NationStates Jolt Archive

THE NUCLEAR REGULATION ACT
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Areas of Effect: All Business
Proposed by: Stash Kroh

The World Assembly

ACKNOWLEDGES nuclear energy is a safe and economically-sound method for energy production if it is responsive to regulation, therefore conducted with a high level of accountability.

AWARE that nuclear power production produces high level radioactive waste in considerable proportions.

FEARING that without proper disposal of this waste, and proper regulation of safety procedures and security measures within nuclear power plants they may pose a serious public health risk, and a significant national security risk.

HEREBY establishes the World Assembly Nuclear Energy Control Board, (NECB).

DEMANDS that the NECB shall have the ability to inspect WA member state's nuclear energy plants and waste disposal sights with the aim of insuring best practices are upheld and regulations adhered to.

INSISTS the NECB will work with member states to devise the highest standards of technical and environmental excellence and with these set regulations for radioactive waste storage, discharged water temperature, other technical specifications and site specific security measures

DECLARES the NECB shall investigate complaints from any quarter it believes to be reliable if it feels that its regulations are contravened by conditions within any power plant of a w.a. member state.

STATES the NECB does have the authority in dire situations to shut down any power plant whose's management show a blatant disregard and ignorance for the NECB's regulations, while fully aware their establishments do not meet the NECB's safety standards.

FURTHER STATES that the NECB is charged with insuring that all energy providers within w.a. member states are properly informed and conversant with the regulations it is charged with enforcing.

_________________________________________________________

Sorry about the multiple threads (in a way, this is very close to the wording of the Clean Energy Act) but the Clean Energy Act had transformed since it was created into something diffrent (The Safe Energy Act?) and changing the name of the thread wasn't changing the link's title.

This is probably too long of a word count so I'll have to take a look at it for editing when I'm not working on a blackberry at my noisy family-get-together! :)

Bribery is, by definition, illegal. Banning the NCB from accepting bribes is like banning its executives from shooting up before meetings.

Is English your first language? :) It's ok if it's not, and we will try to help you sort out what you mean, because some of your sentences don't really have a literal rendering in English.

Bribery is, by definition, illegal. Banning the NCB from accepting bribes is like banning its executives from shooting up before meetings.

Hmm, tell that to the industrial lobbyists of the American government (or the majority of RL nations for that matter). :)

That line or two about energy lobbying was put in to address the overwelming concern from ambassadors that the NCB (or ECB as it was at that time) was going to become some corrupt board of all powerful executives.

we will try to help you sort out what you mean

Much appreciated.

Hmm, tell that to the industrial lobbyists of the American government (or the majority of nations for that matter). :)
All American governments criminalise bribery. That political donations are not considered bribery is, perhaps, regrettable, but entirely incidental to my point.

I will, of course, not engage in further discussion of such matters; there is another forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227) to use for such matters.

Back on topic, if your aim is to ban lobbying, you have failed. This proposal permits lobbyists to give suitcases of unmarked bills to the NCB (why they would do so is mystifying, and straying into the mechanics of committees is an easy way for your proposal to be illegal, but I doubt you care); it just doesn't allow them to 'bribe' them. You would have to change your definition of 'lobbyist' to someone who tries to influence donation through 'material influence' or some such construction.

Back on topic, if your aim is to ban lobbying, you have failed. This proposal permits lobbyists to give suitcases of unmarked bills to the NCB (why they would do so is mystifying, and straying into the mechanics of committees is an easy way for your proposal to be illegal, but I doubt you care); it just doesn't allow them to 'bribe' them. You would have to change your definition of 'lobbyist' to someone who tries to influence donation through 'material influence' or some such construction.


I'm not sure if I follow but I have no problem tagging material onto the defintion.

I'm not sure if I follow but I have no problem tagging material onto the defintion.
Ok. Here is my point.

O -------- I am an NCB person. I am going to do something.
/|\
|
/ \

O -------- I am an energy lobbyist. I don't want you to do that.
/|\
|
/ \

O -------- Hmm. This is a pickle.
/|\
|
/ \

\O/ -------- Oh look! Someone has left a bag of money here!!
|
| _
/ \ [_]

O -------- Amazingly, I have now decided not to do what I was going to do before
/|\_
|[_]
/ \

This scenario is bad.

Your proposal does not stop this scenario.

Therefore you need to change the definition in your proposal.

