently being developed to consume polymers and break them down (i.e. to get rid of plastic bags without burning them and polluting). Nothing that currently exists in nature can break that substance down, but we're creating one, and having limited success. 'get rid of' is kinda a bad turn of phrase I guess... really it means they can break down the substance involved in such a way as to allow them to derive nutrients from it.

That was posted by Yiplonia. If you intend on replying to segments of what people say, it helps if you quote them.

Note that plastic bags cannot be broken down and if one was to flush that down the toilet, no matter how many improvements the sewage plant made, it would not be able to get rid of the plastic bags.

Actually, plastic bags can be broken down. You just need to genetically engineer a bacteria that eats plastic. Hell, nature has already engineered one that eats industrial waste in the real world. I just wouldn't advise doing that due to the same reason I advise chemical weapons for destroying enemy fighters instead of biological.

As for the sewage treatment plants: Part of their job is to separate. They can separate out the stuff the bacteria the plant uses cannot handle for removal to toxic waste treatment plants or recycling centers equipped to be able to clean the materials of all toxic wastes before recycling.

That was posted by Yiplonia. If you intend on replying to segments of what people say, it helps if you quote them.



Actually, plastic bags can be broken down. You just need to genetically engineer a bacteria that eats plastic. Hell, nature has already engineered one that eats industrial waste in the real world. I just wouldn't advise doing that due to the same reason I advise chemical weapons for destroying enemy fighters instead of biological.

As for the sewage treatment plants: Part of their job is to separate. They can separate out the stuff the bacteria the plant uses cannot handle for removal to toxic waste treatment plants or recycling centers equipped to be able to clean the materials of all toxic wastes before recycling.Your point?

But at present, plastic bags cannot be broken down as you clearly state.

And that is why I say that they can never be 100% effective and still pose a hazard.

Your point?

Apparently missed. Next time I'll aim lower, so that if you fail to catch it it'll bounce off your face.

Really, my point is that it technically isn't impossible, but just something inadviseable that has a better path to go.

But at present, plastic bags cannot be broken down as you clearly state.

Not really. Modern technology has all of the genetic skills necessary.

And that is why I say that they can never be 100% effective and still pose a hazard.

Hey, don't say that until you actually try it. Machines can be surprisingly effective.

that really depends on how you look at it. Plastic is derived from oil and technically if tech was advanced enough you could break it down to basic hyrocarbons. Of course it wouldn't be cost-efficient but governments would be funding it so who cares?

that really depends on how you look at it. Plastic is derived from oil and technically if tech was advanced enough you could break it down to basic hyrocarbons. Of course it wouldn't be cost-efficient but governments would be funding it so who cares?

We shouldn't care because it's government funded? My dear colleague, unless your government is independently wealthy, your taxpayers may indeed care if it's government funded, the taxpayers in my nation will sure as hell care.

Well... I'm an A level biology student sitting on a high A and I'm studying Bioinformatics at university next year, I'm not sure if that counts. I'm not quite sure what point you're making... in terms of bacteria, it's not usually as simple as 'one organism kills another'... rephrase your point please?

Um... again I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Bacteria alone can survive alone, yes. Bacteria can be engineered (or even evolve) to break down anything, yes. An example of a bacteria engineered to break down something odd is in the bacterium currently being developed to consume polymers and break them down (i.e. to get rid of plastic bags without burning them and polluting). Nothing that currently exists in nature can break that substance down, but we're creating one, and having limited success. 'get rid of' is kinda a bad turn of phrase I guess... really it means they can break down the substance involved in such a way as to allow them to derive nutrients from it.

As per throwing up a species of bacteria - it is scientifically proven that any contained system (such as a planet or planetoid) will tend towards more complex systems over time. This is why life evolved on our planet, first through basic protazoa. It will find a way, so long as the conditions exist to make it habitable in some way.
As per it being 'your problem' or not... well, not everything is your problem is it now. But the guidelines in question would be a *MINIMUM* requirement. If you don't have a problem, you won't have to change anything. So you won't be 'getting other peoples problems', merely helping to ensure that other people handle those problems fine.

Ok, I'll rephrase point...Oh wait, I don't have to...You did. In spite of you think, we're stating pretty much the same thing, I think. I can be a bit hard to understand, since I don't have all the non-layman's terms.

