NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Uranium Mining
Proposed by: Love and esterel

-A- FULLY AWARE of potential nuclear risks to populations and our environment, on both national and international levels, such as radiation and radioactivity,

-B- DESIRING to reduce the risks related to nuclear threats and accidents,

-C- RESPECTING the choice of members to possess a nuclear deterrent arsenal,

-D- ALARMED by the amount of nuclear armaments of some nations exceeding their deterrent need,

-E- CONVINCED that in order to reduce these risks related to nuclear energy and weaponry, best practices and safety and security measures must be implemented and populations must be kept well informed:


-1- STRONGLY URGES all members to limit or reduce their nuclear arsenal in order to not exceed a reasonable deterrent force;

-2- CHARGES the Nuclear Energy Research Commission (NERC) created by resolution 154 to ESTABLISH the “UN Nuclear Accidents and Incidents Scale” (UNNAIS) defining a 7 level gradation of nuclear incidents and accidents, related measurement procedures and adequate needed responses (where 1 indicates an on-site anomaly without contamination, and 7: a breakdown of a reactor with widespread contamination);

-3- REQUIRES that, for each area or activity maintaining or using nuclear material which might pose a risk of a UNNAIS accident at level 4 or above, an accident control plan shall be developed and maintained by national and local administrations, in coordination with neighbour nations. At a minimum, this plan shall address, wherever as appropriate, with an emergency and/or long term approach: containment, evacuation, medical response, site security and environmental response;

-4- MANDATES that, for any accident at UNNAIS level 4 or above, the public in the potentially affected area shall immediately be informed of (i) the occurrence of the incident, (ii) the amount and nature of the health risk posed, and (iii) appropriate protective measures to be taken while avoiding potential panic situations and false alarms;

-5- MANDATES that records shall be maintained of all UNNAIS incident at level 1 or above, and shall be made available for examination by the public unless required to be classified in the interest of national security;

-6- CHARGES the NERC with the following:

-6.1- to make further strong safety recommendations for civil and military nuclear reactors, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste, including but not limited to:
- redundancy and maximum years of operational life for critical systems,
-control procedures and good practices,
-accident behaviour containment,
-confinement of reactors,
-structure reliability in relation to, for example, fire, natural disasters and external attacks,
-delivery of appropriate safety and decontamination equipment and medicines, and instruction, such as iodine pills to protect population from thyroid cancers,

-6.2- to offer help to members in order to comply with this document along with desiring non-members and to offer training to their nuclear facilities personal,

-6.3- to perform scheduled mandatory inspections of all civil nuclear reactors, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste, to release public report and to make related surety requirements, in accordance with this document,

-7- MANDATES that any information gathered as a result of these inspections would only be used by NERC for the purposes outlined in the proposal.

Co-authored by Sinaasappel
Members of the UN General Assembly,

I, Ambassador Tossan, on behalf of the Federation of Dosuun, come before you today to urge you to vote against this proposed resolution.

Nuclear fission has proven to be a clean, safe, compact, efficient, and reliable high-output source of energy for several decades in nations who choose to utilize it. It produces no emissions. Reprocessing can recover up to 95% of the remaining uranium and plutonium in spent nuclear fuel, putting it into new mixed oxide fuel.

All aspects of life and the world in which we live come with certain risks. The risks to populations can be minimalized through effective safeguards and sufficient redundancies within nuclear powerplants. The fact is that the only western reactor meltdown was incomplete and halted before a breach and release of radiation. The only complete reactor meltdown occured in a Soviet reactor as a result of poor design and poor response by the crew monitoring and maintaining the power station. Even during that tragedy, less than 60 people died and according to the UN's own estimations less than 4,000 more have died since or will as a direct result of that incident. While still a tragedy the damage wrought by the contamination is far less than many natural disasters as is the death toll.

Uranium and other unstable elements are present in the environment, many subcritical deposits are still capable of radiating lethal doses for extended periods of time. Would it not be of more benefit to the environment to remove and isolate this material and to put it to use in powering our cities cleanly so as not to pollute the air we must breath with coal soot?