Though I have no doubt that such an executive would fry if he was audited, and either sing like a bird, get tangled up in a messy legal battle (that would plow him with legal fees), *or just mysteriously disappear while jogging by the power plant*.

I was wondering if this would be an exceptable wording...

DEFINES an energy lobbyist as any party attempting to influence governmental polices or decisions by the means of profit or material gain when concerning energy production.

By the way, nice artwork :)

FEARS without proper containment vessels for radioactivity, safety precautions against power excursions, properly mandated coolant systems and adequate security, a nuclear power plant is as much of threat to national (and international) security as terrorism.
THINKS that the author need to read up a little on the practicalities of nuclear power stations, or to rewrite this in a less emotive and therefore less inherently mockable manner.

ESTABLISHES the development of the World Assembly Nuclear Control Board, (NCB). NCB inspectors will examine and enforce industrial practices for all establishments used for nuclear energy production.
Two. Separate. Things.

Still.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

THINKS that the author need to read up a little on the practicalities of nuclear power stations, or to rewrite this in a less emotive and therefore less inherently mockable manner.

O.O.C, Nuclear Terrorism is a scary thing, but a strong possibility, we can't be ignorant to such a thing. There were studies done in the seventies that showed nuclear precautions were so weak, a janitor with a popsicle stick could create a Three Mile Island style accident to specific nuclear power plants.

Take a look here, for an article (http://ki4u.com/sabter.htm) on Nuclear Terrorism.

Taking a look back on history we can come across at least one large, catastrotic industry accident...Chernobyl. The Chernobyl accident could have been avoided, it was a steam excurson, and without a containment vessel (like european or american power plants) the radioactivity went every where. Soviet nuclear plants bypassed every logical safety precaution they could, thats why the accident happened.

I don't think my proposal's statement is illogical. I understand the classic thermo-nuclear explosion is a myth, but we've seen the steam accidents in the past, and therefore nuclear regulation is as important for national security as anti-terrorism.

Two. Separate. Things.

William Shatner! You play NationStates!!!! Join my region!

Sorry.There.Are.No.Moon.Princesses.But.We.Can.Call.For.Some.Hookers.If.You.Like?

All OOC, sadly:

I don't think my proposal's statement is illogical.
Did I say it was illogical? No. I questioned its basis in reality (which you've defended, though I've read studies that said the exact opposite to your studies), and pointed out that it's written in emotive language that makes it very easy to mock. If you're happy to let me sit here and mock it, that's your look-out.

William Shatner! You play NationStates!!!! Join my region!
I was "speaking" slowly, because "speaking" at normal speed seemed to have gone straight past your ambassador.

Many of the concerns previously brought up are very valid, but we will not belabor the points.

Our concern: who would be on the NCB? How are the members to be picked? Will it be scientists sent from various WA nations (probably a handful of the most powerful and influential nations)? How far will their authority extend?

Basically we would like to see more details on the NCB.

Hirman Goostren
Theocracy of Harmonious Treefolk

since this is a nuclear act,

why doesn't the ambassador, also try to limit the amount of Nuclear weapons about. I don't recall the title, but there is a resolution that gives all WA member nations the right to have Nuclear weapons to defend against non-member nations. i think we should work to limit it. i know your on the character limit, but i would be impressed if you could address that issue.

thank you.

Wachichi

We will not support any measure to limit nuclear weapons or power plants (although we do not currently own any), but safety and proper disposal of nuclear waste is of concern to us and the Confederacy of Draistania would support that, which seems to be the primary purpose of this act.

Did I say it was illogical? No. I questioned its basis in reality (which you've defended, though I've read studies that said the exact opposite to your studies), and pointed out that it's written in emotive language that makes it very easy to mock. If you're happy to let me sit here and mock it, that's your look-out.

I just think national security and safety is at risk with an ill-properly run nuclear plant, you can mock me all you want. Granted, the language will be toned down, but people need dramatic examples and language to shake them out of empathy and/or ignorance.

I was "speaking" slowly, because "speaking" at normal speed seemed to have gone straight past your ambassador.

Easy, I was joking. Imagine my ambassador as Robin Williams, or even better, a washed-up "Dr." Bill Crosby... on cocaine. "Kids today...snazzle dazzle humble bumble..."
That sentence you were specifically talking about has been cleaned up, I think...

Our concern: who would be on the NCB? How are the members to be picked? Will it be scientists sent from various WA nations (probably a handful of the most powerful and influential nations)?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but many of those things would make my proposal illegal (or MORE illegal, ha), something about meta-gaming or something...