Again, if it doesn't affect you, it's not your problem. Just some writing. Nothing that controls your nation in any way. If you want to fight every resolution go ahead - if you pass so much as one repeal I'll be amazed. Until those currently standing resolutions are repealed, your argument doesn't hold water. The UN has shown that it, as a body, *WANTS* to deal with those matters, and until you prove otherwise, you'll just have to live with it.

True, and I'll point you to the, ever intoxicating, Fast Food Proposal, if you feel that way. I'll be happy to fight you there too. Facts are, currently, this body is being used more as a nation control, instead of the RL UN is designed to emulate. Hence...I fight the garbage. And I'll continue to do so. If you don't like it....I could care less, sorry.


Get it repealed then! Or else accept that sometimes the UNs wishes don't square up to your own. That is the case in one or two points for myself, but I have accepted the UNs wishes and made the nescessary changes. I'm that sort of dictator.

Ever tried that yourself? I pick the fights I can have a chance in. I know I'm in the minority here, so getting a garbage resolution thrown out is harder than it looks, deal with it. I refuse to let every proposal slide through, because...The UN wants it that way.



I'm afraid short of explaining the Biology or Chemistry syllabus' to you I can't really prove it. You'll have to take my word on it.

Nope...Good enough for me.


Don't hold me to this because I'm not certain, but I *think* the original proposal was intended to make waste processing better simply for usage on crops and so on. Of course the final resolution could be expanded to include drinking water etc. but considering the redraft is mostly to decrease the size of the proposal I'm not sure that's wise.

Hey, maybe you can read this better than I can. This thing is more poorly written than a cell phone contract. Can't understand those either, with that legalize saying nothing.

And let me make something clear: What you are doing is unnecessary. You are banning the use of something that a simple improvement in sewage treatment plants can easily deal with while managing to save money in the long run. Have people improve their sewage treatment plants and watch as the poisoning problem miraculously fades away.

He's only banning the use of *untreated* waste, and running it through a sewage plant would stop it being untreated, ergo it wouldn't be banned.
You're right, it would save money in the long term... but when the single payment is twice the nation's cash reserves, that doesn't really matter.

Actually, plastic bags can be broken down. You just need to genetically engineer a bacteria that eats plastic. Hell, nature has already engineered one that eats industrial waste in the real world. I just wouldn't advise doing that due to the same reason I advise chemical weapons for destroying enemy fighters instead of biological.

Um... dude, that's exactly what I said... Oh, and if the reason you want to use chem weapons instead of biological ones is that the bacteria can survive, breed and mutate... it's perfectly possible to add genes which cause them to die spontaneously after a certain period of time.

As for the sewage treatment plants: Part of their job is to separate. They can separate out the stuff the bacteria the plant uses cannot handle for removal to toxic waste treatment plants or recycling centers equipped to be able to clean the materials of all toxic wastes before recycling.

True, true... all sewage treatment plants filter out the solids first (animal carcasses for example). The treatment then involves filtration through a bed of gravel containing a multitude of bacteria which break down the toxic products into manageable ones. That's how the British sewage system works anyway.

But at present, plastic bags cannot be broken down as you clearly state.

Yiplonia can but chooses not to over a bunch of issues (we use paper bags instead) and Karnivean (our sister soldier-state) doesn't use bags as all goods are delivered. Piplonia however, our cultural and scientific hub, does use these bacteria, although they're kept in a sealed lab and genetically programmed to die after 48 hours of life.

We shouldn't care because it's government funded? My dear colleague, unless your government is independently wealthy, your taxpayers may indeed care if it's government funded, the taxpayers in my nation will sure as hell care.

