NationStates Jolt Archive

Chemical Transport Standards
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Norderia

Description: WHEREAS chemicals are a widely traded commodity;

WHEREAS no current standards exist for the identification or transportation of chemical substances;

WHEREAS the variety of nations in the UN may have myriad means of identifying and transporting chemical substances;

The United Nations;

BELIEVING that a lack of standards regarding the identification and transportation of chemical substances is a severe safety hazard;

1. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Hazard Rating (UNHR). The UNHR is a rating for common hazards of chemical substances. The UNHR includes the following information:
i) A flamability rating of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates a small flamability risk, and 4 indicates a high flamability risk;
ii) A health risk rating of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates a small health risk, and 4 indicates a high health risk;
iii) A reactivity risk rating of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates a small reactivity risk, and 4 indicates a high reactivity risk;
iv) A special notation to indicate specific risks, such as, but not restricted to an exceptionally high reactivity to water, or for strong oxidizers;

2. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Chemical Transportation Commission (UNCTC). The following are the UNCTC's duties:
i) To compile a list of, and define hazardous materials;
ii) To enumerate the list of hazardous materials, using the Arabic numerals (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), using twelve digits for each substance. These 12-digit numbers will be known as Chemical Identification Numbers (CIN);
iii) To prescribe minimum requirements for the safe transportation of hazardous materials;
iv) To compile a list of all other chemical substances and assign a CIN to each. A new CIN is to be assigned to differing isomers and isotopes of substances with identical chemical makeups;
v) To determine the UNHR for the substances as described in sections 2i and 2iv;

3. MANDATES
i) That UN member nations comply with the UNCTC's requirements and employ the UNCTC's CINs when transporting substances over international borders and international waters;
ii) That containers containing hazardous materials are clearly marked as such, on all faces of the containers. These markings will include the UNHR and CIN for the substance held within the container;
iii) That, under non-emergency circumstances, no substances shall be placed in a container that is marked for another substance;
iv) That, under non-emergency circumstances, no containers shall be vandalized, or mislabeled to misrepresent the substances contained within, or their potential hazard risks;
v) That UN member nations inform non-member nations that shipments that do not comply with the above four clauses may be turned away in the interest of the safety of the receiving nation;

4. EMPHASIZES that this Resolution does not mandate any changes to the current intranational systems being used by member nations;

5. ENCOURAGES member nations to implement the measures set forth by this Resolution in their own national transportation systems.

This will be up to vote within the next week. It is my first Resolution (not my first proposal, Repeal: Patient's Rights Act is on the back burner).

I will do my best to answer questions that are sure to come up before they do.

Does this do anything to my own country's system for labeling and identification system? No. Clause 4 emphasizes this. What this Resolution does do is mandate specific labeling, packaging, transporting, and identifying regulations for international transportation and shipping.

But these standards are really good. Can't I use it in my own nation? Certainly! I encourage it.

Does that mean my member nation has to use this when shipping to non-members as well? Yes. But that doesn't mean you can't also use a system that you and your non-member trading partner are familiar with simultaneously.

Does my non-member trading partner have to use these standards? No. But you are required to tell them that their shipments might be turned back. It'd be nice to get non-members to use this system as well (though that would of course be in roleplaying, since there are no game mechanics at that point).

Do I have to turn back non-member trades that don't adhere to these standards? No. But it'd be nice to get non-member compliance.

What are the benefits of such a system? Safety. Safety safety safety. It's simple. The more information you have about a chemical, the better you can both handle it and respond if an accident occurs. These standards will go a long way in preventing accidents, and informing those present during an accident about the measures they must go through to prevent any further damage or harm.

Does this Resolution cure cancer? Actually, it comes closer to curing cancer than other Resolutions. Because of the demands of the UNCTC, carcinogenic chemicals will be kept in safe containers during transport, and thus, could prevent the development of cancers in peoples who make a living handling those containers.

Why a Commission? The answer is simple. Anyone with more than a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry, and a rudimentary knowledge of the rules of this very UN will know that it is nothing short of impossible to fit all of the necessary guidelines into a Resolution. There is a character limit, and the Resolution as written is not too far from it as is. How do we reconcile that? With a Commission.

What's the deal with the rating system? Couldn't it be warped and manipulated by the people making it? Only if they manage to dupe the entire scientific community into forgetting every bit of knowledge that we already have about the chemical and physical properties of the substances they rate. It would take all but a second of review for any discrepancies to be uncovered. "Chemical B has a flamability rating of 3? Hmmm... The criteria for a 3 rating is (so on and so forth). That's not right! Chemical B is carbon dioxide! Bah humbug!" See? That was easy.

Why the Free Trade Category? There's nothing about reducing regulations in this Resolution. This was a subject of much discussion during the drafting of this Resolution. In the end it was decided that the category was the closest match (praise be to Fris who was probably lenient), since in the end money will be saved because of the reduction of accidents and an increase in efficiency. It would encourage a faster and more voluminous trade between member nations. And I figure it would have been witty and ironic for my first Resolution to be of the Free Trade category, all things Norderian considered. The latest mod ruling is that standardization does as the description for Free Trade reads -- reduces barriers to international trade.

Is this practical? Actually, in the mythical world of RL, there exists similar standards, even the codifying of millions of substances. Information: http://www.cas.org/EO/regsys.html

More FAQs may be added.

Whilst I like the idea, how do you justify the category? It doesn't seem to be removing commerce regulations: quite rightly, just the opposite.

I like a lot of it, but I actually think it needs to be more specific. "Low" and "High" are pretty ambiguous terms; I'm not sure if diverting responsibility to this commission is enough to properly nail down the difference between a "0" rating (which technically should represent no risk, shouldn't it?) and a "1" rating.

Come to think of it, this resolution doesn't really explain how these ratings will make transportation safer. Is there going to be a mandated difference between the transportation and handling of a "2" rated chemical and a "3" rated chemical? If so, it should be stated in the resolution. If not, I'm not sure why the ratings are to exist at all.

In addition, I have a serious problem with subclause 3v. As a current non-member nation (member approval is currently pending), we would like to know the following:

- What are the determining factors governing whether a shipment will be turned back?

- Who exactly will inspect a shipment and declare it unfit for delivery?

- If it is later found that a shipment was unjustly denied delivery, what appeals processes exist for my companies to seek reimbursement for shipping costs?

- What standards will be in place to ensure that this clause is not exploited as a means for unofficial embargoes against nonmember nations?

I think that some polishing needs to be done here; as it is, we won't support this resolution, but we will agree that it has serious promise; with a few tweaks, we'd be avid supporters.

Oh, and it's "flammability." Two m's.

Whilst I like the idea, how do you justify the category? It doesn't seem to be removing commerce regulations: quite rightly, just the opposite.


The category was a tough thing for me. It was decided in the drafting thread for this that Free Trade would be a fine fit, because of the benefits that would come from standardizing the system. The kinds of barriers that would be removed by this is not so much economic as it is safety and efficiency. Hence the mild rating.


St Jello Biafra;11821928']I like a lot of it, but I actually think it needs to be more specific. "Low" and "High" are pretty ambiguous terms; I'm not sure if diverting responsibility to this commission is enough to properly nail down the difference between a "0" rating (which technically should represent no risk, shouldn't it?) and a "1" rating.

If you can fit all of the science and specifics for the thousands of chemicals into the alotted space for a Resolution, be my guest. The commission was the only way this couldn't turn into a science thesis.

Come to think of it, this resolution doesn't really explain how these ratings will make transportation safer. Is there going to be a mandated difference between the transportation and handling of a "2" rated chemical and a "3" rated chemical? If so, it should be stated in the resolution. If not, I'm not sure why the ratings are to exist at all.

It is stated in the Resolution. Clause 2iii.
iii) To prescribe minimum requirements for the safe transportation of hazardous materials;

In addition, I have a serious problem with subclause 3v. As a current non-member nation (member approval is currently pending), we would like to know the following:

- What are the determining factors governing whether a shipment will be turned back?

- Who exactly will inspect a shipment and declare it unfit for delivery?

- If it is later found that a shipment was unjustly denied delivery, what appeals processes exist for my companies to seek reimbursement for shipping costs?

- What standards will be in place to ensure that this clause is not exploited as a means for unofficial embargoes against nonmember nations?

As answered in the FAQ, individual nations are still permitted to receive or not receive shipments from non-members in non-compliance as they please. All those details can be worked out with your trade partners.

Oh, and it's "flammability." Two m's.
As has been explained more than once, not in the UK it isn't. Two m's is the American spelling.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Ausserland will be voting in favor of the proposal. Although we wince a bit when we try to assess the practicability of Clause 2iv, we believe the benefits of the legislation far outweigh this concern.

The proposal, once enacted, will make the task of identifying hazardous materials in shipment far easier. And, as performance technology teaches us, an easy task is much less susceptible to error than a difficult one. The safety of our people will be enhanced by the proposal, and we applaud it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It's hard for us to see why anyone would be against this proposal, really. Altanar will vote in favor.

The fifth circle of the twenty seventh subcommittee relating to the development of industry (liquids), reporting to the Council of Industry, reporting to the Ruling Council, has instructed the UN delegate for Guangdongstan to reply:

We forsee no problems in adopting such a standard, since we don't have a standard ourselves.

We do have concerns with how the UNHR is defined and assessed, in terms of a bureaucratic nightmare that something like that would create in terms of creating the UNHR list. However, once established it should be easy to deal with. Sharing the same concerns re: 2(iv) as I think Ausserland has.

In general, we will vote in favour of such establishment.

(makes a nice change from the messy debate of the previous resolution on the table!)

Two more FAQs have been added to the list, at the bottom. The concerns about 2iv are addressed as well.



1000th post!

Ceorana supports, as long as we can be reasonably assured that bubble gum ice cream is given a CIN and listed as a hazardous substance.

Jorge Trenbakke
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

Ceorana supports, and wishes our deputy ambassador would shut up about his fatally allergic reaction to bubble gum ice cream. We don't care. Nice work.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

The category was a tough thing for me. It was decided in the drafting thread for this that Free Trade would be a fine fit, because of the benefits that would come from standardizing the system. The kinds of barriers that would be removed by this is not so much economic as it is safety and efficiency. Hence the mild rating.
So what was all this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497723) about then?

1000th post!


OOC: Pfft! You've got a lot of catching up to do yet. :p

So what was all this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497723) about then?

That thread took place after this was drafted up. Furthermore, the new category either didn't make it through, or just hasn't been implemented yet.

If you're suggesting that this is a category violation, then come out and ask and quit beating around the bush. You've less than a week until this goes to vote, so if it bothers you enough, get on it. I'm not concerned with the legality of the category.