I'm sure though the NCB could be more clearly defined to avoid someone thinking the NCB is regulating nuclear weapons...........................

since this is a nuclear act,

why doesn't the ambassador, also try to limit the amount of Nuclear weapons about. I don't recall the title, but there is a resolution that gives all WA member nations the right to have Nuclear weapons to defend against non-member nations. i think we should work to limit it. i know your on the character limit, but i would be impressed if you could address that issue.

thank you.

Wachichi

I'm sorry, but not only can I not afford with my word count to include anything about nuclear arms, it would just be vastly off topic (though I AM the posterboy for unfocusedness).

However I wouldn't rule out a nuclear arms regulation act for the future, in fact I encourage you ambassador to further your efforts, its a worthy cause.


Thanks for all your help so far, I look forward to furthering this proposal!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but many of those things would make my proposal illegal (or MORE illegal, ha), something about meta-gaming or something...

Ah, true. I have reviewed the relevant resolution on that subject. The only thing then that I would ask of the proposal is to know how much authority the NCB will have (OOC: I know, they are fictional mythical beings--just want to know if we are electing our new overlords or largely ornamental nay-sayers, or something in between).

All still OOC, since it's responding to unlabelled OOC comments to OOC comments to... you get the idea :)

Easy, I was joking. Imagine my ambassador as Robin Williams, or even better, a washed-up "Dr." Bill Crosby... on cocaine. "Kids today...snazzle dazzle humble bumble..."
That would have been fine (and I'm amused, by the way, not annoyed), except that you were still talking out of character. If you'd been in character, Cerys would have been much ruder than that :-)

That sentence you were specifically talking about has been cleaned up, I think...
Yup. That should highlight its unreasonableness nicely :)

ACKNOWLEDGES nuclear energy is a safe and economically-sound method for power production if the energy industry is accountable and responsible.

I not sure it is 100% safe, but more of "generally safe", but definitely economically-sound, no question about that. Overall, it's a good proposal we can pursue no matter how bad your English is.

I not sure it is 100% safe

True, I think a field of windmills would be safer. But the masses of windmills necessary to power a large developed nation would be very costly, I don't feel at the present time like condemning economies, raising national taxes and giving our uranium mining industry the boot (they would probably just shift their clientèle to the shadier, arms dealer type) while nuclear power can be a fairly clean, safe and cheap provider of energy (if the industry is regulated of course).

Whats the word I'm searching for...bunk, bunt, butt (hehehe), bunch, buck, BUMP! Yes thats it BUMP!

We believe that this resolution could accomplish good and necessary things. We worry only about the mandatory nature of the NCB for all member nations. We do not believe that nuclear accidents, as terrible as they could be, will affect more than the nation in which the accident occurred. Therefore, the NCB should exist and develop all the protocols it can for a safe and good nuclear system, but nations may opt to use their regulatory services or to ignore them.

Specifically, the following articles could change:

DEMANDS NCB inspectors will examine and enforce industrial practices for all establishments used for nuclear energy production.

becomes:

"DECLARES NCB inspectors will examine and enforce industrial practices for all establishments used for nuclear energy production for all nations that would utilize the Nuclear Control Board's protocols and services."

STATES the NCB does have the authority in dire situations to shut down any power plants that are fully aware they do not meet the criteria of the NCB's regulations.

becomes:

"STATES the NCB does have the authority in dire situations to shut down any power plants over which the NCB has inspection duties, if they are fully aware that the plants do not meet the criteria of the NCB's regulations. If at all possible the party or parties that control the power plant must be given the opportunity to mend the problems before shut down becomes necessary."

As I have stated, I am not convinced that nuclear safety affects more than the nation that holds the power plant. Therefore, making the NCB optional for states and trimming the Board's power back a little will make the resolution much more palatable.

I understand your claims, Ambassador Goosten.

However I would stand by the claims of this proposal that the ramifications of a faulty nuclear power plant can easily become an international matter. A nuclear fallout, following a simple steam explosion, in a unprepared nuclear plant can easily lead to a plume of highly radioactive fallout released into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area. Four hundred times more fallout can be released in such a fallout than your average "dirty" nuclear bomb, and make no mistake, this explosion does not recognize international borders.

But that is besides the point, you wouldn't disregard a proposal on furthering universal health or civil rights, merely because "nation's deserve the right to deny their citizens good health". What is the World Assembly here for!? Surely it is not to allow such tyranny, the people in the polluted worlds that you talk of, deserve the right to a cleaner and safer energy sector as much as anyone else.