Orion-type spacecraft could solve the problem of excessive mass ratios for interplanetary and possibly even interstellar flight. Therefore I propose that we should not dismantle excess nuclear arsenals but rather adapt them into shape-charges for use in peaceful space exploration and scientific research.

Thank you for your time.

I, Ambassador Tossan, on behalf of the Federation of Dosuun, come before you today to urge you to vote against this proposed resolution.Why exactly? Lets look at your reasons.

All aspects of life and the world in which we live come with certain risks. The risks to populations can be minimalized through effective safeguards and sufficient redundancies within nuclear powerplants.Well, isn't it good then that the proposed resolution makes efforts to implement best practices to reduce the risk.All aspects of life and the world in which we live come with certain risks. The risks to populations can be minimalized through effective safeguards and sufficient redundancies within nuclear powerplants. The fact is that the only western reactor blah blah blah RL life rubbish.RL ≠ NS Orion-type spacecraft could solve the problem of excessive mass ratios for interplanetary and possibly even interstellar flight. Therefore I propose that we should not dismantle excess nuclear arsenals but rather adapt them into shape-charges for use in peaceful space exploration and scientific research.Excuse me?

Everything you've said (aside from the rubbish and rhetoric) simply supports this proposal rather than objects to it.

Hirota is opposing as it will affect our Uranium mining industry.

There is one part of the resolution I don't like.
Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Uranium Mining
Proposed by: Love and esterel
But stat wanking aside, I really can't find anything in this resolution that I dislilke. It has gone through a good vetting process, and the result speaks for itself. I think it deserves our support.

And going off topic for a moment, I really think that magnetic bubble, warp / spindizzy drives hold the best promise for interstellar travel. Forget questions of relaivity, power, space and time, solving the simple question of acceleration wthout killing yourself with the g forces is the biggest problem to any interstellar drive system.

Hirota is opposing as it will affect our Uranium mining industry.

Cluichstan will be opposing primarily on the same grounds, but we also object to have more UN inspectors running around our nation. It also does not exempt military facilities from said inspections, thus violating our national security.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Cluichstan will be opposing primarily on the same grounds, but we also object to have more UN inspectors running around our nation. It also does not exempt military facilities from said inspections, thus violating our national security.Well, you know military facilities can be a very dangerous place if you are not careful :p

Well, you know military facilities can be a very dangerous place if you are not careful :p

Indeed, it would be unfortunate if a gnome were to stray into a restricted area and get shot... http://209.85.48.8/9854/48/emo/Ninja-Invisible.gif

Cluichstan will be opposing primarily on the same grounds, but we also object to have more UN inspectors running around our nation. It also does not exempt military facilities from said inspections, thus violating our national security.
The inspections only apply to 'civil nuclear reactors', so presumably military facilities are exempted.

It's interesting to see an at-vote topic started by someone who wants to argue against the proposal.

We'll be opposing because of clause D and section 1. It's a bit presumptuous of the UN to tell us that we're naughty for exceeding our deterrent need, and that we should get rid of some of our mean old weapons.

It strikes me as double-talk; calling for disarmament while at the same time restricting and regulating the nuclear industries. I would prefer to see this deal with either military or civilian nuclear power. That's probably my fault, though, since I wasn't very involved with the drafting process.

We will vote against when this comes up to vote.

Most courteously,

Cluichstan will be opposing primarily on the same grounds, but we also object to have more UN inspectors running around our nation. It also does not exempt military facilities from said inspections, thus violating our national security.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Read it again. The inspections clause (6.3) is specifically limited to "civil nuclear reactors, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste".

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We don't buy a national sovereignty or security argument here. Clause 7 mandates "that any information gathered as a result of these inspections would only be used by NERC for the purposes outlined in the proposal".

We are also upset and confused about a certain inconsistency in this resolution. Clause 6.1 requires the NERC "to make further strong safety recommendations for civil and military nuclear reactors". However, clause 6.3 allows NERC only "to perform scheduled mandatory inspections of all civil nuclear reactors".