I like the idea of this resolution, as a world standard for the transportation of dangerous materials is highly desirable and would make serious inroads into reducing spills and accidents and such, but what about the transportation of other hazardous materials that aren't chemicals, such as biological or nuclear material?

I'm no scientist, and I am willing to support this when it comes to vote, but perhaps it should be expanded to include other materials such as biological and nuclear materials. Perhaps call it NBC Transport Standards?

Me likey. More appropriately for the GA, the Kivistan delegation is in support of this.

As for other hazardous materials, this bill is taking on a great deal already, without adding in the extra complications of other forms of hazard. There are considerations that must be made specific to each type that don't really apply to the others. Best to leave them separate.

perhaps it should be expanded to include other materials such as biological and nuclear materials. Perhaps call it NBC Transport Standards?That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, though. This is for classifying common chemicals and substances. Like, say, high fructose corn syrup. Or hexane. Or mineral spirits. Or water. Or, my personal favorite, molten sulphur. Biological and nuclear materials would be shipped under different standards.

And, well, it's way to late to expand.

You've got my vote. This seems like a perfectly reasonable way to unify methods of labeling chemicals. And really, there SHOULD be a unified way of some sort, as it would make international shipping quite a bit easier, at least for the member nations. However, for non-member nations, this will make things a bit more confusing, but, eh, what's international policy without a bit of confusion, anyway! :D

1000th post!
pfft... nothing compared to m-.... wait... never mind.

OOC: I've voted in the poll as a member for. Cluichstan itself is not in the UN, but my UN puppet, Cluichstani Un Mission, will be voting for it.

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic will be voting for this proposal, because it will not only improve safety standards but help to promote international trade.

You've got my vote. This seems like a perfectly reasonable way to unify methods of labeling chemicals. And really, there SHOULD be a unified way of some sort, as it would make international shipping quite a bit easier, at least for the member nations. However, for non-member nations, this will make things a bit more confusing, but, eh, what's international policy without a bit of confusion, anyway! :D


pfft... nothing compared to m-.... wait... never mind.

We don't think this will make things more confusing for non-UN nations. They'll be free to adopt the standard. Or they can just ignore it and have their customs people stand around scratching their heads and wondering what those funny little squiggles on the containers mean. Or they can....

Oh, never mind. I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

From the SUBMITTED thread..


IC:
The Secretary of The Protectorate of Excruci-rUiNation announces that should this proposal go ahead I have been instructed by The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia to vote FOR the resolution.


OOC:
....Because BPL - DRE buys A LOT of various nasty chemicals ;) Nice to know what you are getting ;) :D

That thread took place after this was drafted up. Furthermore, the new category either didn't make it through, or just hasn't been implemented yet.

If you're suggesting that this is a category violation, then come out and ask and quit beating around the bush. You've less than a week until this goes to vote, so if it bothers you enough, get on it. I'm not concerned with the legality of the category.
Ok. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503801)

Don't you think it would have been taken care of if there was a category violation? I'm sure our friendly neighbourhood mods would have deleted it if there was.

You've got my vote. This seems like a perfectly reasonable way to unify methods of labeling chemicals. And really, there SHOULD be a unified way of some sort, as it would make international shipping quite a bit easier, at least for the member nations. However, for non-member nations, this will make things a bit more confusing, but, eh, what's international policy without a bit of confusion, anyway!

As well as Ausserland's suggestion, I find it more likely that this Resolution would reduce the level of confusion by virtue of the fact that, if it passes, a large percentage of the world will now operate with one set of standards, as opposed to the myriad standards that each individual nation currently has.


Regarding the question of the legality of the category, the mod ruling is that standardization reduces barriers to trade, and therefore is not in violation of the category rule.

I'm sure our friendly neighbourhood mods would have deleted it if there was.
We're real good on gross violations, but cleaning out the slop can really blind you to lesser faults. After deleting 20-30 noxious proposals, writing warnings, and telegramming nations, I generally don't spend a lot of time on proposals that appear to be fairly well crafted. I'm counting on you guys for that.

It really does help on more subtle points when you make a case for or against. Asking us "is this legal?" will generally not get a great response. Telling us, "I think this is illegal for the following reasons," and presenting us with well-reasoned interpretations of our ruleset is by far the best approach.

As with any category, you have to balance rights against rights. Providing standards for chemical transport may seem like a slight burden on the chemical transporters, but for transporters in general it frees them up quite a bit. They no longer have 'unknown' containers,which should reduce insurance. They have improved safety, which should make their shiiping more efficient, and hopefully cheaper. And the main thing is that international shipments can now be conducted using standards and practices that free the buyers and sellers to move shipments more quickly and efficiently between dissimilar nations.

Yeah, it's Free Trade.

Ardchoille considers this proposal so elegantly written on a subject so obviously necessary that one might think the entire debate on the matter would be such a no-brainer that one could safely leave it to one's intern.

One does, however, learn from one's mistakes. I will personally submit our vote of approval as soon as possible after the debate begins.
________________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

Ardchoille considers this proposal so elegantly written on a subject so obviously necessary that one might think the entire debate on the matter would be such a no-brainer that one could safely leave it to one's intern.

One does, however, learn from one's mistakes. I will personally submit our vote of approval as soon as possible after the debate begins.
________________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

You're right, man, this is a no-brainer, so I'm gonna leave the vote to my assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I don't really mind which way to go. I am impressed with the style of the proposal. Nicely written. :)

You're right, man, this is a no-brainer, so I'm gonna leave the vote to my assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.

OOC: I'm sorry, but that name and picture never ceases to make me giggle like a stoned schoolgirl.

IC: Indeed, when neither I, nor Juhani can be in the GA, I will be leaving this up to an aide, Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.
Mr. Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm has been working in the office for a few months and knows the Resolution about as well as I do. I am confident in his abilities to proceed with the debate, should it be necessary.

Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

OOC: Is it just me, or did you just order a Nuremburg bratwurst with condiments?

OOC: Is it just me, or did you just order a Nuremburg bratwurst with condiments?

OOC: That ain't the only thing I just did. Heh heh.

As We are not particularly Prominent in the International Trade of Chemicals, We do not have a National Interest in this Resolution.

However, We recognize the Benefits of Standardized Classifications in simplifying the Transportation and Recognition of Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Chemicals throughout the International Community. Under this viewpoint, Eirisle shall vote For.

~Lady Sara~
Speaker of Eirisle

A veritable circus of excess waste and bureaucracy. We trust that the safety standards already established in existing bilateral trade agreements is sufficient, and we see no added benefit in investing this kind of power in unaccountable UN bureaucrats, or deluging customs agencies with unnecessary paperwork.

The Federal Republic votes against.

A veritable circus of excess waste and bureaucracy. We trust that the safety standards already established in existing bilateral trade agreements is sufficient, and we see no added benefit in investing this kind of power in unaccountable UN bureaucrats, or deluging customs agencies with unnecessary paperwork.

The Federal Republic votes against.

Let's talk about veritable circuses. Let's all waste our time negotiating bilateral agreements. Then we can waste more time harmonizing the bilateral agreements. And then we can waste more time ironing out inconsistencies in the various harmonized agreements. Or maybe, by adopting this proposal, we can eliminate much of that wasted effort.

And, instead of deluging our customs agencies with unnecessary paperwork, we can have them standing around, scratching their heads, trying to figure out 3,800 different sets of HAZMAT coding. And then they can waste more time and effort trying to figure out what the contents of all those unmarked containers are. Or, by adopting this proposal, we can establish a single, easily taught, easily emplaced system. And we're not even sure what unnecessary paperwork is being referenced.

Standardization promotes efficiency. Standardization reduces probability of error. Standardizetion in this matter makes plain common sense.

Ausserland votes FOR.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Let's talk about veritable circuses. Let's all waste our time negotiating bilateral agreements. Then we can waste more time harmonizing the bilateral agreements. And then we can waste more time ironing out inconsistencies in the various harmonized agreements. Or maybe, by adopting this proposal, we can eliminate much of that wasted effort.

And, instead of deluging our customs agencies with unnecessary paperwork, we can have them standing around, scratching their heads, trying to figure out 3,800 different sets of HAZMAT coding. And then they can waste more time and effort trying to figure out what the contents of all those unmarked containers are. Or, by adopting this proposal, we can establish a single, easily taught, easily emplaced system. And we're not even sure what unnecessary paperwork is being referenced.We are continually amazed at just how fucking stupid your delegation must hold member states to be. I mean, if all customs agents are that fucking clueless, I don't know why we need bother with trade at all, without the all-knowing UN to hold our freaking hands on everything.

As a general rule, this delegation detests unnecessary international regulatory waste, and to us creating two bloated world commissions for the sole purpose of governing chemical transport codes is wasteful. Sure, standardization is lovely; extraneous bureaucracy is not.

We are continually amazed at just how fucking stupid your delegation must hold member states to be. I mean, if all customs agents are that fucking clueless, I don't know why we need bother with trade at all, without the all-knowing UN to hold our freaking hands on everything.

As a general rule, this delegation detests unnecessary international regulatory waste, and to us creating two bloated world commissions for the sole purpose of governing chemical transport codes is wasteful. Sure, standardization is lovely; extraneous bureaucracy is not.

1 commission.

Furthermore, the Ausserland delegation's counter argument was perfectly pointed. For those nations heavy on trade, I am certain that they do not have just one set to conform to themselves, and I'm sure that there is not just one set that they receive. Standardizing the systems does everything the Ausserland delegation said it would, something you seem to have overlooked.

If you have any less beauracratic means of doing what this Resolution does, then I would have been happy to have listened to them during the months that this was being drafted. You didn't seem to have any ideas then, don't seem to have them now, and seem only to turn your nose up at every Comission or Committee that comes through the UN, regardless of its necessity or frugality. There really was no way around using a Comission on this. I too would have preferred not to use one, but I got over that pretty soon. Necessity demanded it.

Beyond your distinct disgust with UN beauracracy, do you have any concerns with the content of the Resolution for me to respond to?

We are continually amazed at just how fucking stupid your delegation must hold member states to be. I mean, if all customs agents are that fucking clueless, I don't know why we need bother with trade at all, without the all-knowing UN to hold our freaking hands on everything.

As a general rule, this delegation detests unnecessary international regulatory waste, and to us creating two bloated world commissions for the sole purpose of governing chemical transport codes is wasteful. Sure, standardization is lovely; extraneous bureaucracy is not.

We don't care to lower ourselves to the level of the representative's comments, but we would suggest that if he can't handle the numbers one and two he should refrain from comment on intelligence levels.