True enough. I have a personal fortune which is... somewhat considerable thanks to some lucky stock options and good investment, but I'm not gonna lever that into some foolhardy program to recycle polymers... Nor am I willing to contribute my funds recieved through taxes. The bacteria used in Piplonia takes in oxygen from the air, takes in a small amount of polymer (through use of a unique enzyme) and fixes the carbon into carbon dioxide. As such, the bacteria take in oxygen and give off hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide. [As a side note, we realise this adds to the greenhouse effect and plant 2X trees for every Y kilos of plastics broken down. We basically fix twice as much carbon dioxide as we produce in this manner, and use the excess in strip-felling and/or coppicing to produce that lovely Fabar wood you may have found in your marketplace - the dark blue colour is due to a bacterium which lives symbiotically with the tree ^_^]
I digress... and I wrote all that just to say 'I agree with that guy' :P

True, and I'll point you to the, ever intoxicating, Fast Food Proposal, if you feel that way. I'll be happy to fight you there too. Facts are, currently, this body is being used more as a nation control, instead of the RL UN is designed to emulate. Hence...I fight the garbage. And I'll continue to do so. If you don't like it....I could care less, sorry.

To make your points valid you'd have to fight every last battle... or else accept the fact that you *are* in a minority, and so *all* battles are hopeless from your point of view. The direction the UN takes is the buisness of the majority of its members, not the aim its founders had. To pluck a very random example out of the air, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Birds was founded to prevent women from wearing the feathers of endangered bird species in their hats. At present it is the second largest volunteer organisation for conservation in the UK. That isn't in the aims of the founders... but the majority of the members wanted to branch out, and so they did. Same thing, very different area.

He's only banning the use of *untreated* waste, and running it through a sewage plant would stop it being untreated, ergo it wouldn't be banned.
You're right, it would save money in the long term... but when the single payment is twice the nation's cash reserves, that doesn't really matter.

He's trying to ban the use of waste from sewage, without considering whether or not it is treated. Big difference.

Um... dude, that's exactly what I said... Oh, and if the reason you want to use chem weapons instead of biological ones is that the bacteria can survive, breed and mutate... it's perfectly possible to add genes which cause them to die spontaneously after a certain period of time.

Tried that. They mutated to have a shorter reproductive cycle.

True, true... all sewage treatment plants filter out the solids first (animal carcasses for example). The treatment then involves filtration through a bed of gravel containing a multitude of bacteria which break down the toxic products into manageable ones. That's how the British sewage system works anyway.

Which is actually not too bad, if a bit primitive compared to our own system.

It seems that my links weren't the best out there. I will provide better sources sometime this weekend. You all should still check this website out though.


http://www.ejnet.org/sludge/

A lot of nations are requesting a redraft. I have made a few minor changes, but I can't see anything else that should be removed or even can be removed without people asking about so and so in a certain situation. Let me just post it currently.

Sewage Fertilizer

AWARE OF nations using sewage wastes as fertilizer for human crops.

ALARMED BY the lack of care in treating wastes with enough bacteria in breaking down these wastes.

OBSERVING that many nations have reported cases in which the public has become ill.

HAVING HEARD of three cases in the Republic of Dicomte in which victims who ate carrots from crops using sewage fertilizer became blind. It was later found that the fertilizer had flame retardant material which had not broken down at all.

FULLY AWARE that citizens in all nations constantly flush materials which may contain chemicals or other hazardous products down the toilet with little disregard to their actions.

NOTING WITH REGRET, that many nations, including ones in the New Earth Alliance Region, do not have adequate sewage treatment facilities.

REALIZING that crops that are sold for human or farm animal consumption should no longer use fertilizer that comes from sewage treatment facilities.