Our previous support for this resolution was contingent on both military and civilian facilities being covered. If military facilities are excluded from inspection, Altanar will have no choice but to change its stance and oppose this resolution. Military facilities, in our estimation, are no less prone to accidents than civilian ones.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Since NERC has been brought up, that would be where the Kivistan legislative team is having issues. Should anything ever happen to UNR#154, this entire proposed resolution will begin to look like it has been through a meltdown of its own.

The UNNAIS scale will become undefined, which will mean that the public won't need to be informed about anything at all, nor will there be any records kept, as there would be no gradation to decide where records begin.
there will be no recommendations for any reactors, facilities, or whatever
there will be no suggestions about operational control, best practices, containment, confinement, structural integrity, decontamination, medication
there will be no help with compliance or training
there will be no inspections of anything
The information garnered by these, now extinct, inspections would be used by nobody for any reason

Pretty much every point to the entire resolution will be useless if anything were to happen to NERC. That's bad legislation, and Kivisto will not -CANnot- support it as such.

Since NERC has been brought up, that would be where the Kivistan legislative team is having issues. Should anything ever happen to UNR#154, this entire proposed resolution will begin to look like it has been through a meltdown of its own.

The UNNAIS scale will become undefined, which will mean that the public won't need to be informed about anything at all, nor will there be any records kept, as there would be no gradation to decide where records begin.
there will be no recommendations for any reactors, facilities, or whatever
there will be no suggestions about operational control, best practices, containment, confinement, structural integrity, decontamination, medication
there will be no help with compliance or training
there will be no inspections of anything
The information garnered by these, now extinct, inspections would be used by nobody for any reason

Pretty much every point to the entire resolution will be useless if anything were to happen to NERC. That's bad legislation, and Kivisto will not -CANnot- support it as such.

Let's put this in perspective, shall we? There are two possibilities for something "happening" to the NERC. So we'll look at both of them.

The NERC was established by NSUNR #154, "Nuclear Energy Research Act". If that resolution was repealed, what effect would that have on this resolution? The answer is that it would have ZERO effect. None whatsoever. Here is the pertinent language from the Rules for UN Proposals:

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. [emphasis added]

There is, of course, the possibility that the NERC could be disestablished. But that would require legislation to be passed by this body which specifically did that. And our assessment of the probability of that happening is somewhere between none and negligible. We do not support the resolution and will oppose it in debate as time goes on, but we don't see that extremely unlikely possibility as sufficient reason to oppose it.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Here is the pertinent language from the Rules for UN Proposals:

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity.


There is, of course, the possibility that the NERC could be disestablished. But that would require legislation to be passed by this body which specifically did that. And our assessment of the probability of that happening is somewhere between none and negligible. We do not support the resolution and will oppose it in debate as time goes on, but we don't see that extremely unlikely possibility as sufficient reason to oppose it.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

It would appear that Ms Ahlmann is correct.

Allow me to reduce my previous statement to simply say that adding on the capacities of previously created committees is still bad legislation. These groups already have work to do. Better to create a new comission than overwork the old ones. I am uncomfortable with doing this.

That said, and realizing that the rules won't be changing over my say so by any stretch, that rule is silly. It would stand to reason that a committee created by legislation would be disassembled when the supporting legislation is striken from the books. We must still be haunted by the residuals of defunct committees that still hang around because they are supposed to have a continued purpose, although none could really point to where their purpose is delineated because the legislation that gave them that purpose has been repealed. Creepy. I know that beings of all sorts are welcome within the UN, but must we allow the ghosts of legislations passed to wake us at night, rattling their chains, to remind us of how things used to be when they were around? I think I'd prefer all of our collective grandparents to join us in session so we could be subjected to the continual "When I was your age" stories.

Ah well.

It would appear that Ms Ahlmann is correct.

Allow me to reduce my previous statement to simply say that adding on the capacities of previously created committees is still bad legislation. These groups already have work to do. Better to create a new comission than overwork the old ones. I am uncomfortable with doing this.

That said, and realizing that the rules won't be changing over my say so by any stretch, that rule is silly. It would stand to reason that a committee created by legislation would be disassembled when the supporting legislation is striken from the books. We must still be haunted by the residuals of defunct committees that still hang around because they are supposed to have a continued purpose, although none could really point to where their purpose is delineated because the legislation that gave them that purpose has been repealed. Creepy. I know that beings of all sorts are welcome within the UN, but must we allow the ghosts of legislations passed to wake us at night, rattling their chains, to remind us of how things used to be when they were around? I think I'd prefer all of our collective grandparents to join us in session so we could be subjected to the continual "When I was your age" stories.

Ah well.

So, would the representative of Kivisto prefer that we proliferate committee after committee after committee, even in cases where their functions are closely related and the same sorts of expertise and knowledge are required? Or does it make sense in terms of efficiency and effectiveness to assign new duties to extant committees when that is the case?

Far from being "silly", the rule makes perfect sense. It "stands to reason" that a committee would be disestablished upon repeal only if that was the legislative rule in effect. In this case, that is quite obviously not the case here. A resolution assigning new duties to an existing committee is clearly seen as supplementary authorizing legislation. There's nothing "silly" about that. It promotes efficient utilization of on-hand peoplepower and expertise. It's not "bad legislation"; it's smart and sensible legislation.

Finally, the statement that "none could really point to where their purpose is delineated because the legislation that gave them that purpose has been repealed" is not correct. Their current purpose would be clearly delineated in the subsequent legislation.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Better to create a new comission than overwork the old ones

Your idea is interesting, in particular for the name of said comittee, as it may allow to change their names, in order to better reflects all its duties and capacities, new and old.

must we allow the ghosts of legislations passed to wake us at night, rattling their chains, to remind us of how things used to be when they were around?

In your scenario, only the name of the committee will remind and until that happen, I personally think it can be more efficient to have a common committee than two, for connected duties and capacities.

Far from being "silly", the rule makes perfect sense. It "stands to reason" that a committee would be disestablished upon repeal only if that was the legislative rule in effect. In this case, that is quite obviously not the case here. A resolution assigning new duties to an existing committee is clearly seen as supplementary authorizing legislation. There's nothing "silly" about that. It promotes efficient utilization of on-hand peoplepower and expertise. It's not "bad legislation"; it's smart and sensible legislation.

Finally, the statement that "none could really point to where their purpose is delineated because the legislation that gave them that purpose has been repealed" is not correct. Their current purpose would be clearly delineated in the subsequent legislation.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I went back and reread the rule in question after reading this. Why? I was confused. We were apparently reading this rule differently. Once I put my glasses back on and took my cranium out of my rear end (in that order, mind) I understood my error. I was reading it that all committees would just linger around, even without any new purpose. That's why I was going on about ghosts and chains and all that. My apologies.


I personally think it can be more efficient to have a common committee than two, for connected duties and capacities.

Now that I'm not performing the previously mentioned proctological nightmare, I agree.

The Free Land of Eisophca supports this resolution.

Sam Keynes
UN Representative

To the representative of Hirota,

Dosuun does not believe the UN should dictate the size of individual nations arsenals or the extent of use of nuclear energy within member nations and so, even while not being a member nation, is urging member nations to vote against this proposal when it comes time to vote on.

While RL is not NS I have not kept records of every incident in the history of NS so I chose to use RL as I do have access to a fairly complete history of RL incidents.

Orion-type spacecraft are interplanetary and interstellar craft that fire nuclear weapons behind the ship which then explode to propell it forward. Nuclear Pulse Rockets have lower mass ratios than chemical rockets and can achieve higher delta V, making interplanetary travel practical.

To the representative of Hirota,

Well, I'm gonna answer anyways.

Dosuun does not believe the UN should dictate the size of individual nations arsenals or the extent of use of nuclear energy within member nations and so,

Good thing that this doesn't do anything of that nature, then. Try reading what you're critiquing.

even while not being a member nation, is urging member nations to vote against this proposal when it comes time to vote on.

There may be reasons for doing so, but what you have offered does not constitute any of them.

While RL is not NS I have not kept records of every incident in the history of NS so I chose to use RL as I do have access to a fairly complete history of RL incidents.

Sure. Hypothetical examples. I can deal with that.