The point is not cluelessness or stupidity. The point is that standardization promotes efficiency and raises the overall quality of performance. That's basic management science. And having a single body performing the function of creating and maintaining the standardization system is obviously far more efficient an approach than the hare-brained notion of everyone running around coming up with bilateral agreements.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

fucking fucking freaking two bloated world commissions
Settle down Junior. It only creates one commission. And as the honorable representative from Ausserland has been kind enough to point out, having a single body handling standardization is far more efficient than hundreds, or more likely thousands of bilateral agreements.

Yelda declares full support for this fine legislation.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/18/150px-Graham_Chapman_Colonel.jpg

Now, I would just like to point out that this thread is displaying a distinct tendency to become SILLY. Now, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do... except, perhaps my wife... and some of her friends. Oh, yes, and Captain Johnson. Come to think of it, most people like a good laugh more than I do, but that's beside the point! I'm warning this thread NOT to get SILLY again! Right! :D

Oh, and "Can I just say that this may or may not be the last time I'll ever appear on this thread?" :D

Love and esterel voted FOR.

OOC: As, I didn't know anything on this topic before this proposal, i would like also to thanks the author to have bring such an important topic to the UN.

the hazard rating part of this resolution is highly ambiguous and will only confuse people.

i) A flamability rating of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates a small flamability risk, and 4 indicates a high flamability risk;
ii) A health risk rating of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates a small health risk, and 4 indicates a high health risk;
iii) A reactivity risk rating of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates a small reactivity risk, and 4 indicates a high reactivity risk;
iv) A special notation to indicate specific risks, such as, but not restricted to an exceptionally high reactivity to water, or for strong oxidizers;

the flamability rating is OK

the health risk rating is useless, health risk to humans and animals is impossible to generalise in such a way, most things can kill you in certain circumstances, and there is a myriad of ways for chemicals to affect you, eg. contact with skin, ingestion, inhalation, intraveneously etc.

the reactivity risk rating is also pretty useless because of the huge range of chemical properties that exist, ie. group I metals react violently with non-metals, group VII non-metals react violently with metals. then there are acids and alkalis, and biological chemicals can have highly complex effects

the wording for 'special notation' is vague, and needs a better explanation. would this be in written language, or be in the form of symbols. if the former was the case, it would have little meaning if you dont have a very good knowledge of the language that it is wrote in

also, there are other things which should be included, such as environmental impact

Icovir will oppose this resolution because we fear that if it passes, we can't trade things without the whole world knowing whether it's hazardous or not. Therefore, that'll give our enemies a chance to know what we built, therefore able to know whether or not they should get "rid" of it.

OOC: Why do I think this? Because there's a radioactivity rating and health hazard rating (which is impossible to determine as the above poster said). That would then give others a thought that we may be trading things dealing with uranium, as we have just started this program. Then, people will think to bomb us to "liberate" us of our uranium (used an RL example there).
Nothing against the dude who wrote this resolution, just something against the resolution itself. :D

Community Property's only reservation is that the UNCTC might fall under the influence of unscrupulous business interests who will rate everything as safe, beneficial, and conducive to strong teeth and bones. Should that happen, then its ratings will be useless. But then, should that happen, we'll be no worse off than we are today.

We also wonder how CIN's will work in the case of mixtures, solutions, and suspensions, especially where differing strengths and mixtures are possible.

The foregoing aside, we cast our vote for this resolution.Why do I think this? Because there's a radioactivity rating and health hazard rating (which is impossible to determine as the above poster said). That would then give others a thought that we may be trading things dealing with uranium, as we have just started this program. Then, people will think to bomb us to "liberate" us of our uranium (used an RL example there).
Nothing against the dude who wrote this resolution, just something against the resolution itself. :DWe're sure that the people who manage your “black” ops will find creative ways to falsify the labelling. That, or you can get yourself a powerful ally.

Generally, our experience is that nobody bothers countries that don't trumpet the sale of such materials to the outside world.

the hazard rating part of this resolution is highly ambiguous and will only confuse people. <snip>While I know this is NS and not the real world, I would like to point out that these classifications already exist in the real world. Working in an industrial setting, I deal with these things all the time, and find they make perfect sense. And, well, someone who doesn't work in the field doesn't need to worry about it.

While I know this is NS and not the real world, I would like to point out that these classifications already exist in the real world. Working in an industrial setting, I deal with these things all the time, and find they make perfect sense. And, well, someone who doesn't work in the field doesn't need to worry about it.
I've just looked it up and it does make more sense after reading a more detailed version of it. but this detail is not included in the resolution

OOC: I'm sorry, but that name and picture never ceases to make me giggle like a stoned schoolgirl.

IC: Indeed, when neither I, nor Juhani can be in the GA, I will be leaving this up to an aide, Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.
Mr. Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm has been working in the office for a few months and knows the Resolution about as well as I do. I am confident in his abilities to proceed with the debate, should it be necessary.

Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/18/150px-Graham_Chapman_Colonel.jpg

Now, I would just like to point out that this thread is displaying a distinct tendency to become SILLY. Now, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do... except, perhaps my wife... and some of her friends. Oh, yes, and Captain Johnson. Come to think of it, most people like a good laugh more than I do, but that's beside the point! I'm warning this thread NOT to get SILLY again! Right! :D

Oh, and "Can I just say that this may or may not be the last time I'll ever appear on this thread?" :D


OOC: Oh cripes, what have I started? :D

IC:

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

Looking down slightly and peering through his glasses Lord Baumgarten speaks, "The Empire of Rauschenburg has reviewed this proposal and applauds the great Nation of Norderia for a well written and needed proposal! After speaking with our scientists and consulting businesses as well as our logistics team for food and other substances (says with a cough), it has been decided that this proposal will benifit our empire and our trading partners. With that said, we have decided that ALL nations trading with the Empire of Rauschenburg must now adhere to these standards. Thank you!"

- Lord Baumgarten of the Baumgarten House
The Empire of Rauschenburg Foreign Affairs

OOC: Oh cripes, what have I started? :D


OOC: Cluichstan, NOBODY expects Monty Python fans! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to quoting Python whenever the opportunity arises.... ;)

OOC: Cluichstan, NOBODY expects Monty Python fans! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to quoting Python whenever the opportunity arises.... ;)

OOC: You should try coming in again. ;)

OOC: You should try coming in again. ;)

OOC:

Good idea.

*leaves*

*comes back*

NOBODY expects Monty Python fans! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to quoting Python whenever the opportunity arises, and nice red uniforms...

ARGH! :headbang:

Oh.......NI! then :p :rolleyes: ;)



Heading back to IC, while still quoting Python:

We apologise for this hijacking of the thread, the people responsible have been shot! :sniper: :D

Icovir will oppose this resolution because we fear that if it passes, we can't trade things without the whole world knowing whether it's hazardous or not. Therefore, that'll give our enemies a chance to know what we built, therefore able to know whether or not they should get "rid" of it.
All this resolution says you have to do is mark the containers. You don't have to register what you're transporting or anything that could give it away. Just transport your chemicals away from other people and nations.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC:

Good idea.

*leaves*

*comes back*

NOBODY expects Monty Python fans! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to quoting Python whenever the opportunity arises, and nice red uniforms...

ARGH! :headbang:

Oh.......NI! then :p :rolleyes: ;)



Heading back to IC, while still quoting Python:

We apologise for this hijacking of the thread, the people responsible have been shot! :sniper: :D


OOC: Calm down, mate. Here, have some salmon mousse.

And yes, I used canned salmon.

I've just looked it up and it does make more sense after reading a more detailed version of it. but this detail is not included in the resolution
Two words, character limit.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Icovir will oppose this resolution because we fear that if it passes, we can't trade things without the whole world knowing whether it's hazardous or not. Therefore, that'll give our enemies a chance to know what we built, therefore able to know whether or not they should get "rid" of it.

Tell me how the whole world will know what you're transporting. There is no reason at all that secret trades cannot take place. There's also no reason at all that you can't unscrupulously place the properly marked containers into extra containers that have no markings. Read the Resolution and look for ways to keep your dirty laundry dirty. Honestly now, I shouldn't have to be the one suggesting ways to get around my own Resolution.

One thing is for sure though, you have to meet the mandates of it if this passes.

The Common wealth of Farhkan and the Eastern Penguin Asylum will support this resoulution, even as we scheme to get around it.
basically its a good resolution. In RL would take lots of time to implment, but then, we don't have to worry about that do we now.

Tell me how the whole world will know what you're transporting. There is no reason at all that secret trades cannot take place. There's also no reason at all that you can't unscrupulously place the properly marked containers into extra containers that have no markings. Read the Resolution and look for ways to keep your dirty laundry dirty. Honestly now, I shouldn't have to be the one suggesting ways to get around my own Resolution.

But you said that everything must be ranked on different scales (radioactivity, etc.)? So doesn't that mean that a UN inspector would have to actually mark the containers for you (as I think you have stated in the resolution).

One thing is for sure though, you have to meet the mandates of it if this passes.

But I thought section 4 said that it isn't mandatory?

But you said that everything must be ranked on different scales (radioactivity, etc.)? So doesn't that mean that a UN inspector would have to actually mark the containers for you (as I think you have stated in the resolution).

No. The UNCTC will determine those risks and such for each substance deemed hazardous, of which there is less than 10,000. Once those are asigned, there is no need to check every mole of that substance for its risk ratings every time it is being traded -- chemicals act predictably. Chemical A, for instance, is known to be non-flamable (if one more person tells me that spelling is wrong, I'll cut them with jive), highly reactive, carcinogenic, non-radioactive. The levels of each risk are determined to be 0, 3, 3, and 1. Well that is the risk for that substance EVERY TIME. There is absolutely no need to check it again, because the properties are known. It's the magic of science. There will be a great reference for the CINs and HRs. You look up the chemical name, or the CIN, or even the HR, and it will tell you the other two. So when you're trading Chemical A, all you have to do is look up its requirements, and follow the rules. That's it. There's no need for UN inspectors and all that.

But I thought section 4 said that it isn't mandatory?

Read it again. "intranational."

You can transport sulfuric acid in a plastic baggie for all we care inside your own nation. But the moment that substance is set to be shipped over international borders, or international waters, it better be in the proper container with the proper labels.

Mikeswill's vote against Chemical Transport Standards has been noted.

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

This resolution claims to reduce barriers to free trade when in fact the opposite is true.

More importantly I do not believe that it is the business of the UN to compel Nations to adopt their point of view upon the soveriegn interest of a Nation's peoples especially when said point of view is not enforcable and thereby merely a wasteful Bureaucracy.

Mikeswill

This resolution claims to reduce barriers to free trade when in fact the opposite is true.That was aleady addressed previously in this thread.