However I would stand by the claims of this proposal that the ramifications of a faulty nuclear power plant can easily become an international matter. A nuclear fallout, following a simple steam explosion, in a unprepared nuclear plant can easily lead to a plume of highly radioactive fallout released into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area. Four hundred times more fallout can be released in such a fallout than your average "dirty" nuclear bomb, and make no mistake, this explosion does not recognize international borders.

Fair enough. I will double check the histories regarding past nuclear accidents and their wide-ranging effects, but for the sake of this discussion we will concede that nuclear accidents could have international effects.

But that is besides the point, you wouldn't disregard a proposal on furthering universal health or civil rights, merely because "nation's deserve the right to deny their citizens good health". What is the World Assembly here for!? Surely it is not to allow such tyranny, the people in the polluted worlds that you talk of, deserve the right to a cleaner and safer energy sector as much as anyone else.

I might say that individual nations would be better suited to deciding what is best for the people's health. However, we would like to prevent nuclear disaster for all peoples as well.

That being said, let us return to this article again:

STATES the NCB does have the authority in dire situations to shut down any power plants that are fully aware they do not meet the criteria of the NCB's regulations.

The NCB should have the power to shut down plants in dire, dire circumstances; but I would like a little more regulation on the exact circumstances. Something like this: "STATES that plants may be shut down by the NCB if the plant is deemed to be, because of major protocol violations, in significant danger of having a disastrous occurrence. Plants that fail inspections on minor points and are not in danger will be given warnings and opportunities to change."

Fair enough. I will double check the histories regarding past nuclear accidents and their wide-ranging effects, but for the sake of this discussion we will concede that nuclear accidents could have international effects.

(OOC: I don't know, maybe good old wikipedia just let me down, but I have a family of people that lived through the eighties, who can all testify to the fact that the Chernobyl disaster did not only effect Russia, but many nations within Europe. I also have an uncle who's a safety supervisor at a nuclear plant, who told me all the fallout could have been prevented but the safety precautions we're all bypassed (Soviet Russia...) and therefore a whole continent suffered (INCLUDING citizens of Russia, that didn't deserve what came to them, no matter their government's ideals). The following info checks out when I've researched it, including other sources than wiki....)

The NCB should have the power to shut down plants in dire, dire circumstances; but I would like a little more regulation on the exact circumstances. Something like this: "STATES that plants may be shut down by the NCB if the plant is deemed to be, because of major protocol violations, in significant danger of having a disastrous occurrence. Plants that fail inspections on minor points and are not in danger will be given warnings and opportunities to change.

It is my small experience in the realm of safety that there is no "minor point", if a energy provider ignores the NCB on any of their regulations, repeatedly disregarding the safety inspectors, they will be shut down. Maybe I need to clarify it more, but timely notifications and such do hint at the fact, that these energy providers are ignoring the safety codes if they're being shut down. I will not go down the messy political road of defining what regulations are "milder" and can be "ignored a bit", and which ones our inspectors can tolerate "the energy providers unwillingness to meet the regulation's standard", seems to me, if a regulation is made, its made for a reason.

(OOC: I don't know, maybe good old wikipedia just let me down, but I have a family of people that lived through the eighties, who can all testify to the fact that the Chernobyl disaster did not only effect Russia, but many nations within Europe. I also have an uncle who's a safety supervisor at a nuclear plant, who told me all the fallout could have been prevented but the safety precautions we're all bypassed (Soviet Russia...) and therefore a whole continent suffered (INCLUDING citizens of Russia, that didn't deserve what came to them, no matter their government's ideals). The following info checks out when I've researched it, including other sources than wiki....)

((OOC: Good ol' Chernobyl is an excellent example of a plant with crappy safety guidelines and materials destroying people and landscape. That place will be radioactive for thousands of years...no denying it! I am not debating that.))

It is my small experience in the realm of safety that there is no "minor point", if a energy provider ignores the NCB on any of their regulations, repeatedly disregarding the safety inspectors, they will be shut down. Maybe I need to clarify it more, but timely notifications and such do hint at the fact, that these energy providers are ignoring the safety codes if they're being shut down. I will not go down the messy political road of defining what regulations are "milder" and can be "ignored a bit", and which ones our inspectors can tolerate "the energy providers unwillingness to meet the regulation's standard", seems to me, if a regulation is made, its made for a reason.