Orion-type spacecraft are interplanetary and interstellar craft that fire nuclear weapons behind the ship which then explode to propell it forward. Nuclear Pulse Rockets have lower mass ratios than chemical rockets and can achieve higher delta V, making interplanetary travel practical.

What the hell does that have to do with the subject matter at hand?

Thanks Kiv, that pretty much sums up how I was going to respond.

Dosuun does not believe the UN should dictate the size of individual nations arsenals or the extent of use of nuclear energy within member nations and so, even while not being a member nation, is urging member nations to vote against this proposal when it comes time to vote on.Since you are a non-UN member, why are you bothered? You can keep your trillions of nuclear weapons. Besides what the UN should and shouldn't do is decided by it's members. If more than 50% of those who vote say the UN can do something, it does do it.

While RL is not NS I have not kept records of every incident in the history of NS so I chose to use RL as I do have access to a fairly complete history of RL incidents.So does everyone else. It's called google. I use it for examples all the time. Doesn't mean what has happened in RL has happened in NS. There could be reactors blowing everywhere in the NS multiverse for all we know. <shrugs>

There could be reactors blowing everywhere in the NS multiverse for all we know.

I don't think so. But there could be. This sounds like a job for a Daily Issue!

This "Nuclear Responsibility Act" has me inspired.

I think I'm going to go write a "Water Responsibility Act" that discourages the use of Chinese Water Torture and create an international body for safe hydroelectric power.

Or better yet, a "Smoke Responsibility Act" that discourages smoking cigarettes and promotes responsible & safe burning of wood.

:rolleyes:

Here it is...


Smoke Responsibility Act

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Woodchipping
Proposed by: David6

-A- FULLY AWARE of potential risks to populations and our environment, on both national and international levels, such as smoke and fire,

-B- DESIRING to reduce the risks related to wood-burning threats and accidents,

-C- RESPECTING the choice of members to possess a wood storage deterrent arsenal,

-D- ALARMED by the amount of wood of some nations exceeding their deterrent need,

-E- CONVINCED that in order to reduce these risks related to wood energy and wood-burning weaponry, best practices and safety and security measures must be implemented and populations must be kept well informed:

-1.1- STRONGLY URGES all members to limit or reduce their wood arsenal in order to not exceed a reasonable deterrent force;

-1.2- RECOMMENDS all members to limit or reduce their wood production, or "planting", in order to prevent the accumulation of excess wood,

-1.3- ENCOURAGES all members to limit or reduce their wood mining, or "logging", in order to prevent the establishment of a deterrent force stronger than that which is required,

-2- CHARGES the Wood Energy Research Commission (WERC) to establish the “UN Wood-related Accidents and Incidents Scale” (UNWAIS) defining a 7 level gradation of wood-related incidents and accidents, associated measurement procedures and adequate needed responses (where 1 indicates an on-site anomaly without contamination, and 7: the burning of a Yule log with full-scale flames and smoke pollution);

-3- REQUIRES that, for each area or activity maintaining or using wood which might pose a risk of a UNWAIS accident at level 4 or above, an accident control plan shall be developed and maintained by national and local administrations, in coordination with neighbour nations. At a minimum, this plan shall address, wherever as appropriate, with an emergency and/or long term approach: containment, evacuation, medical response, site security and environmental response;

-4- MANDATES that, for any accident at UNWAIS level 4 or above, the public in the potentially affected area shall immediately be informed of (i) the occurrence of the incident, (ii) the amount and nature of the health risk posed, and (iii) appropriate protective measures to be taken while avoiding potential panic situations and false alarms;

-5- MANDATES that records shall be maintained of all UNWAIS incident at level 1 or above, and shall be made available for examination by the public unless required to be classified in the interest of national security;

-6- CHARGES the WERC with the following:

-6.1- to make further strong safety recommendations for civil and military wood-based energy plants, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste, including but not limited to:
- redundancy and maximum years of operational life for critical systems,
-control procedures and good practices,
-accident behaviour containment,
-confinement of burners,
-structure reliability in relation to, for example, rain, wind, natural disasters and external attacks,
-delivery of appropriate safety and decontamination equipment and medicines, and instruction, such as marshmallows, as an easily prepared and consumed source of basic nourishment if a uncontrolled fire from a wood plant destroys the all or part of the food stock of the surrounding population,

-6.2- to offer help to members in order to comply with this document along with desiring non-members and to offer training to their wood facilities personal,

-6.3- to perform scheduled mandatory inspections of all civil wood-based energy plants, their facilities and the disposal and transportation of their related waste, to release public report and to make related surety requirements, in accordance with this document,

-7- MANDATES that any information gathered as a result of these inspections would only be used by WERC for the purposes outlined in the proposal.

Har Har Har.

I'm guessing that this won't be the official At Vote thread. Here's hoping, anyway.

I'm guessing that this won't be the official At Vote thread.

Given that it was started by someone who opposes the resolution, probably not.

First off, allow me to introduce myself. I am the President of Ritico, currently representing myself and the Conservative Republics, as we are in the process of electing a U.N. delegate. We are a union of 21 sovereign nations, all dedicated to the same principles and philosophies, one of which is freedom.

We all recognize the dangers of nuclear technology in the wrong hands, and we are of the belief that these United Nations need to be concerned about international security and freedom over all else. What we don't like, is there United Nations coming in and regulating industries that our sovereign governments are better suited to regulate. If these types of power grab continue, we will no longer be United Nations, we will simply be united. It is for that reason, and direct support of capitalism and business, that I along with the future United Nations members in the Conservative Republics, intend to stand against and defeat this proposal.

Here it is...

Soooo awesome. :D

Har Har Har.

I'm guessing that this won't be the official At Vote thread. Here's hoping, anyway.

I hope this will be the official At Vote thread.
It would save everyone here who's argued against this thing the effort of repeating themselves...

Soooo awesome. :D
No, so lame. If he had plagiarized one of my resolutions like that for the purpose of writing a spoof proposal, I would have interpreted it as flamebait.

I hope this will be the official At Vote thread.
It would save everyone here who's argued against this thing the effort of repeating themselves...
We have a tradition of giving resolution authors the option of creating a new At Vote thread. Dosuun should have taken the trouble to find the drafting thread for this resolution and posted his comments there instead of taking it upon himself to create this "Soon to be at Vote" thread.

OOC: I agree with Yelda on this. After somebody has done the effort to draft, revise, and submit a proposal, and then to get it to quorum, that person deserves the minor privilege of introducing the resolution in his or her own thread. If nothing else, he or she should have right of first refusal - if the author doesn't want to publicize the resolution, only then should somebody else jump in. But that's merely a suggestion for civility. /OOC


The proposal as it stands is actually quite good, despite its potential impact on industry. People should be notified if a nuclear reactor experiences a failure in their backyards. This proposal manages to address the issue of nuclear reactor safety without overreaching in scope. Krioval will continue to watch for future developments with regard to this proposal with marked interest.

~ Ambassador Jevo, Telovar-kan

If L&E (or Sinaasappel) want to start a new thread when this comes to vote, they're more than welcome to.

The proposal is quite good? I'm sorry, but I don't think that pointless regulations on industry are "quite good." I think that we need to completely segregate nuclear safety from the environmental impact of nuclear facilities, and we all know that this resolution is an environmental resolution above all else. The resolution is mis-named, it's misleading, and I will be opposing it adamantly. This either needs to be about nuclear power or nuclear deterrents, not both of them. Are we talking international security or domestic policy? I can't tell from the wording of this useless piece of garbage. I yield the balance of my time.

The Democratic Republic of Ritico

This resolution is very unfocused. It talks about nuclear deterrants, nuclear energy safety, and nuclear environmental effects. Then it claims to regulate Uranium Mining...

Can someone point out to me what the joke is here? I don't get it.

You mean you weren't amused by the comedic brilliance of the "Smoke Responsibility Act"?

There's more than one joke.

Part of the joke is that this resolution is so unfocused.
Dealing with both nuclear weapons and nuclear power in a single "Nuclear Responsibility" act is as laughable as dealing with Chinese water torture and hydroelectric power in a single "Water Responsibility" act.