More importantly I do not believe that it is the business of the UN to compel Nations to adopt their point of view upon the soveriegn interest of a Nation's peoples especially when said point of view is not enforcable and thereby merely a wasteful Bureaucracy.This Proposal deals with international shipping and trade, something that is exactly what the UN is supposed to be doing.

Mikeswill's vote against Chemical Transport Standards has been noted.

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

This resolution claims to reduce barriers to free trade when in fact the opposite is true.

More importantly I do not believe that it is the business of the UN to compel Nations to adopt their point of view upon the soveriegn interest of a Nation's peoples especially when said point of view is not enforcable and thereby merely a wasteful Bureaucracy.

Mikeswill

And I do believe that in the post directly above yours I said that you don't have to do a damn thing inside your own borders. Both of your concerns have been thoroughly addressed in this very thread. I suggest you take a moment to read it.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

To raise a national sovereignty objection to legislation of domestic scope is reasonable; it is to question the wisdom of the U.N. in regulating something that, in your opinion, either could better or should properly be regulated by Member nations.

To raise a national sovereignty objection to legislation of purely international scope is idiotic; if the U.N. has any purpose at all, it is to regulate those things that nations, by virtue of their geographically limited authority, can not.

There are countries out there that are U.N. Members solely for the sake of participating in regional politics; often these countries have no interest in what the U.N. does and would prefer that it do nothing at all. We wish that such nations would simply come right out and say that they believe the U.N. should play no part at all in international politics, and that it should exist for the sole purpose of providing its Members a path to regional power. That would at least be a more sensible - and more honest - argument than to say that it's a violation of the principle of national sovereignty fo the U.N. to regulate international affairs.

"I fail to see how this proposal would affect domestic trade practices. This is about safety standards when shipping substances to other Nations. I do not believe this would be considered domestic. In fact, even if another NON-UN nation does not want to trade with such safety standards the proposal clearly says you don't have too. It simpley proposes a protocol and labeling system we all can implement so that the transfer of such hazardous substances is safe."

My question on this resolution is the need for section 3iii and section 3iv. If section 3iv states "That, under non-emergency circumstances, no containers shall be vandalized, or mislabeled to misrepresent the substances contained within, or their potential hazard risks". This would include placing chemicals in a container which was labeled for another, as is described in 3iii. It seems to me that having the two may cause some kind of confusion on the topic as to severity of infraction and necessary punishments to be enacted with regards to 3iii as it seems to be, depending on interpretation, either more or less of a problem. Also, infractions of clause iv must be checked for infractions of 3iii, which would entail a different punishment structure.

My question on this resolution is the need for section 3iii and section 3iv. If section 3iv states "That, under non-emergency circumstances, no containers shall be vandalized, or mislabeled to misrepresent the substances contained within, or their potential hazard risks". This would include placing chemicals in a container which was labeled for another, as is described in 3iii. It seems to me that having the two may cause some kind of confusion on the topic as to severity of infraction and necessary punishments to be enacted with regards to 3iii as it seems to be, depending on interpretation, either more or less of a problem. Also, infractions of clause iv must be checked for infractions of 3iii, which would entail a different punishment structure.

You're overlooking the very important part of those clauses. "In non-emergency circumstances." If there is no pressing need for you to move some substance into a recepticle that is not intended to carry that substance, then it's not to be done. However, if there is an emergency, say, the proper containers are found to be faulty, or leaky, then by all means, move them somewhere where they can be held temporarily for safety reasons.

When you do so, however, ensure that markings are added to the container to inform people of this move. If there is no emergency, there's no need to alter the markings on the container.

This resolution will have no effect on population safety. It relies on the liberal myth of the rational choice! we Logical people think that giving information to people is not enough. If this resolution is adopted, we are sure that no more resolution about the chemical hazard will be submitted.

We think that chemical and industrial hazards have to be set under control, that means real regulations with constraints. A qualitative rating will not protect anyone. Our Empire position is that we first need an UN agency (not a commission) dedicated to such issues. This agency should be able to adopt sanctions.

This liberal resolution will have a negative effect. We need interventionnism on that topic.

Anyway, if this resolution is adopted, all rated chemicals will be banned from the Empire of Logical Wits, because we will not accept any "small risk"!

0 indicates a small flamability risk [...]
0 indicates a small health risk [...]
0 indicates a small reactivity risk [...]

we do not agree with the notion of "emergency circumstances"!

under non-emergency circumstances, no containers shall be vandalized, or mislabeled

There are countries out there that are U.N. Members solely for the sake of participating in regional politics; often these countries have no interest in what the U.N. does and would prefer that it do nothing at all. We wish that such nations would simply come right out and say that they believe the U.N. should play no part at all in international politics, and that it should exist for the sole purpose of providing its Members a path to regional power.

OOC: That's Excruciatia, dragged in to UN kicking and screaming by regional events :headbang: Would have just kept ignoring the thing if region didn't need it. After reading the first fluffy-kitten UN resolution I was hit with I set up a puppet to deal with UN stuff so Excruciatia wouldn't be ruined. The puppet votes for things the Excruciatian way, with disclaimer that effects of resolutions there are cancelled out by Excruciatian Army Groups on the border waiting to intervene if needed :)

Of course if something would be handy for an IC psycho dictator nation, like Chemical Transport Standards to help in shopping for chemical weapons programs, then I'll vote for it. Or if it gets a bit close to home OOC like Martime Neutrality then I'll vote for again...But generally as a poor dragged into the UN nation I'll work to make things as bad for everyone else as the people in my nation :p

The part that does crack me up though, is that the UN gets all these schmaltzy lovey-dovey touchy-feely resolutions, while most of the issues and their effects are almost honorary Python sketches :D All the game needs is enough people with a twisted sense of humour to join UN, and before you know it we'll have resolutions recognising the rights of purple elephants to teach chocolate coated kangaroos how to drive... :D

This resolution will have no effect on population safety. It relies on the liberal myth of the rational choice! we Logical people think that giving information to people is not enough. If this resolution is adopted, we are sure that no more resolution about the chemical hazard will be submitted.

We think that chemical and industrial hazards have to be set under control, that means real regulations with constraints. A qualitative rating will not protect anyone. Our Empire position is that we first need an UN agency (not a commission) dedicated to such issues. This agency should be able to adopt sanctions.

This liberal resolution will have a negative effect. We need interventionnism on that topic.

Anyway, if this resolution is adopted, all rated chemicals will be banned from the Empire of Logical Wits, because we will not accept any "small risk"!


We always enjoy irony. And we find it quite ironic that the representative of a nation called Logical Wits posts such drivel which is completely devoid of logic -- not to mention common sense.

The Empire intends to ban all chemicals which pose even a "small risk"? Logic would require, then, that they would prohibit production of such chemicals domestically, as well. The effect? Crippled industry, appalling public health, and a whole host of other negative effects.

And the representative states that "we need interventionism". The Empire might; we do not. Our nation and its transportation industries are quite capable of dealing safely with hazardous materials. This resolution will facilitate those efforts. The statement that "this resolution will have no effect on population safety" is patently absurd.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC: Oh, FFS! Can't blame jolt for that post that was delayed by over two feckin' hours...

A sextuple bounce. Is that a record?

And we find it quite ironic that the representative of a nation called Logical Wits posts such drivel which is completely devoid of logic -- not to mention common sense.

Common sense is not always logic, anyway...

The Empire intends to ban all chemicals which pose even a "small risk"? Logic would require, then, that they would prohibit production of such chemicals domestically, as well.

The real question is "what is small risk?", why the zero level is not a "no risk" level? The only logical answer is that the goal of this resolution is to label as "small risk" very hazardous materials.

Our nation and its transportation industries are quite capable of dealing safely with hazardous materials.

how? if a transportation have a zero rating?

We can't vote for a resolution without any "zero risk" rating, and I hope that all logical nations will follow us.

We won't vote for a resolution without any agency dedicated to adopt sanctions at an international level. What if a nation labels all its production with a "0" rating?

OOC: Is that a new record for Jolt-delay posting?

IC:

Landaman Pendankr rises to speak after the representative from Logical Wits finishes speaking.

"In response to your points, I would like to say-"

"This resolution will have no effect on population safety. It relies on the liberal myth of the rational choice! we Logical people think that giving information to people is not enough. If this resolution is adopted, we are sure that no more resolution about the chemical hazard will be submitted" the representative for Logical Wits butts in, cutting Pendankr off.

He grimaces, and continues. "As I was about to say, your points are-"

"This resolution will have no effect on population safety. It relies on the liberal myth of the rational choice!" the representative from Logical Wits cuts him off again, repeating himself in a monotone voice.

Pendankr turns toward the ambassador, eyes shooting daggers, and opens his mouth to speak.

"Your points are-"

"This resolution will have no effect on population safety. It relies on the liberal myth of the rational choice! we Logical people think that giving information to people is not enough. If this resolution is adopted, we are sure that no more resolution about the chemical hazard will be submitted."

The representative from Logical Wits is staring blankly at the ceiling.

Pendankr fumes, then shouts. "YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE COMPLETELY-"

"This resolution will have no effect on population safety. It relies on the liberal myth of the rational choice! we Logical people think that giving information to people is not enough. If this resolution is adopted, we are sure that no more resolution about the chemical hazard will be submitted."

The representative is now drooling.

Pendankr shakes briefly, as if he had a minor seizure. Standing up again, his hand in his pocket, grasping what appears to be the outline of a pistol, he opens his mouth to speak.

"If the representative from Logical Wits is quite finished, I'd like to respond." He pauses, looking intently at the catatonic ambassador. Minutes pass, the floor in silence.

Pendankr clears his throat, the speaks. "The arguements presented by the people of Logical Wits make no-"

"This resolution will have no effect on population safety. It relies on the liberal myth of the rational choice! we Logical people think that giving information to people is not enough. If this resolution is adopted, we are sure that no more resolution about the chemical hazard will be submitted" the Logical Wittian interjects, interrupting Pendankr yet again.

Leaping to the top of his desk, he pulls a pistol out of his pocket, screaming wildly.

"IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY!" He lets out a shriek and brandished the pistol wildly at the immobile rep, prevented from committing murder by Pazirbashan Umdiroplach, who grabs him and drags him from the chamber, all while screaming "IT'S THE CURSE OF JOLT! JOLT HAS CURSE HIM! AAHAHSGFASEGHHHFGGGGHGAHAAH!"

Umdiroplach returns moments later, and rises to speak.

"Sorry folks. He's okay know, we drugged him up and put him to sleep."

Eyeing the thing from Logical Wits, he turns and leaves the room.

