First of all, let me make it clear that I wanted to see this Lynas issue being resolved. Since I have materials obtained from Dato Marshal, I took the opportunity to engaged the leading character in anti-Lynas movement – YB Fuziah; through twitter.
My questions are plain to see. It is direct and have no spinning and twisting involved. My main question is as per my previous article – Why only Lynas being blasted and not others? My follow up questions are merely based on what have been answered by YB Fuziah. If any readers find it that it is me spinning, I am truly sorry as I have no intention to do so.
Let us have a look on the twits between me and YB Fuziah on Lynas issue…
The questioned I posted wasn’t attended actually by YB Fuziah (but then answered by one of the commentator here in previous article (but not in good manner)). Yet still, YB Fuziah still do not answer accordingly. All she said, she has evidence, but not on other chemical companies (and so do the commentator).
I followed up with another question:
She answered with “If Co import radioactive material, then they’re bounded by the Basel Convention under UN”. based on this, my understanding is – Yes, other companies do have radioactive material too”. In which, I asked, does Lynas bounded too?
Frankly, I was hoping she said yes, in which can clarify that Lynas also subjected to Basel Convention and the radiation is monitored and regulations MUST be followed.
She answered: “Lynas export from Australia as non-radioactive but we import as radioactive”
At that instance, it was a little weird for me to hear the answer. Why?
First, “export” always followed by “to”.. “not export from”. So do “import from”, not “import to”. Therefore, I twitted to ask:
Oh well, I continued before with asking “isn’t international body too stupid to be fooled”. I asked this because radiation is not a small matter. Afterall, the materials are being transferred from a country to another country in a big scale. Anything happened along the way will be hazardous to few countries. Therefore, I don’t think international bodies are too stupid enough to just being fooled by Lynas.
Eventually, she responded to latter, on the export import terms:
Since it sounded weird (perhaps my English isn’t as good as hers), I tried to put it in a sentence:
Again, I asked to confirm that if the International bodies in are too blind to see the change of the materials from non radioactive to to radioactive.
What did she say then?
She said that Lynas bring out from Australia at just below limit to be classified as hazardous. In other words, it sounded like as if, along the way, the radiation increased before reaching Malaysia. That’s why I followed with this twit to confirm:
I warned her to be careful of what she twit, as wrong words can be meaning different meaning and different situation.
Being wary, I twitted two more:
The two twits were to confirm my understanding that the materials will turn to hazardous on the way to Malaysia and still, IAEA or any international body is okay with the radiation rate. What did she answer?
She answered by saying “IAEA said anything above 1 bqlg is radioactive” and “Malaysia is forced to use IAEA standard”.
Basically, when she said “forced”, it was alarming to me. Does it mean there are other better standards that Malaysia cannot follow but HAVE to follow IAEA?
Therefore, I twitted more:
I wanted to know how the non radioactive become radioactive and to what extend that is become too hazardous; and I also wanted to know the standard that YB Fuziah recommend that is better than IAEA.
Unfortunately, after the two twits, she said I am not sincere.
After this twit, the rest is history whereby personal attacks begin. I merely asked based on her answers, not plucking anything from thin air or create something from nowhere. I was then accused to be paid blogger in which I have expected that will come whenever engaging with pro Pakatan Rakyat.
Again, I would like to reiterate that this blog is handled in the best manner I can without any prejudice. If I am found wrong, I have no hesitation to say I am sorry and if needed, retract my articles. Kindly refer to commentator namely “dawai koko+” for an action that I’ve taken after he gave his comment. I have retracted a Tazkirah Jumaat based on his comments and I found some truth behind his comment.
This blog also has been criticising both sides of Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.
If you are lazy enough to go through this blog and assume me and this blog as enemy, I feel sorry for any of you.
With this opportunity, I would like to say thank you very much to YB Fuziah for earlier twits (before accusing me of not what I am), in which my questions are direct and no spinning or twisting intended.
In a nutshell, what I can conclude from the twits is, Lynas is also bounded by Basel Convention under United Nations, and also subjected to IAEA monitoring and regulations. Therefore, if IAEA is okay, why should it be a fuss, unless there’s a higher governing and monitoring body that Lynas should follow.
The question still remains…
- What makes other chemical companies not being blasted? Why ONLY Lynas?
- Is Lynas having the most radiation and will not being managed properly? If not, why IAEA has no significant issue?
- What is the better standard than IAEA if YB Fuziah said Malaysia is FORCED to follow IAEA standard?
These are among the questions and I don’t find it is wrong to ask. I have asked the other side, and I wish to hear from the opposing side.
Tomorrow, I will share you what the professor has sent me, and it is up to the readers to scrutinise more. Any questions to the next article will be passed to the professor for further information.
Question on the street: Based on feedback, I do think that Lynas issue is politically radioactive more than the radioactive content of the material used by Lynas…. what say you?