1) Calls upon all UN nations to no longer use sewage wastes as crop fertilizer.
2) Encourages that nations show it’s citizens that flushing anything other than tissue paper and human wastes are a threat to their food supply.
3) Affirms that all nations who continue to use sewage wastes as crop fertilizer are endangering their own citizens and condemns these nations for such a blatant disregard for human health.
4) Reminds all UN nations that sewage treatment waste facilities are never 100 % effective in breaking down materials naturally and that bacteria cannot break down everything.
5) Considers that a smart alternative for the use of this sludge fertilizer would be to use it as a fertilizer for areas that are not used for human or animal farm consumption.
6) Further resolves that if this resolution is passed, all crops that have used sewage fertilizer must be destroyed so as to ensure that human health is no longer in danger.
7) Declares accordingly that fields who have come under contact of sewage fertilizer be no longer used for a minimum of five years so that the soil will be cleansed from such fertilizer.
8) Congratulates any nations who choose not to use the fields for a longer period of time.
9) Proclaims that if a nation cannot destroy all crops that have used sewage fertilizer because it will bring about food shortages, fellow members of the nation’s region donate food to ensure the safety of the people. If even this is not possible, that nations of other regions donate food.
10) Defines food shortages as a nation not being able to supply for the demand of the food.
11) Authorizes that poverty stricken nations who support this resolution but have little means of enforcing it outside of major urban areas, allow personnel, not military personnel, to come into the nation so as to destroy any dangerous crops.
12) Allows that the nation letting personnel into the country to destroy such crops, choose the personnel who enters the country. This is ensure that no malice takes place and that innocent crops are not destroyed intentionally from enemy nations.
13) Calls upon the main tool of destroying these crops be fire. So as to destroy the crops completely.
14) Notes that nations outside the UN may continue to use such fertilizers for their crops and can possibly sell their agriculture products to UN members so recommends that all nations carefully inspect any foods that come from outside of the UN nations.
15) Encourages that UN members enlighten other countries of the dangers of using sewage fertilizer in the hope that they stop using such fertilizer as well.
16) Regrets that if nations outside the UN still use sewage fertilizer and refuses to sell foods that do not use such fertilizer, that all UN nations cease to be a buyer of foods from these nations.
17) If a UN nation must buy from a nation that uses sewage fertilizer based on dependability, (i.e. that the UN nation must buy from this nation because it sells them eggplant at the only price they can afford it) that the UN nation be supplied by other UN nations at the same or lower price.

Let me just post some stories about treated sludge used as fertilizer.


This was just as bad as posting pictures of dead babies to posit an antiabortion thread - RL =/= NS...

The first story states it flatly - no proof. No evidence anything in the sludge did anything. Sure, someone died, but there is no evidence anything in the sludge had anything to do with it. If this is your idea of proof, it's the "dead baby picture" of this arguement - an emotional arguement attempting to disguise itself as logic. Useless.


The second even further destroys your point:

Under these circumstance, EPA said its analysis showed that only 0.003 new case of cancer per farm family could be expected each year, or only 0.22 new case per family over a span of 70 years.

"The risk to people in the general population of new cancer cases resulting from sewage sludge containing dioxin is even smaller due to lower exposures to dioxin in land-applied sewage sludge than the highly exposed farm family which EPA modeled," the agency said.

The EPA said data from 2001 found that dioxins levels in treated sewage sludge have declined since the agency's last survey in 1988. This downward trend is expected to continue as regulatory controls are placed on additional sources of dioxins in the environment, particularly on some combustion practices, according to EPA

In other words - the risk is lower then they expected.

Considering NSEarth is generally several orders of magnitude ahead in technology and ability, all you've done is destroy your own arguement. Kudos!

Alright I need to submit this proposal by the end of Saturday. So what else should the resolution have in it?

Alright I need to submit this proposal by the end of Saturday. So what else should the resolution have in it?You still have not taken into account the needs of space colonies. Such colonies employ closed life-support systems that must necessarily convert human waste into fertiliser. If you ban such practises, you prevent the U.N. from establishing or maintaining space colonies.

That is unacceptable.

Are space colonies nations or part of a nation on the Earth?

Are space colonies nations or part of a nation on the Earth?There are entire spacefaring nations in the NSUN. There are nations from every major body in our solar system.

Allemande is planning to construct both lunar colonies and colonies at L-4 and L-5.

With this resolution, if a country gets short on food, nations of the same region will provide them with temporary aid. Including space nations

With this resolution, if a country gets short on food, nations of the same region will provide them with temporary aid. Including space nations

If this passes, most space nations won't have enough ability to produce food to cover the deficit. Neither will many Earth nations. You really want a famine on your hands?

If this passes, most space nations won't have enough ability to produce food to cover the deficit. Neither will many Earth nations. You really want a famine on your hands?
There are other types of fertilizer besides ones obtained from sewage plants. They just will have to use those from now on.

sewage on human crops? That's down right disgusting.

sewage on human crops? That's down right disgusting.
Why not? people use animal shit for fertilizer all the time.

Why not? people use animal shit for fertilizer all the time.
Not just shit - body parts as well. Or what did you think "Blood and Bone Fertiliser" is?

Not just shit - body parts as well. Or what did you think "Blood and Bone Fertiliser" is?
Actually, until now I'd never heard of it.