Further confusion is created by the fact that the act claims to be environmental, when it's really about nuclear power safety and, as far as I can tell, nuclear weapons disarmament.

There's a further joke- why pick on nuclear weapons in particular? Name one other commonly heard of weapon, and it's likely more lives have been lost to it than nuclear weapons. In fact, it can and has been argued that nuclear weapons have saved lives by deterring nations from going to war.

What's even more absurd is picking on nuclear power. Nuclear power is an environmentally friendly source of energy in that it releases no CO2 nor any other crap into the air. Nuclear power produces a very, very small amount of waste that can be stored carefully and dealt with effectively.

As far as the risk posed to civilians by nuclear power, it is much less than the risk posed by burning logs in your home. Back when people relied on fire for heat throughout the winter, there were many incidents of houses burning to the ground and the occupants dying in the fire.

If anything, the deaths caused by hydroelectric dams breaking and the gaseous emissions from rotting plants in areas flooded by the presence of the dam makes hydroelectric power a more sensible target for UN regulation. Which is why if this absurd resolution has the misfortune of being passed, I will feel completely justified in submitting a much less absurd "Water Responsibility" act.

Personally, I'm disappointed that this muzzy minded populist nonsense reached quorum.

I see. A little fast and loose with the definition of 'joke', then.

There's more than one joke.

Part of the joke...much less absurd "Water Responsibility" act.

Bingo.

If he had plagiarized one of my resolutions like that for the purpose of writing a spoof proposal, I would have interpreted it as flamebait.

Disagreement ≠ Flamebaiting. You're right about the plagarism...I will list LaE as a co-author at his first request.

Part of the joke is that this resolution is so unfocused.
Dealing with both nuclear weapons and nuclear power in a single "Nuclear Responsibility" act is as laughable as dealing with Chinese water torture and hydroelectric power in a single "Water Responsibility" act.Why not? Both nuclear power and nuclear weapons work on the same principle, the splitting of atoms.

Further confusion is created by the fact that the act claims to be environmental, when it's really about nuclear power safety and, as far as I can tell, nuclear weapons disarmament.And unsafe nuclear power can lead to environmental disasters, ever hear of a little thing called Chernobyl?

There's a further joke- why pick on nuclear weapons in particular? Name one other commonly heard of weapon, and it's likely more lives have been lost to it than nuclear weapons. In fact, it can and has been argued that nuclear weapons have saved lives by deterring nations from going to war.Just be glad that, thanks to me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110), the UN cannot ban it's members from possessing them.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Disagreement ≠ Flamebaiting. You're right about the plagarism...I will list LaE as a co-author at his first request.
I'm right about the flamebaiting too. The problem is, LAE is too polite to take the bait. Unfortunately for you, I am a fucking belligerant asshole who likes nothing better than a good brawl. Do you honestly not understand why it was wrong to write a spoof proposal based on his text? Can you not comprehend that it might be seen as snide for you to do so? And "disagreement"? You believe that the way to disagree is to mock his proposal by writing a satirical version of it? Is that the best you can fucking do for debate "technique"?

Like I said, it's fucking weasely, low-life flamebaiting and you're a cretin. Piss off.

I'll take my forumban now. It was worth it.

Why not? Both nuclear power and nuclear weapons work on the same principle, the splitting of atoms.

Sure. And water torture and hydroelectric dams both operate on the same principle, the behaviour of liquid water under pressure in a gravitational field.

And unsafe nuclear power can lead to environmental disasters, ever hear of a little thing called Chernobyl?

Only every time the issue of nuclear power is raised, because it's like the only incident ever.

The moral of the Chernobyl story is: incompetence is bad, and don't use crappy Russian reactors when my nation's reactors are much better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor).

Plus, the environmental benefits this resolution claims to have come from reducing uranium mining, rather than by making nuclear power safer, per se.

Just be glad that, thanks to me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110), the UN cannot ban it's members from possessing them.

Thanks!

<expletive deleted> flamebaiting <ad hominem>
As we can see, irresponsible flamebaiting badly needs to be regulated... hence the need for a Smoke Responsibility act! :)
Uh, kidding.
Don't hurt me.