A sextuple bounce. Is that a record?

No. I had nine on the old server.

OOC: Is that a new record for Jolt-delay posting?

I prefer to call it "Jolt lag".

We, the Free land of Sinless Singleness, do believe that a resolution that differs all real decision to a commission is a wrong resolution.

As my fellow bodycoder already put up, since there is absolutely no definition of what is a small risk or a high risk, which means it will be delegated to an obscure group of burocrats that no-one will never ear about again. The danger here is that this commission may be trusted by lobbyist from the chemical companies, or by ultra-harcore ecologist (seems less probable, but anyway....) that would classify maple syrup (or even Savane au chocolat) as weapon of mass destruction....

UN cannot ask us to vote something so blurry. Or we define the way the classes are made, and then we would be able to vote in consience (and maybe approuve), or it does not, and we will oppose. Well of course we may end with coin tossing as usual.

The may concern for us remains philosophical. We as true individualist, cannot allow the law to withdraw its power. A law cannot be only a declaration of future to-be-decided intentions.

We, the Free land of Sinless Singleness, do believe that a resolution that differs all real decision to a commission is a wrong resolution.

As my fellow bodycoder already put up, since there is absolutely no definition of what is a small risk or a high risk, which means it will be delegated to an obscure group of burocrats that no-one will never ear about again. The danger here is that this commission may be trusted by lobbyist from the chemical companies, or by ultra-harcore ecologist (seems less probable, but anyway....) that would classify maple syrup (or even Savane au chocolat) as weapon of mass destruction....Oh please, do you honestly expect anyone to be able to write a resolution which would specify what rating every substance in existance would get and still be under the character limit for resolutions?

UN cannot ask us to vote something so blurry. Or we define the way the classes are made, and then we would be able to vote in consience (and maybe approuve), or it does not, and we will oppose. Well of course we may end with coin tossing as usual.Did you not read clause 1 where it talks about how the different chemicals will be rated based on flammability, health risk, reactivity, and other risks? (and yes I used the American spelling of flammability.:p )

The may concern for us remains philosophical. We as true individualist, cannot allow the law to withdraw its power. A law cannot be only a declaration of future to-be-decided intentions.And if you can do all things that the UNCTC are going to do in a resolution under the character limit, you're lying.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This resolution is quite overly wordy for what it actually does. Aside from that, however, the spirit is inline with Domini values, and so we shall support this action.

Oh for the love of God (in whom we do not believe).

Time to start adding to the FAQ (which I'm sure is being ignored anyway).

Why a Commission? The answer is simple. Anyone with more than a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry, and a rudimentary knowledge of the rules of this very UN will know that it is nothing short of impossible to fit all of the necessary guidelines into a Resolution. There is a character limit, and the Resolution as written is not too far from it as is. How do we reconcile that? With a Commission.

What's the deal with the rating system? Couldn't it be warped and manipulated by the people making it? Only if they manage to dupe the entire scientific community into forgetting every bit of knowledge that we already have about the chemical and physical properties of the substances they rate. It would take all but a second of review for any discrepancies to be uncovered. "Chemical B has a flamability rating of 3? Hmmm... The criteria for a 3 rating is (so on and so forth). That's not right! Chemical B is carbon dioxide! Bah humbug!" See? That was easy.

Humpf. I am sooooo glad to see that everyone thinks that the commission appointed by the UN would be totally and scientifically honest. It is not as if we had examples (pharamaceutic industries anyone ? food industry ?) of scientific paid and appointed by the ones they are supposed to regulate....

I would probably support a resolution that defines a rating of 3 for flammability, rather than the fact that we are using 12 digits from arabic numbers !

There is no way of being sure that the scale is relevent. Maybe 0 is iron, 1 copper, 3 glass, and 4 whatever burns. Who knows ? What would this be good for ? This is the kind of wrong concepts that draw us apart from the real issues. Like who is in the commission, how many times do we update the classes, how do we match new products to old ones....

I still believes we have here the basic kind of stuff the UN is wrongly dealing with. We have the spirit of the law (international chemical hazards should be controlled) not the how-to that goes with the spirit. We still do not see the usefullness (we like words in -ess...) of this proposal. Useless (did I already mentionned that we like the words... Oh yessss) proposals are what opponents to the UN use to break its morality (does moralness means anything ?). As a consequence, we are still not likely to vote for it.

We the Chosen support the UN motion, and hope to see a day when all nations will take serious percautions when handling dangerious chemicals. However, we have our doubts about how the motion will be put into action. The resolution was very clear as to how chemical products are to be handled and labled, but the temple health department doubts seriously that all nations would be willing to comply with the UN resolution. Under the contents it requires a serial number for all containers of waste, which would require some office or organization of some kind to produce and keep track of. We feel that if a nation chooses not to take measures to identify and protect their dangerous chemicals, that the UN would be powerless to stop them. The UN could not take discplinary actions againsts a nation purely on the grounds of not complying to chemical precaution standards, and while other nations could refuse to let such chemicals into their country, there is nothing anyone can do against such nations how choose to act in such a way in their own borders.

Sincerely Concerned,
Archpriest
Temple Health Department

The real question is "what is small risk?", why the zero level is not a "no risk" level? The only logical answer is that the goal of this resolution is to label as "small risk" very hazardous materials.Because there is no such thing as zero risk. Water is ranked under this method. Every single chemical and chemical compound has the potential for risk. Some risks are nearly negligable, so they are classified as "low risk".


There is no way of being sure that the scale is relevent. Maybe 0 is iron, 1 copper, 3 glass, and 4 whatever burns. Who knows ? What would this be good for ?Could you please try making this point again, except this time have it make sense?

Common sense is not always logic, anyway...


Irrelevant. Your arguments include neither.

The real question is "what is small risk?", why the zero level is not a "no risk" level? The only logical answer is that the goal of this resolution is to label as "small risk" very hazardous materials.

Once again, you utterly fail to use any semblance of logic. How on earth could you come to such a ridiculous conclusion?

We can't vote for a resolution without any "zero risk" rating, and I hope that all logical nations will follow us.

So you won't vote for this resolution because it has a 0 risk rating, and you won't vote for a resolution that doesn't have one?

We won't vote for a resolution without any agency dedicated to adopt sanctions at an international level. What if a nation labels all its production with a "0" rating?

Then a nation that has a government that employs common sense would certainly become suspicious and investigate the situation. In Ausserland, we would place a hold on imports from that nation until the issue was resolved.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Then a nation that has a government that employs common sense would certainly become suspicious and investigate the situation. In Ausserland, we would place a hold on imports from that nation until the issue was resolved.

That's exactly my point: this resolution is useless because it won't help any nation. Each governement will have to check by himself the real content of any carrier!
Each nation will surely use its own specific point of view to label its transportations, I'm sure that some nations will consider that unarium in a "proper case" can be labelled as "zero ranking" (because rank zero is "small risk"), and others will consider that uranium is highly hazardous even in a safe made in concrete.

Once more, this resolution try to generalize specific points of view only considering their union: it's a nonsense (see my contributions the the marriage voting: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503203&page=16 )

Once more, this resolution try to generalize specific points of view only considering their unionOnce more, this is simply a mirror of a system (http://www.cas.org/EO/regsys.html) that has been in place in the real world for forty-one years (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2652141).

Once more, this is simply a mirror of a system that has been in place in the real world for forty-one years.

What do you mean real-world ? Do you think I live in a kind of role-playing game where you should try to make things differently and probably better ??? Are you try to insinuate that we, the mighty leader of Sinless Singleness, are reluctant to mimick a so called "real-world" where chemical industry is like Santa Claus for Bhopal and Seveso inhabitants, not even mentionning China, thanks to a "system that has been in place in the real world for forty-one years" ???

Woah I even was nearly to believe you... I think I am going to ban marijuana, you guys are having some really hard stuff. "Real-world" ha ha ha ha. There is only one world and we at the UN should try to keep it safe. Your resolution does not still achieve such a standard.

By the way
There is no way of being sure that the scale is relevent. Maybe 0 is iron, 1 copper, 3 glass, and 4 whatever burns. Who knows ? What would this be good for ?
Could you please try making this point again, except this time have it make sense?
could you define your scale ??? You say flammability from 0 to 4. Grrrreat. What is 0 ? Water ? at what temperature/pression/state ?
What is 1 ? maybe it is wood, maybe it is glass.
What is 2 ? maybe it is paper, maybe it is iron.
So you can set up the scale like I think you think you would, i.e. something like a linear scale on the temperature of self-combustion.... You can also have 0,1,2,3 with only things that do not burn, and everything else in 4. Who knows ?

This resolution is a nice announce. It does not contain any description on how to do things. It is as such dangerous since if it pass, we will not legiferate on such issues before a looooooooooong time.

What is 1 ? maybe it is wood, maybe it is glass.
What is 2 ? maybe it is paper, maybe it is iron.As none of these are chemicals, you make no sense.

Once more, this is simply a mirror of a system (http://www.cas.org/EO/regsys.html) that has been in place in the real world for forty-one years (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2652141).

What about this "real world" think?!?

You think that I'm not "real", that the Empire of Logical Wits is like a dream or somethink like that? And them people said that Logicians are not logic! If someone is no more in a real world, it's you! Of course our empire is real!

Just let me say that we volonteer to send a Logical Studying team (acronym: LoSt Team) to your country to conduct enthological and sociological research about your so strange people! So you think you live in a dream? Please tell us more about that, please....

(see my contributions the the marriage voting: )
Yeah. Those didn't make any sense either. You're not making a real good opening impresssion here, LW. Try sticking to a topic instead of posting random irrelvancies.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

As none of these are chemicals, you make no sense.

Ok, let's have a little lecture about what "chemicals" are?
Don't you think matter is made of chemicals? Let me quote wikipedia:
A chemical substance is any material with a definite chemical composition, no matter where it comes from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical

please read this article before submitting another resolution about chemicals...

I think that the resolution has to be canceled because people who submitted it do not even know what chemicals are! What a superb commission we will have here!

The more we discuss about that, the more I'm convinced that it's a nonsense!

So please try to contribute without talking a word more about chemicals, you are totally out of the topic!

But may be it's because you think you do not live in a real world!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChemicalMistake number one: Quoting Wikipedia when primary sources have been used.

please read this article before submitting another resolution about chemicals...Mistake number two: Thinking I submitted this Proposal.

I think that the resolution has to be canceled because people who submitted it do not even know what chemicals are!Mistake number three: Using terms improperly. Words have more than one definition, depending on the arena in which they are used.

So please try to contribute without talking a word more about chemicals, you are totally out of the topic!Mistakes number four and five: Telling me what to do and being utterly clueless about what the topic really is.