Honored Ambassador, we contend that there are levels of importance to regulations; "Walkway railings must be at least 1/2 inch thick" is less important than, say, "Uranium must always be kept in containment" (okay, I do not know much about nuclear regulations). I do think the "in significant danger of disastrous occurrence" is an important phrase. If even a "mild" regulation violation threatens disaster, then the NCB can step in. If a regulation does not in any way represent imminent disaster, then why disrupt a large population for it? I should hope that the NCB would not shut down power to a large population just for a non-vital regulation, anyway.

I will not go down the messy political road of defining what regulations are "milder" and can be "ignored a bit", and which ones our inspectors can tolerate

You needn't define which regulations are less vital and which more vital, or what your inspectors can and cannot tolerate; it would suffice to merely state that the inspectors will warn for some violations and completely shut down for some other violations.

Another way to allow the NCB to perform its duties without sacrificing national sovereignty would be to have the NCB create protocols, and then each WA nation that has nuclear plants must form their own control boards. The CBs must conform to NCB standards, and would have all the powers ascribed previously to the NCB to shut down plants if they fail to comply, but would be formed from the nation's scientists.

it would suffice to merely state that the inspectors will warn for some violations and completely shut down for some other violations.

The problem is then the NCB loses its weight. A industry mogul isn't going to give a shit about the NCB's claims, if all they get our warnings. These "small" little safety requirements add up, thats why they're created, if a power plant ignores the NCB's claims in multiple occasions, then closure will happen. No matter how "small" the safety claim may be, these safety standards we're made to be followed not ignored by energy providers, and we have the compliance commission to thankful fulfil those words.

These "small" little safety requirements add up, thats why they're created, if a power plant ignores the NCB's claims in multiple occasions, then closure will happen.

That's just it: the clause in question in the resolution needs to be written to say just what you have just stated.

STATES the NCB does have the authority in dire situations to shut down any power plant whose's management show a blatant disregard and ignorance for the NCB's regulations, while fully aware their establishments do not meet the NCB's safety standards.

Would this be a acceptable wording? Because I am leary of defining how many "multiple" offences is needed before the NCB cracks the wipe, so I tried something different, because it depends on the situation, I suppose...

Would this be a acceptable wording? Because I am leary of defining how many "multiple" offences is needed before the NCB cracks the wipe, so I tried something different, because it depends on the situation, I suppose...

Actually that sounds great!

An initial suggestion: many of the clauses are in need of a "that" directly after the leading word.

DEMANDS NCB inspectors will examine and enforce industrial practices for all establishments used for nuclear energy production.
Do you mean: "health and safety standards"? "Industrial practices" is rather nebulous.

DECLARES the NCB will create an efficient international complaints bureau, for inhabitants of member nations to anonymously submit complaints about nuclear waste dumping, runoff water temperatures or other technical or environmental problems regarding their local nuclear energy providers.
This is not an international problem. Should such problems as describes above crosses international boundary lines, then it should be in the purview of the NCB. However, as it is, these are strictly national matters that the WA has no business meddling in.

PROHIBITS the NCB from accepting donations from any energy lobbyist.

DEFINES an energy lobbyist as any party attempting to influence governmental polices or decisions by the means of profit or material gain when concerning energy production.
Would "any party" include the WA, which would presumably fund the NCB?


The Dominion

Would "any party" include the WA, which would presumably fund the NCB?

Not unless the World Assembly plans on "attempting to influence governmental polices or decisions," which is something the WA would not do through donations to the NCB; unless you consider the NCB itself to be the hand of the WA which is influencing governmental policies or decisions, in which case the NCB becomes the lobbyist to itself? That does not make sense.

This is not an international problem. Should such problems as describes above crosses international boundary lines, then it should be in the purview of the NCB. However, as it is, these are strictly national matters that the WA has no business meddling in.

Well Ambassador, I've already explained to the other diplomats that this proposal is suggesting. "the ramifications of bad industrial practices can lead to international problems". If you disagree with that, well... good for you. One of the intents of this proposal is to shake the energy sector from ignorance, and their governing bodies. Nuclear dumping and fallouts affect everyone in our world, no matter where it takes place.

Not unless the World Assembly plans on "attempting to influence governmental polices or decisions," which is
...something that is open to litigation.

something the WA would not do through donations to the NCB;
The clause does not state that the monetary compensations are to be donations. It states "by the means of profit or material gain." Payment of the scientists, administration, and other employees at the NCB surely constitutes profit or material gain.

unless you consider the NCB itself to be the hand of the WA which is influencing governmental policies or decisions, in which case the NCB becomes the lobbyist to itself? That does not make sense.
You defined lobbyist as any party attempting to influence NCB policies through profit or material gain.


The Dominion

Well Ambassador, I've already explained to the other diplomats that this proposal is suggesting. "the ramifications of bad industrial practices can lead to international problems". If you disagree with that, well... good for you. One of the intents of this proposal is to shake the energy sector from ignorance, and their governing bodies. Nuclear dumping and fallouts affect everyone in our world, no matter where it takes place.
I agree that nuclear fallouts affect everyone in the world. However, that is not what the clause says. It states:
nuclear waste dumping, runoff water temperatures or other technical or environmental problems regarding their local nuclear energy providers.
It does not state at all that the problem must be international. It would seem that this complaints bureau would be flooded with trivial complaints that would be better dealt with strictly within the purview of the nation in question. Furthermore, nuclear waste dumping in the nation's own waters is completely unrelated to international affairs. Citizens in the area may then complain to the bureau, which, after all, should not and does not have any power over the situation at all. Moreover, runoff water temperatures, again can be a purely local problem. Lastly, "other technical or environmental problems" is so overly broad as to be able to encompass nearly everything. Perhaps it would be more sensible to indicate that the bureau would handle issues of international concern only.


Respectfully,
The Dominion

...something that is open to litigation.


The clause does not state that the monetary compensations are to be donations. It states "by the means of profit or material gain." Payment of the scientists, administration, and other employees at the NCB surely constitutes profit or material gain.


You defined lobbyist as any party attempting to influence NCB policies through profit or material gain.


The Dominion

I simply do not see the WA trying to influence the decisions of the NCB in any way. The NCB is an extension of a resolution passed by the WA. The only way that the WA would influence the NCB by paying their paychecks is to...get them to do their jobs, I suppose. Do we really need to close up this particular gap? The way that the NCB will be influencing "government policies and decisions" is addressed by the resolution itself--that is, there is no sneaky alterior motive behind the WA funding the NCB; the NCB will do its job with funding from the WA, but it will be doing its job as intended.

It does not state at all that the problem must be international. It would seem that this complaints bureau would be flooded with trivial complaints that would be better dealt with strictly within the purview of the nation in question. Furthermore, nuclear waste dumping in the nation's own waters is completely unrelated to international affairs. Citizens in the area may then complain to the bureau, which, after all, should not and does not have any power over the situation at all. Moreover, runoff water temperatures, again can be a purely local problem. Lastly, "other technical or environmental problems" is so overly broad as to be able to encompass nearly everything. Perhaps it would be more sensible to indicate that the bureau would handle issues of international concern only.


The complaints bureau is to add a second function to the NCB for detecting faulty nuclear plants, and giving some power to the people I suppose, then just the regular inspections. If the NCB checks up on the claims and finds, yep, unregulated run off temperatures...who knows what else they'll find wrong in the plant! It is likely that a plant found with small safety problems, is plagued by the large internationally effecting ones as well.

Is there any other complaints/suggestions about the proposal? I know many diplomats expressed their disappointment with the wording/grammar...

This is not an international problem. Should such problems as describes above crosses international boundary lines, then it should be in the purview of the NCB. However, as it is, these are strictly national matters that the WA has no business meddling in.

The citizens that these bad industrial practices are effecting are protected by WA law just as much as their nation's laws.

Is there any other complaints/suggestions about the proposal? I know many diplomats expressed their disappointment with the wording/grammar...
There are still some problems in that regard which distort the evident intended meaning. We advise a careful proof-read.

There are still some problems in that regard which distort the evident intended meaning. We advise a careful proof-read.

The proposal as stands is pretty solid and we would support it. But if you are worried about grammar, etc., have a respected colleague or two take a pen to it.

But if you are worried about grammar, etc., have a respected colleague or two take a pen to it.

Consider this a virtual pen, wielded by someone other than a aggressively dyslexic and grammatically handicapped person like myself... I hope.

There are still some problems in that regard which distort the evident intended meaning. We advise a careful proof-read.

I'll give it a couple more run throughs. But if you would like to explain the visible distortions that you see, I would be very grateful.

Okay? Anything else?

__________________________________________________________________

OBAMA.................................................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, this proposal might have the distinction of being the least popular proposal in history. That pro-genocide one had more supporters than this act currently...

Please VOTE.

I'm sorry I'm not an orator like some great politicians, or a good liar like others. So I'll shut the fuck up now, after you get your delegate to vote for this "purdy" act.

The World Assembly

ACKNOWLEDGES nuclear energy is a safe and economically-sound method for power production if the energy industry is accountable and responsible.

Perhaps-"..of energy production if it is responsive to regulation, but is"

WARNS high level radioactive waste is created in considerable proportions with nuclear energy production.

"AWARE that nuclear power production produces large amounts of dangerous waste and,"

FEARS without proper containment vessels for radioactivity, safety precautions against power excursions, properly mandated coolant systems and adequate security, a nuclear power plant is a dangerous hazard, and intolerably susceptible to terrorism.

"FEARING that without proper disposal of this waste, and proper regulation of safety procedures and security measures within nuclear power plants nuclear power may pose a serious public health risk, and a significant national security risk,"



RECOGNIZES international industrial regulations on nuclear power plants would be beneficial to the betterment of the environment, and quality of living for others.

This is unnecessary in our opinion.

REALIZES an influential control board for nuclear energy which the WA currently lacks, would be needed to further implement and enforce such regulations.

As is this.

HEREBY

ESTABLISHES the development of the World Assembly Nuclear Control Board, (NCB).

"HEREBY, establishes the World Assembly Nuclear Energy Safety Council."

DEMANDS NCB inspectors will examine and enforce industrial practices for all establishments used for nuclear energy production.

"THE W.A.N.E.S.C. shall have the ability to inspect w.a. member state's nuclear energy plants and waste disposal sights with the aim of insuring best practices are upheld and regulations adhered to. "

INSISTS the NCB's first mission after creation is to devise strict technical regulations and environmental standards for nuclear energy production. This includes the initiative's proper routines for the storage of high level radioactive waste, the temperature of discharged water, the use of containment vessels and power plant security.

"THE W.A.N.E.S.C. will work with member states to devise the highest standards of technical and environmental excellence and with these set regulations for radioactive waste storage, discharged water temperature, other technical specifications and site specific security measures"

REMINDS that a multitude of other protocols will have to be addressed by the NCB for a responsible energy sector to be forged.

Excess to requirement in our opinion.

DECLARES the NCB will create an efficient international complaints bureau, for inhabitants of member nations to anonymously submit complaints about nuclear waste dumping, runoff water temperatures or other technical or environmental problems regarding their local nuclear energy providers.

"THE W.A.N.E.S.C. shall investigate complaints from any quarter it believes to be reliable if it feels that its regulations are contravened by conditions within any power plant within a w.a. member state. "

PROHIBITS the NCB from accepting donations from any energy lobbyist.

Unnecessary and frankly insulting to the gnomes.

DEFINES an energy lobbyist as any party attempting to influence governmental polices or decisions by the means of profit or material gain when concerning energy production.

Also unecessary and certainly not relevant.

STATES the NCB does have the authority in dire situations to shut down any power plant whose's management show a blatant disregard and ignorance for the NCB's regulations, while fully aware their establishments do not meet the NCB's safety standards.

"THE W.A.N.E.S.C. is empowered to shut down any facility which it has strong evidence is dangerously in contravention of its regulations"

FURTHER STATES that it is a priority of the NCB to make sure energy providers are well informed by NCB inspectors of their technical status with timely notifications

"THE W.A.N.E.S.C. is charged with insuring that all energy providers within w.a. member states are properly informed and and conversant with the regulations it is charged with enforcing."



These would be the revisions we would suggest to the wording you have developed so far.

We may have other suggestions to add at a later date.


We should point out that we are offering this assistance to the respected delegation of Unibot out of a desire to see the highest standards in legislation maintained in this organisation and not because we explicitly support the actual intent of this resolution.

We are ambivalent as to how we might vote on such a resolution were it to come to vote.


Yours,

I don't know if deleting the article about energy lobbying was right. I may switch it back, because personally I don't give a shit what the gnomes think, its because of them that the recurrence of environmental deregulation has gone on for so long in the WA... seeping our citizens and politicians into a hole of apathy. A dramatic kick to the gnomes' knees might be what we need to burrow us from that hole we dug, a true political coffin.

Also I liked my statement on the second last article better than your version, for reasons clear in previous discussions with Harmonious Treefolk. Therefore I didn't replace it with yours, but other than that...

I don't know if deleting the article about energy lobbying was right. I may switch it back, because personally I don't give a shit what the gnomes think, its because of them that the recurrence of environmental deregulation has gone on for so long in the WA... seeping our citizens and politicians into a hole of apathy. A dramatic kick to the gnomes' knees might be what we need to burrow us from that hole we dug, a true political coffin.

Also I liked my statement on the second last article better than your version, for reasons clear in previous discussions with Harmonious Treefolk. Therefore I didn't replace it with yours, but other than that...


The gnomes are incorruptable and lobbying does not go on here in any case. The Gnomes are charged as functionaries with discharging all responsibilities given them by the resolutions passed by the general assembly, they are in no way responsible for the apathy or otherwise of the membership of this organisation.

And the second setence of the preamble does not make sense unless it remains as we revised it but feel free to leave the mangled half sentence which disregards grammar which you have included in if you wish.




Yours,

What line in any article bans the gnomes from lobbying? Personally I don't think we can be so sure they're not lobbying unless we actually ban it.

What line in any article bans the gnomes from lobbying? Personally I don't think we can be so sure they're not lobbying unless we actually ban it.

The Gnomes cannot lobby anyway ( the gnomes are the officials of the w.a. ) and I assure you, respected Ambassador, that it is a fact that no lobbying on the part of private concerns takes place here, this is not a national legislature after all.


Yours,

Yeah, because being international legislature always exempts us from bribery and corruption perpetuated by the whims of internationally bound megacorporations. </sarcasm>

Very well respected Ambassador, we have offered you a coherent, clear and simple rewording for your resolution, if you wish to garble it and encumber it with some bizarre fantastical conspiracy theorist's crusade against successful businesses then do so without our help.


Yours,

I did delete the section...didn't I?

(O.O.C Have you read the book? Corporate influence over the government is one of the main principles of Jennifer Government.)

I did delete the section...didn't I?

(O.O.C Have you read the book? Corporate influence over the government is one of the main principles of Jennifer Government.)


O.O.C. This isn't Jennifer Government though it's Nation States, thankfully the w.a. has rules which define its purpose and the extent of its power, its character is defined by the agenda of its members, it couldn't be simpler.

There are no laws bounding the gnomes from lobbying, if we don't ban it I don't think we can honestly expect it to not exist. Much like smoke and fire, corruption flourishes where ignorance lies.

O.O.C
This is a game based on the practices of Jennifer Government.

There are no laws bounding the gnomes from lobbying, if we don't ban it I don't think we can honestly expect it to not exist. Much like smoke and fire, corruption flourishes where ignorance lies.

O.O.C
This is a game based on the practices of Jennifer Government.


O.O.C. Do you mean we should be banning gnomes from being influenced by lobbying ? Seriously that doesn't make any sense, go and read the reference guide and then rethink your approach. There's no point writing anything based on a faulty conception of the game and how the w.a. functions.

I understand the Compliance Commission, however in regards to this proposal, if an energy lobbyist convinces a executive member of the NECB that certain regulations are not needed that maybe weren't directly discussed in the proposal, the point of the resolution is lost to the abyss of loophole hell.

O.O.C This is a game based on the practices of Jennifer Government.
OOC: NationStates (that browser game some of us play) is based off of Jennifer Government, but the World Assembly is what we make of it.

Fair enough, I've since retracted my opinion on the matter, embarrassing I confused the terms of "trolling" with "gnomes" from the common WA lingo.

Stash Kroh is me by the way, dahm cookies and server refreshes....

The Charter of Gnome Rights
Yeah, you're not funny, and you've been here long enough to know that submitting deliberately stupid proposals is a Bad Idea.

Nice to know I'm not funny. But I try so very hard....

http://everywordmatters.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/joker.jpg

Anyone have any suggestions or comments for THE PROPOSAL AT HAND?

How about this for a BUMPer Sticker?

The Governmeny of Federation of Serbian Soviet Union will reject this proposal if it makes it in the WA Assembly. I believe as it is everysingle right of the Sovereign Nations and members of WA is to decide on it's own what to do with nuclear energy in it's own borders and wheather to possess nuclear warheads or not.

wheather to possess nuclear warheads or not.

This is already protected under WA Resolution #10. We advise the ambassador from the Serbian Soviet Union to familiarise themselves with passed resolutions and the rules of the WA before commenting ad-hock like they have been.

As far as international regulations on Nuclear Safety goes, we feel to a degree there needs to be something in place given that major failures of power stations and atmospheric warhead testing can lead to international damage.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador