Lynas Corporation: Politically Radioactive???


Some might have been noticing that I started to question on Lynas issue (in which it has been long outstanding and caused an uproar nationwide few weeks ago). All this started when YB Fuziah and co started a campaign against the Lynas Corporation Limited.

I am pretty sure very much technical presentation, arguments have been brought forward by the pro and against Lynas Corporation. And as usual, we have a huge number of radioactive and hazardous specialist and experts, coming out from nowhere. I am not going to be an expert in explaining what is non-radioactive, what is the level that is considered dangerous or hazardous or even trying to prove that what Lynas do can cause cancer or not. One thing for sure, I am certain that Lynas Corporation is not building a nuclear plant, as if they are, all eyes in South East Asian region will pay attention to.

However, I am amazed that, currently and specifically in Gebeng, Kuantan, Pahang, there are a lot of chemical and manufacturing plants. And I am certain, each of the plants, if combined wastage that not handled properly can be hazardous to local community. My basic understanding – each material and wastage can have radioactive, non-radioactive and hazardous materials and chemicals. Even our daily sugar take which cause hazard to our health if taken more than we should.

Therefore, I would like to know from those anti-Lynas, care to explain why Lynas being blasted, but not other chemical and manufacturing plants in Gebeng, Kuantan? Why are not other corporations such as Grace, BASF or Solutia being blasted too? I am pretty sure they have dangerous and hazardous materials and chemicals substance in their daily operation. Why just Lynas being blasted?

To-date, I am being understood that all parties involved have never sit in one room and have a forum to conclude this once and for all. So far, pro Lynas Corporation have been answering allegations one by one, and I can see every time answered the anti Lynas will come up with new allegations. Considering the experts and professionals both have and claimed, it amazes me that neither side are not being able to sit together and conclude this issue.

In my hand, I already obtained a copy of an exit plan from a professor in Nuclear Science Programme if Lynas Corporation plant to be shut down in the event Lynas does not comply with such regulations.

So, my dear readers, if you can help YB Fuziah to answer my questions, please do so. I may ask, but not to condemn. Feel free to express your thoughts.

Question on the street: For me, Lynas is more radioactive in political, rather than the actual radioactively dangerous. What say you?

37 thoughts on “Lynas Corporation: Politically Radioactive???

  1. Then we should closed all the steel, power plant, refinery, chemical based, hospital, mining and etc company because they are were all spreading radioactive and environmentally hazardous.

    Only stoopid people can be fooled by this such an unmoral, low life so called YBs.

    1. Dear Joyce,
      I am amazed with your manners. In this posting clearly ask question in good manners, and hoping for good answers.

      Can’t you take this as opportunity to tell your side of story and not treating unknown source as enemy?

    1. In the link shared, stated:

      “All radiation is dangerous, whether it is natural or man-made. There is no “safe” amount of radioactive material or radiation. “The U.S. Department of Energy has testified that there is no level of radiation that is so low that it is without health risks”, reports Jacqueline Cabasso, the Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation.”

      Now… if all radiation is no safe and not acceptable at any level.. perhaps we should just shut down all TVs, handphones, laptops, PCs as all these also have radiation.. be it at low level.. ain’t it?

    1. Since this person is sharing the same link.. please be informed that I have read the article linked, and I found it not that relevant to Lynas issue. The article is about those living near NUCLEAR power plant, and Lynas is not a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

      For example:
      “There have been several epidemiological studies that claim to demonstrate increased risk of various diseases, especially cancers, among people who live near nuclear facilities. Among recent studies, a widely cited 2007 meta-analysis of 17 research papers was published in the European Journal of Cancer Care. It offered evidence of elevated leukemia rates among children living near 136 nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, United States, Germany, Japan, and Spain. Elevated leukemia rates among children were also found in a 2008 German study that examined residents living near 16 major nuclear power plants in Germany. These recent results are not consistent with many earlier studies that have tended not to show such associations. But no credible alternate explanations for the recent findings have so far emerged.” (Nuclear-News)

      Can you guys stay on topic and not diverting??

  2. Are you dumb? The Lynas issue is not closed because the answers provided by Lynas is unsatisfactory!! You expect the residents to just accept every crap that Lynas churns out? Say for example, the growing evidence that the IAEA model has severely underestimated the risks of internal emitters. Answering allegation one by one doesn’t mean that the anti-Lynas group agrees with the answers. Understand?

    1. Dear Soo Jin Hou,
      Another faul language and manners which I failed to understand. Why can’t you answer in good manner? Did I ask in a harsh tone?

      By the way, I know you will never satisfied with the answers. However, I don’t see why you need to be harsh when people questioned you back. If youw anted totell your side of story and answer my question, please do so.

      So, what’s your answer to my question? Why ONLY Lynas being blasted? Care to share your answer?

  3. Other plants don’t produce 64,000 tonnes of mildly radioactive waste per year, of which the current solution is to store them in allegedly poorly constructed ponds, just a whisker away from the underground waste, and extremely close to the South China Sea. These waste are considered LLW, using British standards, which requires oversight for hundreds of years.

    That’s written for your readers, not for your lazy ass. Unlike you, I don’t blog what I don’t understand. And the info I provided is easily obtained by a simple search. If its just you and me, I won’t even bother answering you.

    1. Thank you for your kind answer.

      But.. weirdly, why IAEA is okay with Lynas if really the amount of radioactive waste is that much?

      And what’s up with your attitude? I seek for answers and for that you can’t tell properly? Why do you treat this blog as enemy?

      1. Nothing personal, I just despise lazy ass. Especially a lazy ass that talks through its ass.

        And I’m not going to recycle the same old argument in your blog just for your lazy ass’ sake. Go join Pahang Don’t Need Hazardous Project Facebook page and you’ll plenty of educational materials there.

        1. I am sorry, but I don’t have a facebook account. Plus, even if I have, the manipulation of data can say that the supporter of the facebook page is adding up day by day.

          By the way, I seek for those who can share info. If you are lazy enough, I’m sorry for you then.

          And, for your kind info and not lazy to go through my blog, I am not that fond of those who have bad attitude, language or manners. However, I still treat them well. Perhaps, you should start doing to. At least you create new friends and not enemy.

          Thank you.

          1. Oh, I suppose you are a product of our education system. Not surprising, since you like to be spoon fed all the time. Your daddy still change your diapers?

          2. Is asking questions wrong nowadays? And what’s up again with your attitude? If you are lazy enough to answer, why bother? Letothers that is not as lazy as you to answer.

            Thank you.

    2. Qouting you “LLW, using British standards, which requires oversight for hundreds of years.” i have been reading and searching, but unable to find this british standards for LLW that requires oversight for hundreds of years..

      Please provide the link, thanks in advanced.

      1. That’s the article I wrote on the British standard.

        http://wangsamajuformalaysia.blogspot.com/2011/09/permission-for-lynas-to-operate-in.html

        And you can find the standard here:

        http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/nuclear/radioactivity/waste/low/low.aspx

        Note the huge discrepancy between IAEA’s classification and British’s. IAEA uses the Linear No Threshold model. You can find disagreement on the IAEA’s risk assessment by the ECRR at the link below.

        http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf

          1. That’s why I ask you to go to the Facebook site so you can do some homework. There is no standards for rare earth processing because no one other than China is doing rare earth processing. The IAEA has published a standard, but that happened only AFTER the panel reviewed Lynas, which means that the standard is untested. Which is why we must adhere to ERCC’s precautionary principle.

            If you see how Molycorp is doing their rare earth refining, and how Lynas originally proposed to do it in Australia: http://wangsamajuformalaysia.blogspot.com/2011/09/permission-for-lynas-to-operate-in.html
            They are a world of difference compared to the LAMP in Gebeng.

            Precaution means don’t site the plant near to a densely populated town, and on a wet environmentally sensitive area, and a place prone to flooding, and so close to the underground water. Lynas originally want to put the radioactive depository in a desert.

          2. Thank you for your kind explanation.. but..

            according to you “There is no standards for rare earth processing because no one other than China is doing rare earth processing”.

            Are you sure no other than China?

          3. Oh wow, now suddenly you seem to know rare earth industry, a total opposite of the poorly researched articles you wrote. Don’t give us the bullshit about you seeking truth.

          4. As mentioned in one of my articles, I have some materials from Lynas, in which I can compare to the other side.

            Is it wrong for me to ask more questions?

            By the way, can you try to treat my questions as if I am helping your cause? Because, as far as I can understand from such reaction, my questions are not the typical questions you guys got before this. Ok?

  4. OnDaStreet,

    There are rare earth plants in Europe Estonia (Silmet), There are a few rare earth plants in Japan, Frace has a rare earth plant also owned by Rhodia and Australia is building their own rare earth plant by a company called Arafura Resources.

    1. Thank you Lim Teck Lee…

      So, how now Soo Jin Hou? You said only in China… If it is coming from me, you will say I made it up.. now this info coming from other commentators.

      Hope you can clarify Soo Jin Hou. Thank you

      1. Don’t waste my time. Go verify your source and stop spewing your bullshit. Arafura Resources is only in preliminary proposal stage, in fact, they haven’t even submitted any formal proposal yet. My best advice to you is to get off your lazy ass and do real research.

        And btw, Arafura is planning to return the waste back to the mine, where it will be buried deep underground. Area is sparsely populated and very dry.

          1. The more I post here the more retarded I feel. It doesn’t matter what standards China use because whatever standards they used have resulted in severe environmental damage. Which is why China is not cracking down on illegal mines, imposing strict environmental controls and imposing export quota.

          2. “It doesn’t matter what standards China use”???????

            Wow.. you were babbling so much as if Lynas is the only do not comply to any standards, and then you are saying it doesn’t matter other companies using what standard?

            Interesting… now, I am the one feeling retarded with your answers…😦

  5. Here is a Rare Earth Plant is France. Here is the their address:

    Rhodia La Rochelle

    Rare Earths Systems: Production Site

    Z.I.-26 rue Chef de Baie
    17041 La Rochelle Cedex 1
    France

  6. Oh, such a good discussion. Sorry to say I just came across this blog. Many of the anti-Lynas supporters are not civilized, please forgive them. Their “never-listen” and tend to mis-leading other Malaysian attitude is really an obstacles to the future mankind.

    China, in fact, has very strict laws and regulations on rare earth mining and processing. The thing about China is, the country is too big to control. Many of the mines are under local government jurisdiction. Just like what happened in Selangor and Kedah, even though the state wish to enforce some good practice, there always some rats to bring down the good effort. China since 2010, has starts to look into the rare-earth-processing-waste matter seriously and came out with a more “severe” regulations after the Baotou case exposed to public. Unfortunately, most of the information is in Chinese language.

    Many who did not do a good research is not aware that, some of the China mines are actually exporting intermediate product to Japan, and buy back the processed rare earth element from Japan, which means there are rare earth final product processing plants in Japan. Everyone ever heard of toxic waste issue in this well-developed country? Please share if you do.

    Many anti-Lynas supporters also not aware of the world current technology development. Thorium demand is increasing due to the research on “Thorium replacing Uranium” as the next generation fuel for nuclear reactor. One of the reason is that Thorium produced up to 10000 times less long-live radioactive waste. India, US, Japan, Russia are among the countries start to develop such technology. China also plans to recycle their current Thorium-rich waste left over by the rare earth processing.

    Just to add, Mountain Pass in US is plan to reopen in 2012 due to world demand increase in rare earth element. The citizen are concerned about the environmental impact, however so far no extreme protest. Well, US are more educated than some of us anyway.

    I also noticed one thing about many anti-Lynas supporters, they positioned themselves as the only expect in mining industries and radiation matter. Some of them even condemned and accused the report presented by the IAEA. I just wonder, if this Lynas case goes to court eventually, who will the judge listen to? The IAEA? or an so-called expert who works for a material corrosion company and never listed in any radiation committee?

    Here is a little advice for the anti-Lynas supporters. If you truly against Lynas, then try to have some integrity. Resist all products made of rare earth element starts from today. Don’t be a selfish Malaysian who wants to enjoy and worship high technology gadgets, while letting others people or country to take the risk and the environment impact. Be an person of integrity, Just like what we did once when we against animal cruelty. Say NO to all leather and fur products. Now say NO to all products that contains rare earth elements. Please don’t be a hypocrite. That will not only embarrassed yourself, but also a disgrace to your family and your friend, by being a selfish hypocrite.

    Another thing to point out too. Anti-Lynas supporters had been seeking support from the actual radiation experts around the globe, but results are not really encouraging. Many replies indirectly saying that the information released by anti-Lynas supporters to the public is mis-leading.

    To wrap up my say, Lynas is going to be a big player in the world rare earth market. Assuming the anti-Lynas supporters successfully stop Lynas in the end. The world market of rare earth elements will be out of balance. Many of the global affected big companies will have no choice to stand up by then. Their “real” experts will start to confront every single fact presented by the anti-Lynas supporters.

    Dear anti-Lynas supporters, are you ready for that? Are you ready to become the world known selfish hypocrite liar when your facts are finally proven to be incorrect?

    God bless you.

    1. Rahim Sulong,

      It doesn’t get anymore retarded and ill-researched than your piece. And so I have to waste my time to respond to your crap.

      1) China, in fact, has very strict laws and regulations on rare earth mining and processing.
      Wrong, China had very lax environmental laws. They in fact classified anything below 74 Bq/g as non-radioactive, whereas the IAEA standard is 1 Bq/g.

      2) China since 2010, has starts to look into the rare-earth-processing-waste matter seriously and came out with a more “severe” regulations
      Yes, and that is after they realized the amount of damage their rare-earth industry is doing to their environment. And it cost China billions to retrofit their plants to meet the new “severe” regulations. So after decimating their environment and the people’s health, and now having to pay billions to upgrade their plants, is it worth it?

      3) Mountain Pass in US is plan to reopen in 2012
      Mountain Pass and Mt Weld are in the bloody deserts. That’s why there are no protests.

      4) There are growing evidence to suggest that the IAEA risk model underestimates the risk from internal exposure. Increasing number of foreign lawsuits are won on the credibility of the competing theory put forth by ECRR.

      5) To wrap things up. Its totally retarded to accuse anti-Lynas supporters of hypocrisy because they use high tech gadgets. You eat chicken right? Why don’t we move the whole pasar to your house then? See the idiocy in your logic?

  7. Again, dear JinHou has demonstrated again how un-civilized as an anti-Lynas supporter by using harsh wording and rude manner in responding to a different opinion. Is this a good product of the education system that anybody wish to go through? Sorry to say, I wouldn’t send my children to such education system and end up talking like a barbarian.

    Anyway, I thanked you JinHou for sharing the info that you know. I really appreciated that.

    China set a standard that differ from IAEA, do you ever wonder why is that? Is China nuclear and radiation experts not as good as your adviser? Is China government set such standard purposely to harm her people? A very simple common sense we can share here. Kelantan set a very strict rules on Muslim woman clothing, but Penang does not apply that such rules. Why? Is it because Penang government does not care the safety about their woman citizen? A public standard is set, it must has its support ground and reasons. Please do not comment other people standard as wrong, when you, especially is not someone who qualified to set such standard.

    Dear JinHou, you get the China issue totally wrong again. The environment disaster caused by China rare earth mining is because the mine operator ignored the standard and regulations set by their government. Its not about the standard, its about their ethic and integrity, and last the China law enforcement agency. China produced many unhealthy food. Will you worry about the food produced by Malaysian factory?

    Dear JinHou, may i ask? What is your definition of environment impact? Is a place where no human live is not an environment? What I can share with you here is that, for a western true environmental protection activist, no matter where the radioactive pollution takes place, either deep ocean or a wild desert, an environment impact is still an environment impact. They will still protest, because they are not hypocrite.

    Dear JinHou, unlike you, in terms of number of foreign lawsuits won on the credibility of the competing theory put forth by ECRR, I truly agreed with you. However, may I ask what is the percentage? I’m worried that you will get this wrong again, so here I share you an example. Example: in 2010, 100 cases had been filed against ECRR, 10 won. In 2011, 200 cases had been filed against ECRR, 12 won. Nobody doubt that the number is increase, but please look at the percentage. How convincing is the percentage?

    Last, one of the different between human and animal is the common sense, logic thinking and polite manner. I do like chicken. In fact I like chicken very much. I will allow the pasar to be build near my house, even if they want to build in my house, I would have welcome that. Why? Because I like to eat chicken. If they proposed to build in my house, I would see that I’m very fortunate, because I can negotiate a better terms and conditions with the pasar. For example, 50% discount from the normal selling price. Imagine of that in the long run. I wouldn’t chase them out of my house. But, as a healthy minded human being, I will also concern about the cleanliness and the healthy environment if they really slaughter those chicken in my house. I’m not a selfish hypocrite therefore I wouldn’t reject them without some concrete reasons. I will get an independent opinion from a good reputated, public recognized authority to verify the cleanliness and the environment of the pasar. If this authority said it’s safe for me to continue staying here, and give me some good recommendations. I would have listen.

    Dear JinHou, I thanked you again for taking your precious time replying my opinion.

    Thank you, sincerely.

You are part of people on the street. My opinion might not as good as yours. Come, please share your thoughts with us!!!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s