Why not? people use animal shit for fertilizer all the time.Greetings. To complete the argument: "... so why not use human excrement for fertiliser? Food you can truly call 'homegrown'."

There are other types of fertilizer besides ones obtained from sewage plants. They just will have to use those from now on.

Which would be nice, but most space colonies can't. A little problem with requiring animals to produce it, something most of them don't have a luxury of having.

Actually, until now I'd never heard of it.
Wasn't meant to be a dig at you, sorry if it came out that way.

It's what we've often used on the garden at home, pretty much the ground-up leftovers from the abattoir

used on the garden at home, pretty much the ground-up leftovers from the abattoirSo that's where they all end up! :eek:

Not to be sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong (said the sailor to the schoolgirl), but I thought since you were having trouble I'd take a crack at a redraft... if, Dicomte, you want to use this, please feel free and don't offer me any recognition in the proposal ('tis a major faux pas to mention nations or regions in a proposal usually >.>). If not, no worries - I'm just trying to help. Here goes:-

------------------------------------------------------------------------


AWARE of nations using inadequately treated sewage wastes as fertilizer for crops.

OBSERVING that many nations have reported cases in which the public has become ill as a direct result of this practice.

AWARE that citizens in many nations incorrectly dispose of chemical waste due to ignorance.

NOTING WITH REGRET that many nations do not have adequate sewage treatment facilities.

1) Calls upon all UN nations to no longer use inadequately treated sewage wastes as crop fertilizer.
2) Encourages nations to inform their citizens of the damage caused by the incorrect disposal of chemical waste.
3) Affirms that all nations who continue to use inadequately treated sewage wastes as crop fertilizer are endangering their own citizens and condemns these nations for such a blatant disregard for human health.
4) Resolves to form a commitee of qualified individuals to set a requisite level of sewage treatment, which will reconvene annually to modify this level where appropriate.
5) Further resolves that if this resolution is passed, all crops that have been produced using inadequately treated sewage fertilizer must be destroyed so as to ensure that human health is no longer in danger.
6) Declares accordingly that fields which have been used in growing crops using inadequately treated sewage should not be used for a period of three years after the cessation of the usage of said sewage in order to avoid contamination.
7) Proclaims that the changes outlined in this resolution must be completed within a period of ten years after the acceptance of this proposal by the UN. This period is given to allow for fields to be left unused whilst still allowing enough fields to be used to produce adequate crop supplies.
8) Authorizes that poverty stricken nations who support this resolution but have little means of enforcing it outside of major urban areas, allow personnel, not military personnel, to come into the nation so as to destroy any dangerous crops.
9) Allows that the nation letting personnel into the country to destroy such crops, choose the personnel who enters the country. This is ensure that no malice takes place and that innocent crops are not destroyed intentionally from enemy nations.
10) Notes that nations outside the UN may continue to use such fertilizers for their crops and therefore recommends a careful inspection process to be implimented in all member nations to avoid contaminated produce reaching the marketplace of UN states.
11) Requests that if a UN nation must buy from a nation that uses inadequately treated sewage as fertilizer due to a food shortage or lack of funds to purchase more desirable food, other UN members offer a loan to said nation of food or money to purchase food at an interest rate of 0%.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There you have it... I took a few things out which I considered unnescessary, changed the way it worked a little and shortened it... like I say, if you don't like the changes you're free to ignore them, or just pick out bits you like, but if you fancy a hand then it's there for you

You've still doomed space colonies, and still do not recognize superior technology. This will be the third time those have been brought up.

You've still doomed space colonies, and still do not recognize superior technology. This will be the third time those have been brought up.
10) Notes that nations outside the UN may continue to use such fertilizers for their crops and therefore recommends a careful inspection process to be implimented in all member nations to avoid contaminated produce reaching the marketplace of UN states.

Snoogit's sewage tastes great on toast! Infact three nations actively trade our waste for the production of Dingleberry Jam!

We also use it to fertilize our crops, and we havent had any case of blindness.

You've still doomed space colonies, and still do not recognize superior technology. This will be the third time those have been brought up.

10) Notes that nations outside the UN may continue to use such fertilizers for their crops and therefore recommends a careful inspection process to be implimented in all member nations to avoid contaminated produce reaching the marketplace of UN states.

:rolleyes: How do I put this simplisticly enough.... "UN Nations which have space colonies or stations must now have them starve to death?".

Is that now clear enough?

With this resolution, if a country gets short on food, nations of the same region will provide them with temporary aid. Including space nationsThat's your answer?!?

What arrogance. What folly.

You're going to ship food out into space in sufficient quantities to keep those colonies vital? I don't think so. What I think you'll do is ship enough food to keep our colonists alive until they abandon their homes and return to Earth.

The fact that you have no answer is unacceptable.

There are other types of fertilizer besides ones obtained from sewage plants. They just will have to use those from now on.Yeah? Name them.

HINT: I bet they can't be found in space, only on Earthlike worlds.

You've still doomed space colonies, and still do not recognize superior technology. This will be the third time those have been brought up. Notes that nations outside the UN may continue to use such fertilizers for their crops and therefore recommends a careful inspection process to be implimented in all member nations to avoid contaminated produce reaching the marketplace of UN states.Whack! Whack! Whack!

<Sound of Allemande trying to beat the truth into Dicomte's head.>

Did you not understand that the U.N. is not limited to Earthbound nations?!?

It sounds like your answer to our compliant is "So leave the U.N."

That is unacceptable.

How do I put this simplisticly enough.... "UN Nations which have space colonies or stations must now have them starve to death?".

Is that now clear enough?Do we kill him now or later?

Greetings. To complete the argument: "... so why not use human excrement for fertiliser? Food you can truly call 'homegrown'."

People do. Its how most septic tank companies make their money.

I only need to reply to one point to reply to all of them, because they all say pretty much the same thing:-

You've still doomed space colonies, and still do not recognize superior technology. This will be the third time those have been brought up.

The reworded resolution states *INADEQUATELY TREATED* waste is inacceptable. Thus:-

a) if you have the technology and money to produce a space colony, you have the technology and money to produce a waste treatment facility on said space colony to aid it. Noone funds a several multi-billion pie space programme and then runs out of money just short of the couple of thousand required for a sewage processor. In the majority of programmes, such processors are *required* as part of the life support system - I know they are on Yiplonias prototype space vehicles, and on those of our allies. We have no colonies yet, but it seems like common sense to me.

b) It is also stated that a commitee would be created to define what is adequately treated and what is not. If you wish, we can put half a dozen commitee members specifically chosen to decide what is acceptable for space colonies and what is not acceptable. I see no reason why the commitee should not decide on a set of rules for one and a set of rules for another.

As much as those points seem to defuse the argument in general, I may as well defend the proposer of this idea from the attacks on him (regardless of how much he seems to be asking for them, if he gets slated the proposal is toast and I've worked hard on it now -.-)

ou're going to ship food out into space in sufficient quantities to keep those colonies vital? I don't think so. What I think you'll do is ship enough food to keep our colonists alive until they abandon their homes and return to Earth.

He makes a good point. Of course it's perfectly possible that they could instead ship the nescessities out to claim more land which could be used to grow untainted food - space colonies as a rule exist only on small areas of land whilst large areas around them are unused. The machinery, seeds and so on would be sent on loan and returned once they were no longer being used.
Alternatively, the starving nation could locate a nation which wishes to set up a colony on the same planet; they could help that colonisation on their end in exchange for food supplies both brought in and a share of those grown by the new colony, again on a no-interest loan scale. I'm not suggesting you go with these ideas; merely showing that you *can* overcome problems if you actually try to solve them instead of just identifying them angrily and waiting for someone else to deal with them.

Yeah? Name them.

HINT: I bet they can't be found in space, only on Earthlike worlds.

Does your colony not have an Earthlike atmosphere, at least contained within some kind of localised storage unit? I might just be excercising my ignorance here, but I thought that space colonies lived within a confined area of land which is terraformed to be livable, i.e. with an artificial atmosphere, usable soil etc. and so any bacteria which could live on Earth could live within those colonies also; all they require is a suitable sample to be sent out. If I'm wrong, m'eh; I'm sure those bacteria could be modified to be usable in the colony.

Do we kill him now or later?

I'm oh so tempted to refer to the war-council on the other thread :P I won't of course, but it's tempting nonetheless

Submitted the proposal. Thanks for all the help! If you agree with the proposal, make sure to vote for it!

The reworded resolution states *INADEQUATELY TREATED* waste is inacceptable.Certainly, this and other changes made by Yiplonia improved the measure tremendously. But what is "inadequately treated" waste?

...if you have the technology and money to produce a space colony, you have the technology and money to produce a waste treatment facility on said space colony to aid it. Noone funds a several multi-billion pie space programme and then runs out of money just short of the couple of thousand required for a sewage processor.Absolutely! And that brings us to the heart of the matter: why regulate such colonies at all? The problem facing Dicomte is unique to nations at or below Dicomte's level of technological development. That means that Dicomte is essentially asking that an additional, unnecessary level of bureaucratic regulation be imposed on societies that simply do not need it.

It is also stated that a commitee would be created to define what is adequately treated and what is not.In practise, this means that any design for a space colony would have to be submitted to the committee in advance of construction. This adds a entire layer of bureaucracy - and potentially political manoeuvring - to the process of building such colonies. What if anti-space activists come to dominate the committee and rule against all proposed designs? It wouldn't be the first time such a committee has been abused.

Worse, what if the committee issues a new ruling on space colony/arcology systems after a habitat has been established? Again, this wouldn't be the first time a committee changed its mind. The result would be chaos.

The machinery, seeds and so on would be sent on loan and returned once they were no longer being used.
Alternatively, the starving nation could locate a nation which wishes to set up a colony on the same planet; they could help that colonisation on their end in exchange for food supplies both brought in and a share of those grown by the new colony, again on a no-interest loan scale.Or, alternately, the population could simply be given enough emergency aid to prevent an immediate humanitarian disaster - and then be told in no uncertain terms to abandon the colony due to its no longer being "viable".

We in Allemande suspect that this last option would be the one most frequently exercised.

...space colonies as a rule exist only on small areas of land whilst large areas around them are unused.Not so. An O'Neill-style orbital habitat at L-4 or L-5 (or anywhere else, for that matter) can not expand into "unused territory"; there is no unused territory, just the habitat.

But even if you assume a ready supply of "arable" land just outside the colony, it would take time and money to convert that land to proper use.

All in all, we believe that the proposed rules would have a chilling effect on nations considering the construction of space colonies. There would simply be too much risk in what is already a risky proposition.

Certainly, this and other changes made by Yiplonia improved the measure tremendously. But what is "inadequately treated" waste?Wastes that have failed to be broken down by the use of bacteria or other methods.


Absolutely! And that brings us to the heart of the matter: why regulate such colonies at all? The problem facing Dicomte is unique to nations at or below Dicomte's level of technological development. That means that Dicomte is essentially asking that an additional, unnecessary level of bureaucratic regulation be imposed on societies that simply do not need it.So then are you implying that the proposal should have added that space colonys would not be changed in any way by this proposal? Sure many colonies have adequate waste treatment facilities, but that does not mean that their system is in any way perfect and immune to faults and accidents.

In practise, this means that any design for a space colony would have to be submitted to the committee in advance of construction. This adds a entire layer of bureaucracy - and potentially political manoeuvring - to the process of building such colonies. What if anti-space activists come to dominate the committee and rule against all proposed designs? It wouldn't be the first time such a committee has been abused.What would anti-space activists know about the structure of how space colonies are created? A reasonable explanation would be needed also as to why the colony could not be created. They can't just say no and that is it. Plus if they banned so many colonies from being created, it would be obvious that they are not doing their job and will be removed.

Worse, what if the committee issues a new ruling on space colony/arcology systems after a habitat has been established? Again, this wouldn't be the first time a committee changed its mind. The result would be chaos.

Or, alternately, the population could simply be given enough emergency aid to prevent an immediate humanitarian disaster - and then be told in no uncertain terms to abandon the colony due to its no longer being "viable"..I don't follow you. Can you provide an example? It is not like we are going to let people suffer if we can help it and there is no way that they would need to abondon their colony simply because of waste treatment.

All in all, we believe that the proposed rules would have a chilling effect on nations considering the construction of space colonies. There would simply be too much risk in what is already a risky proposition.Here is an idea, why not just use fertilizer at all if it is such a hassle that this resolution causes.

So then are you implying that the proposal should have added that space colonys would not be changed in any way by this proposal? Sure many colonies have adequate waste treatment facilities, but that does not mean that their system is in any way perfect and immune to faults and accidents.

How is this the UN's problem? This is a national issue, not an international one. Sure, my country is in the process of seeking out a possible colony. But, the isn't cause for me to request funding from the UN. I get the funds from my country. My country also has to handle the issue of wastes, and waste disposal. This isn't your problem, nor will it be.


What would anti-space activists know about the structure of how space colonies are created? A reasonable explanation would be needed also as to why the colony could not be created. They can't just say no and that is it. Plus if they banned so many colonies from being created, it would be obvious that they are not doing their job and will be removed.

THey would know nothing, plain and simple. If a nation does not want its people to colonize the universe, that is their problem, not mine or my nations.


I don't follow you. Can you provide an example? It is not like we are going to let people suffer if we can help it and there is no way that they would need to abondon their colony simply because of waste treatment.

I don't agree. If a colony is not adequately funded, it won't survive...No matter how much screaming it does to its government. Waste or otherwise won't matter, if nations don't do their jobs of supporting their own people.

How is this the UN's problem? This is a national issue, not an international one. Sure, my country is in the process of seeking out a possible colony. But, the isn't cause for me to request funding from the UN. I get the funds from my country. My country also has to handle the issue of wastes, and waste disposal. This isn't your problem, nor will it be.

Because all nations have problems with sewage treatment plants. Even the best nations out there with the best facilities cannot get rid of everything that is flushed down the toilet because bacteria cannot destroy everything.

Because all nations have problems with sewage treatment plants. Even the best nations out there with the best facilities cannot get rid of everything that is flushed down the toilet because bacteria cannot destroy everything.And you insist that bacteria are the only means we have for treating wastes, right?

If there's hard vacuum a few meters away from your waste treatment plant, with near absolute zero temperatures in shade in that vacuum and temperatures of hundreds of degrees in sunlight a few centimetres away from that shade (and that's without using lenses to focus sunlight to produce temperatures of thousands of degrees), and you've got the ability to leverage variable pseudo-gravity due to the fact that your colony is essentially a great big rotating cylinder in space (and can therefore subject a mass to anything from .00001G to 10G's just by moving it closer or further away from the colony's centre of gravity), why can't you just separate out chemicals by specific gravity, decompose waste into elemental gasses and liquids, and then cool (i.e., distill) the finished by-products off into raw materials than can be synthesised back into fertiliser (or plastics, or whatever else you wish)?

Recycling is an absolute requirement of space colonies. That recycling will have be extremely efficient - way past 99.99% - or the colony will not be economically viable (since any biomass inputs will have to come from millions of kilometres away). The whole thrust of this resolution is to declare that recycling can not be counted on to protect humans from all the bad things in waste - that recycling, in essence, is a failure and always will be - and that we must therefore permanently separate materials reclaimed from recycling from "natural" (meaning "Earth-made") materials and use only the latter for food production. The former - the products of recycling - are effectively banned from all but low-grade industrial use for 3-5 years - meaning that at best a space colony must have a tremendous reserve of nitrogenous materials convertible into agriculturally useful substances so that it never has to use anything that hasn't sat around "fallow" for 3-5 years.

In the design of space colonies, nitrogenous materials are by far the most important to recycle and preserve, because they are almost impossible to find beyond the confines of earth-like worlds. This resolution is a stake through the heart of space colonies, because it makes the one thing they need - nitrogen - something that they must maintain in prohibitively huge quantities, just so that they can leave 75%-85% of their stock unused at any given time when this is almost certainly going to be unnecessary, given the technology available to them.

We don't see any reason for abandoning our future just because a handful of people in Dicomte got sick eating carrots.

Here is an idea, why not just use fertiliser at all if it is such a hassle that this resolution causes.I take it you meant to say "why not just give up the use of fertiliser...?"

That would dramatically increase the amount of resources needed to produce food - and self-sufficiency in food is essential for all space colonies. Once more, you show that you are willing to hurt other countries to protect your people from their own poor infrastructure - one that your government is supposed to be maintaining anyway (or didn't you think of that)?

Here is an idea: why not just pass this legislation internally so that our people don't have to waste billions and billions of libres meeting a senseless mandate?

That, or give up eating carrots.