But, I'd like to thank you for proving Alexander Pope right...

You're not making a real good opening impresssion here, LW.

may be you should take more attention to contribution of nations writing that they do not live in a "real world", Frisbeeteria. Instead of that, you write about "impression" I could make, but my points are logic, even if you do not agree with them:

A list of specific procedures will never have the status of a generic procedure.

It's true, and I'm convinced that the goal of UN should be to adopt generic resolutions (i.e. generic procedures).
Such procedures should be generic in the sense that they contain a truth from which specific rules can be deduced, which is totally different than a list of specific rules.

I will try to help you about this resolution.

At first, the resolution is labelled: "Chemical Transport Standards - A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce". You will have to admit that all nations are not in favor of "freeing" trade and comerce. Some nations are socialists here, so you will have to count with them.

Second point. what is clearly the purpose of this resolution: to protect the populations against hazards, certainly not! It says that "a lack of standards regarding the identification and ransportation of chemical substances is a severe safety hazard", I do not believe so, and I'm part of the UN, so I have the right to express my point of view!

I do not logically see why a label can protect against a safety hazard. can you understand that?

If the UN wants to protect against a safety hazard, let adopt a resolution to setup some procedures of protection against such hazards.
1. Create an scientific agency dedicated to study the proper way to fight against the most possible number of hazards,
2. let this agency publish its results and disseminate them among the UN members.
3. Create an economic program to grant nations which cannot afford the adequate protection procedures.

Our Empire will surely vote for such a resolution, based on:
- the continuous improvement of the knowledge about the object of the resolution
- economic procedures dedicated to help the most unfortunate nations
- the protection of populations

On the contrary, we have here a resolution about labelling?!?

Sorry, but to make a good or a bad impression is not my point here, my point is to help the inhabitants of the poorest nations to be protected against the effects of the industrial interests of the richest ones...

Mistakes...

So you maintain that wood, glass, paper, iron are not chemicals?
very interesting

Dude, seriously, shut up.

So you maintain that wood, glass, paper, iron are not chemicals?In the context of this proposal? They are not. Do you understand the word "context"?

I do not logically see why a label can protect against a safety hazard. can you understand that?So, when that bottle of bleach has a label that says "DANGER: DO NOT INGEST", it isn't protecting against a safety hazard.

Interesting. What a bizarre, nonsensical universe you live in.

:headbang: Make it stop. Please make the bad science stop.

Wood is not a chemical. Pelicans are not a chemical. They are made of chemicals ... many in fact ... but they are not a chemical anymore than the UN building is a chemical.

When you use bad science, God kills a cat girl. Please think of the cat girls!

:headbang: Please make the bad science stop. There must be some way to make the bad science stop!

Oh wait ... just call 1-800-D(EA)TH-STAR.

Wood is not a chemical. Pelicans are not a chemical. They are made of chemicals ... many in fact ... but they are not a chemical anymore than the UN building is a chemical.

Ok, but what about chemicals in the context of the chemical hazards?
Wood can be the source of a chemical hazard (what kind of wood), pelican can be too (what did it ingest?), some bacteria can be the vectors of chemical hazards too.

If you known what "bad" science is and "good" science is, can you tell me how marking a spherical container "on all faces of the containers" is efficient (only a label for a huge sphere)? Of course, for "good" scientists only thinking with pircewise constant theories as you, put a mark "on all faces of the containers" is enough, but for advanced people as inhabitants of the Empire of Logical Wits, this is quite... simplistic.

All this emphasis that the text of this resolution is not clear, all nations should vote against it.

So, when that bottle of bleach has a label that says "DANGER: DO NOT INGEST", it isn't protecting against a safety hazard.

No, unless you teach to people how to read the label.

Moreover, you no that instructions will not be so simple: "To enumerate the list of hazardous materials, using the Arabic numerals (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), using twelve digits for each substance. These 12-digit numbers will be known as Chemical Identification Numbers (CIN);".

Labelling is not the issue; the issue is education and safety procedures. Most developped nations have to help poorest ones to be able to face to such dangers. Especially when the hazards come from outside industries. We need an agency, we need some granted programs for poor nations, we do not need stickers (http://www.kids-love-stickers.com/)...

The voting is clear:
- adopting the resolution is for stickers lovers
- rejecting this resolution is for responsable nations which want to share ressources with the poorests

The nineteenth junior intern delegate for the Committee for counselling on the labelling of products, advising the UN delegate for Guangdongstan states:

I believe that, again, this has degenerated into a "I-say-You-say" situation.

States should consider the pros and cons of such resolutions, and weigh up for themselves what the benefits and detrimental effects are.

If you wish to take a real-life situation, then one must consider the actual facts of the dangers of some products versus others, so for example, certain forms of cellulose is safer than others, and compared to say, UDMH Nitric Acid or long chain organic oil carbons.

I also think that there are some general assumptions that can be made here:

1. That we have knowledge of what chemicals are more dangerous than others (whether they be explosive, corrosive, etc. etc.);
2. That most states would have intra-state trade in these aforementioned chemicals; and
3. That some states would have some standards for transporting chemicals, given the relativelly established position of 1.

Given these assumptions, then a uniform standard across UN members states is not a bad thing, since it does provide a level of protection. Not perfect, but it is better than not having anything in the instance. Herein lies my issues with the arguments that have been posed in opposition.

A concern of implementation of this for poorer states is one of significant issue. Given that chemical manufacture (especially ones that would fall into the hazardous category - like UDMH) is usually done by industrialised states as opposed to poorer states, and then export these to other states, then the onus of implementation is not on the states that import the materials as much as the manufacturer. True, this places a heavy burden on the manufacturer, but the onus automatically lies there, since having a UN resolution and a list that governs the hazard levels of products defines our friendly UDMH as probably "very bloody dangerous". A mislabel or failure to inform if something goes wrong at the time of manufacture and labelling then falls on the manufacturer, not on the end user. Of course, if the end user doesn't use the product in the specified manner, then the onus is no longer on the manufacturer.

I agree that a label does not make something safer, but I think that the idea that labels = safety is logically flawed and truistic. Of course labels don't make things safer, but having a standard allows for a commonality of information to be passed from state to state without the need for continuous checking and rechecking of what a specific code is. This makes the transportation of chemicals no less dangerous, but it makes it bureaucratically easier and less stressful, which is probably a good thing.

While the title of the resolution is problematic, voting down a resolution based on a triviality would, to be honest, seem a bit silly. While states respect the state's rights to engage in trade, there is nothing within the core of the resolution that forces states to engage in free trade (without tariffs) of chemicals in the first instance. It's a resolution that governs the standardisation of transporting chemicals intra-state using a common definition, as opposed to a common pricing.

There is no provision within the resolution for expanding the list of chemical transport standards, but there is no provision within the resolution that stops it either. I believe that, considering chemicals and chemical compounds are constantly being created, reformed, developed and evolved, that a list created from such a resolution stands still flies in the face of general standards making and law making of states in general.

Lastly, the definition of what is considered non-dangerous and dangerous is not defined because UN resolutions are designed as such in general. In this particular case, having a list of what constitutes non-dangerous and dangerous is subjective in many way shapes or forms. While the 1-4 scale is limited, the specific numbering principle is more relevent in the analysis of danger etc.

Guangdongstan considers the positives still to outweigh the negatives.

All OOC:

But, I'd like to thank you for proving Alexander Pope right...

I'm not sure how many people are going to get that, but...

http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif

Dude, seriously, shut up.

As always, Kenny, you're wonderfully direct and to the point. :cool:

:headbang: Make it stop. Please make the bad science stop.

Wood is not a chemical. Pelicans are not a chemical. They are made of chemicals ... many in fact ... but they are not a chemical anymore than the UN building is a chemical.

When you use bad science, God kills a cat girl. Please think of the cat girls!


http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/catgirls4hn.jpg

No, unless you teach to people how to read the label.Not everybody needs to be able to read the label. People who handle the shipments at points of entry do. One hopes they would prefer to learn the system as opposed to sticking their heads into barrels and hoping the contents don't kill them. The average consumer, not involved in shipping chemicals internationally, doesn't need to concern themself with the system. This isn't a complicated system, either. Ten minutes to learn. Tops.

Especially when the hazards come from outside industries. We need an agency, we need some granted programs for poor nations, we do not need stickers (http://www.kids-love-stickers.com/)...Speaking of having nothing to do with anything...

The voting is clear:
- adopting the resolution is for stickers lovers
- rejecting this resolution is for responsable nations which want to share ressources with the poorestsWow. Just, wow. Are you sure that you didn't read Nizkor's list of fallacies and mistakenly thought they were logical arguments?

Not everybody needs to be able to read the label. People who handle the shipments at points of entry do.

of course, and what if the transport have an accident? what about people coming around a truck on a car park? your contempt for other people is astonishing.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/2179/rejecthazardsqw2.png

Oh, the irony... :rolleyes:

of course, and what if the transport have an accident? what about people coming around a truck on a car park? your contempt for other people is astonishing.One would hope they would do what they did before the labeling: stay the hell away from chemical spills.

Seriously... are you just trying to be pointlessly obtuse?

Seriously... are you just trying to be pointlessly obtuse?
Hack, it's you who's being obtuse. Can you no longer recognize a troll when you see one?

One would hope they would do what they did before the labeling: stay the hell away from chemical spills.

But may be they never have seen chemical pills before? may be it's because they live in a poor country and your trucks are using their roads to transport your pills from your country to a third one. May be they cannot read your stickers?

And your beloved scientist commision will had label trucks with "12-digit numbers which will be known as Chemical Identification Numbers", very easy to understand, isn't it?

be serious a couple of seconds and admit that, if the target of this resolution is an important topic (protection of people from chemical hazards), it does not use the proper way to achieve this respectable goal.

Hack, it's you who's being obtuse.

I totally agree, please stop this troll, Hack!

be serious a couple of seconds and admit that, if the target of this resolution is an important topic (protection of people from chemical hazards), it does not use the proper way to achieve this respectable goal.

Well, "chemical pills" aside, you seriously need to shut the hell up.

You have added absolutely nothing to this discussion, nothing at all. The goal is to help identify chemicals that may be harmful to people, and classify them accordingly.

You know, I'll make you a deal. If this resolution doesn't pass, I'll ship three thousand gallons of "water" to Logical Wits, free of charge. All the nice shiny barrels that are filled with "water" will have nice bright stickers that say "THIS IS WATER" on it, so you know that you're getting water.

Then, when you open them, and it's really rat feces and medical waste, you will understand how fucking stupid your position was.

Because your position is fucking stupid.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

I totally agree, please stop this troll, Hack!


OOC: Wow...talk about shooting yourself in the foot... :rolleyes:

OK That does it. I am up to my wits end with logical wits. I'm calling in a member of one nation that recently separated from Tzorsland, Brother Thomas of the Free Land of Frustrated Franciscans to discuss this with you in a calm and rational behavior. Take it away Brother Thomas.

“Why thank you oh Meddling Monk. Peace and Good! It appears that someone has a great misunderstanding about the nature of labels on containers. It appears that someone thinks they can’t avoid serious accidents. I am reminded of Saint Francis who used to talk to the animals and give sermons to the trees. At least they listened! Anyway, as I was saying, the correct use of labels can mean all the difference in the world. Suppose I come across a container that is on fire. Should I use water, foam or CO2 to put it out? Should I worry about the container exploding? Is it highly toxic, should I be wearing a respirator? Proper labeling is important. Proper labeling can save lives!”

Here lies my aide
He is no more
For what he thought was H2O
Was H2SO4
Proper labeling is important
Proper labeling saves lives
Proper labeling saves cat girls
THINK OF THE CAT GIRLS

OOC: Clever poem, Tzor. It occurs to me that I haven't stated my position.

IC: The holowolf stands. "The Commonwealth fully supports this measure, and abhors the senseless destruction of catgirls." The strange wolf then meowed quietly in a rather provocative manner that indicated it had something on its mind(OOC: My god, but that was an awkward sentence). It then snapped its attention back to the immediate matters. "Er... Yes. We are also willing to activate the GuardSat Network to perform the international neurosurgery needed to remove the tumor that is the nation of Logical Wits from our precious global entity."

The Wolf Guardians;11850211']OOC: Clever poem, Tzor. It occurs to me that I haven't stated my position.

IC: The holowolf stands. "The Commonwealth fully supports this measure, and abhors the senseless destruction of catgirls." The strange wolf then meowed quietly in a rather provocative manner that indicated it had something on its mind(OOC: My god, but that was an awkward sentence). It then snapped its attention back to the immediate matters. "Er... Yes. We are also willing to activate the GuardSat Network to perform the international neurosurgery needed to remove the tumor that is the nation of Logical Wits from our precious global entity."

No worries, man. I'm pretty sure our Death Star's already in geosynchronous orbit over that irritating speck of a nation.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

No worries, man. I'm pretty sure our Death Star's already in geosynchronous orbit over that irritating speck of a nation.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The holowolf looks thoughtful. "We should network them together, so that they can coordinate fire effectively. We'd have a lattice of doom to all idiots everywhere!" The wolf bared its fangs in anticipation.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted FOR the resolution "Chemical Transport Standards" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region. This the position currently shared by the large majority of UN voters who have registered their votes.

Hellar Gray

The Wolf Guardians;11850293']The holowolf looks thoughtful. "We should network them together, so that they can coordinate fire effectively. We'd have a lattice of doom to all idiots everywhere!" The wolf bared its fangs in anticipation.


Of course, dude. Under the UN Counterterrorism Initiative, which my predecessor pushed so valiantly, we're pretty much obligated to work together to stop that shite. Besides, your nation and mine are both members of DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?). Our people on the Death Star (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=180) can work out how to deal with these tools.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You have added absolutely nothing to this discussion, nothing at all.

Thank you for your post which indeed added a full of value to the discussion.

And in fact, I add something to the discussion, which is that labelling is not enough. As a matter of fact, it's enough for rich nations, but not for the poorest ones.
So my first add to the discussion is underlying that something is missing in this resolution. For instance a last point which create the "United Nations Chemical Transportation Hazard Prevention Agency", which will:
1. have to power to take actions against bad labelling
2. tax the most dangerous chemicals (using the created ranking)
3. use this money to grant actions dedicated to the dissemination of the rankings and the procedures designed to avoid casualities in case of hazards

This is a real proposition, you cannot say that I add nothing to the discussion.

My second point is to underline that such resolutions are fake ones: they have a very nice label "Chemical Transport Standards - A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce" (even if we do not agree with the "free trade and commerce" part), but contains nothing real.

We in the Empiral of Logical Wits think that an organisation like UN should adopt resolutions that will change the world in better.

We have a dream that one day the united nations will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all nations are created equal."
We have a dream that one day on the blueberry hills of Bodycoded Islands the sons of former slave nations and the sons of former dictatorships will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
We have a dream that one day even in "That Place Over There", a location sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the Bodycoded Islands with.
And if United Nations are to be a great organisation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of Flamevault.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of the South Pacific. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Gamingforce!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies PvP Nation!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of Myrthland!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Wysteria!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Alcatraz!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Evil Cookies. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and nation, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, Corporate Police States and Compulsory Consumerist States, Benevolent Dictatorships and Compulsory Consumerist States, Capitalizts and Iron Fist Consumerists, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

OOC: Can someone please make this arse go away?

Ok. Seems to me that some real heat is in, and probably we need to add stickers to discussions on resolution that contain some bad language, like "fucking stupid" and blabla.

I do not want to go on discussing why this resolution is a false answer to a real problem. And why passing such kind of laws just diminish the authority of the UN. It seems that these issues are not to be discussed, taboo-like.

Just let me tell you that next time we'll probably vote a resolution saying that evil is bad, and that labelling evilness will improve free trade. I'll probably vote for that.

I totally agree, please stop this troll, Hack!
Done.

Brother Thomas appears to be occupied with inserting an English muffin, split open and topped with cheese and a dab of tomato paste into a toaster oven, when he raises his hand to speak, "The esteemed representative of Logical Wits has suggested that something is missing in this resolution. I have no doubt something is missing in this resolution. Perfection belongs to God. He has also suggested that this resolution is fake and that we must change this world for the better. I nearly feared that he would break into 'Let there be peace on Earth' or some other such nonsesne. With these two points he has maintained that he has indeed contributed to the discussion at hand."

"I would maintain that he has caused the representative, and I should add the President of Tzorsland to bang his head on the door in a mad rush to get to the stranger's bar and has gotten the representative from the Wolf Guardians to clearly think of things that previous repeal resolutions has equated with beastiality. To even think that this has contributed to the discussion is silly at best. Ah, my English muffin pizzas are done."

Done.

OOC: Whoa. Guess you would love to be moderator in the real UN. Expelling a memeber without explanation would probably makes you feel someone important. Too bad it does not work that way.

OOC: Whoa. Guess you would love to be moderator in the real UN. Expelling a memeber without explanation would probably makes you feel someone important. Too bad it does not work that way.

*titter*

Ok. Seems to me that some real heat is in, and probably we need to add stickers to discussions on resolution that contain some bad language, like "fucking stupid" and blabla.

I do not want to go on discussing why this resolution is a false answer to a real problem. And why passing such kind of laws just diminish the authority of the UN. It seems that these issues are not to be discussed, taboo-like.

Just let me tell you that next time we'll probably vote a resolution saying that evil is bad, and that labelling evilness will improve free trade. I'll probably vote for that.

OOC: I am back from the 24-hour flu. Part of me is thankful that I missed Wits-End's ranting. Unbelievable...

IC: Your concerns are (things I've answered in my FAQ already...) that this Resolution itself does not define the steps in between the Hazard Ratings. You worry that this Commission will be taken over by power hungry corporations to do the BS that pharmaceutical companies do. Well, I'm afraid that (OOC: that is something that the game mechanics themselves prevent. What the UN Resolution says is what the UNCTC does.) you'll just have to trust us. If there is ever a time where a chemical will be a rating that does not match its properties, someone will notice. How can we tell the difference between wood and iron? Aside from the fact that those are completed products (but I'll use the example as a metaphor), the UNCTC will obviously have some scientific oversight. Wood burns quite nicely, at this temperature, with this oxide, etc etc etc. It will get a rating that reflects this. It does not burn as easily as Gasoline, it does burn more easily than iron. They will likely have different ratings. There is so much more science in here than the character limit on the Resolution will allow.



And someone else brought up the category (clearly skipping over the FAQ again) and said that socialist nations will automatically vote against it. I just -- I... I'm speechless.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

OOC: Whoa. Guess you would love to be moderator in the real UN. Expelling a memeber without explanation would probably makes you feel someone important. Too bad it does not work that way.

OOC: You need an explanation?

OOC: Whoa. Guess you would love to be moderator in the real UN. Expelling a memeber without explanation would probably makes you feel someone important. Too bad it does not work that way.

And I guess you would love to think that you're clever and righteous in your indignation. Too bad he did mention that LW was a troll. Too bad that trolling is against the rules. You might want to read those rules, the bits about flamebaiting and trolling in particular.

OOC: You need an explanation?

OOC: Probably. Probably there is something here that I do not get. I mean, he is acting, it is a roleplaying game: You know how Vulcans can be, right ? He did not used bad language (which others had) he was trying to make a point. Sure you may think he was not. But I found his talk more funny than anything else that I have read here about "free trade will save the world" and "labelling will make the world safer (North Korea anyone ?)". I mean is it mandatory to be "gnangnan" when you are in the UN or can you compose a different character ? So expelling him seems a bad decision, even more if he was not warned. As I am, he is a new player. I am sure he did nothing against the FAQ. So do we have to be nice little social-dem countries to be allowed to talk, or can we behave strangely ?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/Chechnya.jpg

We've got better things to do that participate in this debate, but in the name of saving cat girls... Risk can not be eliminated. It can only be managed. To expect zero risk – to expect to live in a world without sharp corners – is lunacy. Even in the People's Democratic Republic of Community Property, glassblowers sometimes get burned, coconut gatherers still fall out of trees, pearl divers still drown or get eaten by sharks, and fishermen's outriggers still founder in storms. And all of this happens, we may add, under a socialist system devoted to maintaining high standards of workplace safety. Zero risk is impossible.


This is a free trade resolution only because that is how it must be categorized. To fixate on the category and then spout some nonsense about how all socialist nations must oppose all free trade resolutions is sophomoric stupidity. Resolutions fall into the categories they fall into because that is where they fall. Laws mandating overtime are moral decency or human rights statutes, as are laws aiming to reduce the spread of disease, rather than being social welfare or environmental resolutions as you might expect. Deal with it.


It is ridiculous to expect the author to spell out all of the rules for categorizing chemicals in the body of the resolution itself. Limits on the length of resolutions militate against this. Read the rules of the U.N.


Information about the chemical being handled will permit cargo handlers to improve the handling of the chemical in question, as well as to permit hazmat teams to know what they're dealing with in the event of any problem. To suggest that labels can not help is to engage in a kind of black-and-white extremism that insults the intelligence of this body.


A single U.N agency to regulate the chemical trade is impractical and politically untenable. To hold out for such a solution is counterproductive.Now, if you'll excuse us, we need to go to the Strangers' Bar. The level of discourse hear has made us nauseous.

And, in honor of the Kennyite delegation's wise words in this debate, we'll buy them all a round of drinks. Or invite them to our new offices, complete with a blower to push the smoke out of the building.

Excruciatia's UN puppet voted FOR the resolution. Excruciatia gladly looks forward to the stream-lining of it's chemical weapons programs that this resolution will produce :D

Forgive me, but the nation of Candaron would like to ask how this even passed as a free trade resolution, when you are further regulating trade, not freeing it?

Forgive me, but the nation of Candaron would like to ask how this even passed as a free trade resolution, when you are further regulating trade, not freeing it?Simple, the Free Trade category's description reads, "A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce." The fact that the containers will be labelled with their contents and what risks those contents pose reduces those barriers, just not financial ones. For a more detailed explanation, read this which I'm quoting from the first post in this thread.
Why the Free Trade Category? There's nothing about reducing regulations in this Resolution. This was a subject of much discussion during the drafting of this Resolution. In the end it was decided that the category was the closest match (praise be to Fris who was probably lenient), since in the end money will be saved because of the reduction of accidents and an increase in efficiency. It would encourage a faster and more voluminous trade between member nations. And I figure it would have been witty and ironic for my first Resolution to be of the Free Trade category, all things Norderian considered. The latest mod ruling is that standardization does as the description for Free Trade reads -- reduces barriers to international trade.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We have a dream that one day the united nations will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all nations are created equal."
We have a dream that one day on the blueberry hills of Bodycoded Islands the sons of former slave nations and the sons of former dictatorships will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
We have a dream that one day even in "That Place Over There", a location sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the Bodycoded Islands with.
And if United Nations are to be a great organisation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of Flamevault.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of the South Pacific. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Gamingforce!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies PvP Nation!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of Myrthland!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Wysteria!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Alcatraz!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Evil Cookies. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and nation, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, Corporate Police States and Compulsory Consumerist States, Benevolent Dictatorships and Compulsory Consumerist States, Capitalizts and Iron Fist Consumerists, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"OOC: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is rolling in his grave right now.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/Chechnya.jpgMeh. It's been done. ;)

This resolution is a result of some nations that have lot of spare time. If the best that our UN can do is come up with a resolution that we as nations cannot manipulate in this game then I can understand why there are a lot of non-UN members. I hope the author had to look all this information up because there is no reason that anyone should know it offhand unless you are a chemical engineer. We are voting against it because there is no point. This is just another example of why this UN serves no point.

This resolution is a result of some nations that have lot of spare time. If the best that our UN can do is come up with a resolution that we as nations cannot manipulate in this game then I can understand why there are a lot of non-UN members. I hope the author had to look all this information up because there is no reason that anyone should know it offhand unless you are a chemical engineer. We are voting against it because there is no point. This is just another example of why this UN serves no point.

Making it easier to regulate and track dangerous chemicals has no point? I'd hate to live in your nation. Then again, mixing all sorts of chemicals probably explains a lot about your population.

Incidentally, if you think the UN is pointless, why are you here? And do you have any suggestions on improving it, if you think it's so flawed? Complaining really serves no purpose otherwise.

And do you have any suggestions on improving it, if you think it's so flawed?A little late for that, don't you think?

Meh. It's been done. ;)

Precisely why it's funny for a pacifist nation to do it. Precisely why it's also doable for a pacifist nation. We sent four guys in, saw rubble, and put up a flag. Then we left.

This resolution is a result of some nations that have lot of spare time. If the best that our UN can do is come up with a resolution that we as nations cannot manipulate in this game then I can understand why there are a lot of non-UN members. I hope the author had to look all this information up because there is no reason that anyone should know it offhand unless you are a chemical engineer. We are voting against it because there is no point. This is just another example of why this UN serves no point.

So tell me, with your infinite wisdom (and great intelligence, since you feel you must insult mine [if of course, you're not too busy to respond, since it's a stretch to look up the information required to write this resolution {or to even know it exists, for that matter}]), what should the UN be legislating on? What international matters are worthy of the UNs consideration, if not this? Should there be a "ZOMG, this is a life or death international matter of great importance!" Resolution every week?

Should we mayhap forget about all of the less exciting things than "lawlz i got teh n00ks and u dont"? Forgive me for not giving you a big ol' stiffy with my Resolution, but I, and nearly 10,000 other members so far think that this matter is A-OK for the UN.

We've got better things to do that participate in this debate, but in the name of saving cat girls... Risk can not be eliminated. It can only be managed. To expect zero risk – to expect to live in a world without sharp corners – is lunacy. Even in the People's Democratic Republic of Community Property, glassblowers sometimes get burned, coconut gatherers still fall out of trees, pearl divers still drown or get eaten by sharks, and fishermen's outriggers still founder in storms. And all of this happens, we may add, under a socialist system devoted to maintaining high standards of workplace safety. Zero risk is impossible.


This is a free trade resolution only because that is how it must be categorized. To fixate on the category and then spout some nonsense about how all socialist nations must oppose all free trade resolutions is sophomoric stupidity. Resolutions fall into the categories they fall into because that is where they fall. Laws mandating overtime are moral decency or human rights statutes, as are laws aiming to reduce the spread of disease, rather than being social welfare or environmental resolutions as you might expect. Deal with it.


It is ridiculous to expect the author to spell out all of the rules for categorizing chemicals in the body of the resolution itself. Limits on the length of resolutions militate against this. Read the rules of the U.N.


Information about the chemical being handled will permit cargo handlers to improve the handling of the chemical in question, as well as to permit hazmat teams to know what they're dealing with in the event of any problem. To suggest that labels can not help is to engage in a kind of black-and-white extremism that insults the intelligence of this body.


A single U.N agency to regulate the chemical trade is impractical and politically untenable. To hold out for such a solution is counterproductive.Now, if you'll excuse us, we need to go to the Strangers' Bar. The level of discourse hear has made us nauseous.

And, in honor of the Kennyite delegation's wise words in this debate, we'll buy them all a round of drinks. Or invite them to our new offices, complete with a blower to push the smoke out of the building.

My government agrees with all of the points listed above, with the exception of the last point. We actually feel that the scope of the UNCTC is reasonable for the stated goals of this resolution: a streamlining of the international transport of hazardous materials. That said, we completely agree that holding out for a committee with a LARGER charge is not just counterproductive, but it also fails to recognize that the focus of this resolution is really meant to improve commerce by promoting international standards of information for a very specific type of cargo.

Mikitivity votes strongly in favour.

Howie T. Katzman


OOC: I've already placed a pretty good stub article up on NSWiki. I'll have time this weekend to work on the voting analysis, so I would like to encourage all nations to feel free to vote. You'll noticed that I even had the Intl Red Cross vote, because I felt this resolution dealt with safety issues. ;)

Precisely why it's funny for a pacifist nation to do it. Precisely why it's also doable for a pacifist nation. We sent four guys in, saw rubble, and put up a flag.Look, bud. We've already claimed this bit of dirt for the Federal Republic, and there just ain't enough room in this semiautonomous region for the two of us!

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/images/directors/02/21/duckdodgers.jpg

Look, bud. We've already claimed this bit of dirt for the Federal Republic, and there just ain't enough room in this semiautonomous region for the two of us!

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/images/directors/02/21/duckdodgers.jpg

Fine, go ahead and burn the flag then. It's just cloth. We don't want your stupid useless speck of a region anyway.

Chechnya.jpgSeeing how this meme has grown warms the cockles of my heart.



OOC: Probably. Probably there is something here that I do not get. I mean, he is acting, it is a roleplaying gameHe took it out of the realm of roleplaying. Furthermore, it is quite easy to troll while being "in character", and it's against the rules that way too.

He did not used bad language (which others had) he was trying to make a point.No, he was being intentionally dense, belittling, and general odious. Fris calling him a troll was supposed to be a wake-up call to two people. Me, to stop responding to him (which I did), and him, to dial it down (which he didn't).

So expelling him seems a bad decision, even more if he was not warned.Aside from the subtle hint he refused to heed, a forumban is a warning.

As I am, he is a new player. I am sure he did nothing against the FAQ.Perhaps you should read the rules, then.

So do we have to be nice little social-dem countries to be allowed to talk, or can we behave strangely ?Nobody ever said that and you know it. Take the pity party elsewhere.

In fact, this whole conversation shouldn't be here. If you'd like to continue it, go to the Moderation forum. This thread has suffered enough hijacking.

Of course it doesn't make sense financially.
It's proposed by a nation who's economy has IMPLODED!

Seeing how this meme has grown warms the cockles of my heart.


OOC: Maybe even the sub-cockles. Maybe even...the lower intestine. ;)

Fine, go ahead and burn the flag then. It's just cloth. We don't want your stupid useless speck of a region anyway.

Just be carefull or Ohmygodtheykilledkenny will be forced to use their disintergrating gun. It really does disintergrate you know!

(OMG, I practically know every line of that episode by heart, and all the many editorial variations of it as well.)

Take it to Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231) and stop cluttering this debate!

It doesn't really matter any more. The debate is over.....

Chemical Transport Standards was passed 10,477 votes to 2,973

Congratulations!

Congratulations!

Well done, a pretty good proposal in the book.

*snip self-righteous garbage that ignores everything Flibs said, Hack did, and Fris ruled*

Take your crusade to MODERATION (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231) and begone from this thread. I don't know how oft it must be said before you boneheads do it.

Huzzah, says the Norderian Delegation. A large margin of victory, few rational dissenters, and a Resolution on the books with the name "Norderia." Yay me!

Who wants to buy us drinks? I think everyone but Juhani will have something!


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Huzzah, says the Norderian Delegation. A large margin of victory, few rational dissenters, and a Resolution on the books with the name "Norderia." Yay me!

Who wants to buy us drinks? I think everyone but Juhani will have something!


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Wait a darn minute! When the "Marriage Protection Act" passed, we bought the drinks. Now you expect us to buy you drinks? In your dreams, Bubba the Portly!

But congratulations anyway. ;)

Lori Ahlmann

Wait a darn minute! When the "Marriage Protection Act" passed, we bought the drinks. Now you expect us to buy you drinks? In your dreams, Bubba the Portly!

But congratulations anyway. ;)

Lori Ahlmann

Shutuuuuuup! You're gonna give it awayyyyy!

Congratulations!

It pains me to say it, man, but congratulations. You did great work on this.

Excuse me while I go back to my office and lick the brown acid now.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN