The anti-Lynas movement: Are we being unreasonable?

by -
28

Given all the uncertainties, can we take the risk and make the several thousands of residents of Kuantan the guinea pigs, wonders Jeyakumar Devaraj.

Human-Stop-Lynas

On the evening of 25 November 2012, a group of anti-Lynas walkers, headed by Himpunan Hijau 2.0 Chairman Wong Tack, who had walked from Kuantan to KL over the previous 14 days, reached Dataran Merdeka. A huge crowd of 10,000 was there to meet them. It was a huge show of support by the Malaysian public.

But there are also, I think, a significant number of thinking Malaysians who are not entirely convinced that the RM 1.3bn Lynas factory or Lynas Advanced Material Plant (Lamp) is such a serious health hazard. Numerous government spokepersons including the Minister of Health have argued:

  • Lynas’ proposed plant has been vetted by a number of Malaysian agencies including the Pahang State Government, the Department of Environment and the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) and all of these agencies and bodies have approved the plans;
  • As the public still had reservations, the government then invited the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to come and do a study. A nine-member team selected by the IAEA arrived on 29 May 2011 and, after a study tour of six days, said that the Lynas plant is safe.
  • As people were still not satisfied, in March 2012, the government set up a Special Parliamentary Committee to study the issue. Three Pakatan Rakyat MPs were invited to sit on this nine-person committee but the PR decided to boycott this committee (as they felt that it was only a cover-up exercise with no mandate to actually veto the project). This committee too made some recommendations but overall gave their endorsement for the project.

Based on all these, BN leaders have argued that the anti-Lynas protest has been fanned by opposition PR leaders who are looking for issues to make the BN government look bad. The people have been misled by scare-mongers, they claim.

Prime Minister Najib Razak was quoted in The Star (27 February 2012) as saying Lynas Corp’s rare earth plant in Gebeng had been reviewed by the government and found to be safe; He also said that they were looking for an uninhabited location to place the waste material from the Lynas plant….

But if there are people who object for political reasons, there is nothing we can do about it. Opposition parties will look for issues like this as capital to garner support.

I am one of the Opposition MPs who, according to our PM, is a scare-monger. I have argued on several occasions in Parliament that the Lynas project should be shelved. But it has always been my belief that I should speak up for or against policies based on facts and principles, and not because of political expediency. To espouse something which is not true or which you do not believe in just to make you or your party popular amounts to misleading the public and reflects a lack of respect for the public! I would now like to share with you the reasons why I have argued that Lynas should be shelved.

lynas-chart

Vastly differing standards

First, a brief overview of the industrial process of separating the rare earths from the rest of the ore.

Lynas actually has the licence to operate a refining plant in Australia itself. Lynas acquired this licence upon buying over Aston, the company that owned the mine in Mount Weld. In the mid- 1990s, Ashton applied for a licence to refine the ore, and in the process of consultations with the public in the region, agreed to a set of specific performances. If Lynas wants to use the refining licence that came with the purchase of Ashton, it is committed to observing all the procedures agreed to by Ashton earlier. The table below compares requirements that Lynas would have to observe in Australia with the requirements for it in Malaysia.

The government has said in Parliament that Lynas is keen on operating a plant here because the total cost in Malaysia is only 30 per cent of the cost of refining the ore in Australia! (Despite the fact that it has to be transported from Mount Weld to Freemantle Port, loaded on ships and then brought some 4000km to Kuantan for refining!) That means safety precautions in Malaysia are so much more lax than those required in Australia.

This point alone makes me uncomfortable. Why should we allow anything less in terms of safety standards than Australia? Does the BN government feel that the Australian government is being too fussy? Or that Malaysians can take more radiation than the Australians?

Lynas’ cavalier attitude with regard to solid waste

Let me quote verbatim from The Star (10 February 2012):

Lynas Malaysia Sdn Bhd says that its residue from its rare earth plant in Kuantan will be safe and can be used to build roads. Its managing director Datuk Mashal Ahmad said that the firm had succeeded in lowering the radiation level to below 1 Becquerel per gram, which is similar to the radiation level in fertiliser. He added that such usage of the residue was not new and common in developed countries. Mashal said if the residue could be used commercially, there would be no need to have a permanent disposal facility.

Rendered non-radioactive? How is that even possible? Thorium has an unstable nucleus. Every year a small percentage of all thorium existing in the world will start a process of nuclear decay, emitting a series of alpha, beta and gamma rays. Out of every kilogram of thorium, about 10 billion thorium atoms will start the process of decay each hour! There is no known technology to stop this occurrence.

Lynas is trying to pull wool over our eyes! Let me explain – according to the IAEA, a substance is classified as radioactive if it emits alpha, beta or gamma rays at a frequency of equal to or more than 1 emission per second per gram of that substance. 1 radioactive ray per second per gram is termed 1 Becquerel. 1 Becquerel per gram is the threshold level for classifying a substance as radioactive.

According to documents filed by Lynas, the solid waste from the Lynas refinery would have an emission level of 6.4 Becqueral per gram. So it would have to be classified as radioactive.

But if one “dilutes” it by mixing this solid waste up with nine parts of road fill material, then its radiation level drops to 0.64 Becquerel – Hey Presto! No longer radioactive! It is like adding water to a glass containing a sweet drink to make it taste less sweet – but the total amount of sugar that is consumed is not reduced!

Don’t forget, the same waste if produced in Australia would have to be shipped back to the mine and stored beneath the ground in the shafts from where it was taken! We should also remember that the Lynas waste contains small but significant amounts of thorium that has been ground down to a very fine size in the course of extracting the rare earths. If roadworks are carried out on a road comprising Lynas-manufactured road fill or if a pothole develops, there is a real danger of release of this fine dust into the environment!

Underhand attempts to hoodwink us regarding the safety of the waste (and the amount of waste that will be produced is a huge amount – 64,000 tons per year) has increased my level of suspicion regarding the entire project.

The competency and/or integrity of our ministries and agencies is suspect.

Our government’s responses to the proposal to recycle the waste for commercial purposes isn’t too reassuring either! Consider the Science, Technology and Innovation Minister’s reply on 2 April 2012 to Lim Guan Eng’s question in Parliament:

Dakwaan YB Bagan bahawa syarikat Lynas tidak menjelaskan pelan pembuangan dan penyimpanan sisa projek Lamp adalah tidak benar.
Syarikat Lynas bercadang mengitar dan mengguna semula residu yang dihasilkan melalui penyelidikan dan pembangunan untuk tujuan komercial.

Translation: “The accusation by the Honourable Member from Bagan that Lynas hasn’t yet specified how it intends to dispose of the waste from Lamp isn’t true. Lynas has proposed that the waste could be recycled and deployed for other commercial purposes through research and development.”

This kind of answer does little to reassure thinking Malaysians who are genuinely worried about the possible health consequences of the Lynas plant. Are the government agencies competent enough? Do they understand the issues involved? Do they know that if Lynas had set up its plant in Australia, it would have had to transport the solid waste back to the mine for storage? Do they know about the issue of “internal emitters”? Or has Lynas influenced them by underhand methods? Have certain parties already taken big sums of money promising to push the project approval through no matter what? Once this element of doubt arises, and the credibility of the government agencies is eroded, it becomes increasingly difficult to take their reassurances seriously.

But how about the IAEA?

They are supposed to be the international experts, and they have okayed the project. Right! But let me take you through a few points.

  • The IAEA is fully behind the drive to build nuclear reactors. They say that these are safe, that we have the technology to ensure that nothing goes wrong. But we have had accidents in Sellafield (UK), the Three Miles reactor (USA), Chernobyl (USSR), and this was the worst until Fukushima (Japan) occurred! How safe are they really? But the IAEA is still all for Malaysia embarking on building two nuclear reactors – at a cost of more than RM20bn! How objective is the IAEA?
  • Epidemiological studies have shown that the incidence of leukaemia in children staying within a 5km radius of nuclear reactors in Germany and in Britain is twice as high as the national average, although the levels of radiation in the 5km radius are very much lower than the 1mSv/year “safe” threshold for the public as per IAEA recommendations (Written answer 306/June 2012 to questions asked by YB Fuziah Salleh. Also The Star, 23 February 2012).
  • The British Parliament found this so disturbing that they set up a special committee – the Cherie Committee – to study this increased incidence. The minority report of this committee posits that the health effect of exposure to low levels of radiation has been grossly under-estimated by perhaps a factor of 100, because the effect of “internal emitters” has not been factored in (Submission by Dr Chan Chee Khoon at the Ministerial Hearing on 17 April 2012 to revoke the TOL approved for Lamp).A radioactive substance emitting alpha or beta rays will have negligible effect on any person in the vicinity as a few metres of air or clothes would stop these rays. But if a small part of that substance is inhaled or ingested and it then happens to release one of those rays – that would be at point blank range and the odds that it causes significant damage to the DNA of that person is much, much higher.

We must remember that in the process of extracting the rare earths from the ore, the ore has to be crushed to a very fine dust so that the economic product, the rare earths can be separated out. But crushing reduces the ore, including the thorium content, to a very fine size, making ingestion and or inhalation much more possible!

So, can we trust the IAEA as an objective authority – its brief is to promote the use of nuclear technology the world over, especially to promote nuclear reactors! Lynas isn’t a nuclear reactor to be sure, but if the IAEA can be off the mark in the case of the adverse health effects of low level radiation in the vicinity of nuclear reactors, how much can we trust them when they say Lynas is safe. There are people who argue that there has been “regulatory capture” of the IAEA by the multi-billion dollar nuclear reactor and defence industries!

In any case, the IAEA team made 11 recommendations to ensure the safety of the Lynas refinery, and one among these is that the manner in which solid waste will be managed should be submitted by Lynas and approved by AELB before Lynas is given approval to commence operation (Written answer 306/ June 2012 and 306/June 2012 to questions asked by MP Fuziah Salleh. Also The Star, 23 February 2012).

However the Temporary Operating Licence approved on 7 February 2012 allows Lynas to start operations even before they present their proposed plan for comprehensive management of the solid waste – the TOL only requires them to submit the waste management plan within 10 months of starting operations (The Star, 3 February 2012. Pg 30 and 23 February 2012)! Ten months have passed, and a safe permanent depository has not yet been identified and agreed upon by all parties. Instead Lynas is still talking of rendering the waste “safe”.

In a statement on Monday, Lynas said it would convert LAMP’s water leach purification (WLP) residue which contains a low-level of naturally occurring radioactive material , into a commercially safe product called “synthetic aggregate”. Lynas also said that the plant to convert the WLP had been built in LAMP and was now ready for operation. (The Star, 12 December 2012, Page 22)

From information such as this I have come to the following conclusions:

  • We still do not know the full health effects of low level radiation. The assumptions of the IAEA are obviously off the mark – they underestimate the adverse effects.
  • The Lynas management has not been honest with us from the start. They have tried to bluff about health issues – they kept the safety features that were required of them in Australia from us; they tried to make us believe that they could render the solid waste non-radioactive and therefore safe.
  • The Lynas management were able to avoid a Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment before the project was approved because they managed to mislead our authorities that the material being refined was not radioactive – they intended to ensure that the concentration of the ore sent to Malaysia didn’t proceed to the extent that rendered the ore more radioactive than the 1 Becquerel per gram threshold.
  • The Malaysian authorities are either very gullible or not terribly competent. Or else, they are on the take!

Given all the uncertainties, is it fair to expose the people of Kuantan to this rare earth refinery? I still am not 100 per cent sure that it will definitely cause harm. But can we take the risk and make the several thousands of Malaysians there the guinea pigs?

We should practice the ‘Precautionary Principle’. If there is a risk that a particular course of action might bring adverse effects, then one should consider not embarking on that action unless there are very compelling reasons for doing so. This is why I have argued several times in Parliament that the Lynas project should be shelved. And as there was an element of attempting to withhold information and mislead our government authorities by Lynas, the quantum of compensation should be modest if at all!

What do you think? Do you think that is being unreasonable?


About thorium and radioactivity

Thorium, with 90 protons, is one of the largest atoms occurring naturally. However, its nucleus is not stable, and spontaneously undergoes degeneration by shooting out an alpha particle, thus transforming itself Radium (88 protons). Radium also is not stable, and it gives off a Beta particle transforming itself to Actinium (89 protons). This process goes on over 10 steps until Lead (82 protons), an atom with a stable nucleus, is generated. In the process, 6 alpha particles and 4 Beta particles are shot out of the degenerating nuclei of a single thorium atom.You might be interested to know that there are 2.281 x 1024 atoms of thorium in a kilogram of thorium oxide. As the half life of Thorium is 12bn years, out of 1 kg of Thorium, about 10bn thorium atoms will start the process of decay each hour!

As lead is the final product in the decay chain for thorium, there will be a significant amount of lead in the solid waste. Lead can cause mental retardation in children if ingested by them. Lead dust in road mix would not add to the quality of our environment!

Let’s calculate the amount of radioactivity that is going to be introduced into the country because of Lynas. 64,000 tons of WLP waste = 64,000 x 1000 kg = 64,000 x 1000 x 1000 grams (64 x 109).

The radioactivity of the waste is said to be 6.4 Becquerels per gram. Ie each gram of that stuff will emit 6.4 radioactive rays every second. In other words 64,000 tons of waste will be emitting 6.4 x 64 x 109 radioactive rays each second. Multiply that by 60sec x 60min x 24hr x 365days and you will get a measure of the amount of radiation we will be introducing into our country for the year – 12.9bn radioactive emissions each year.

This amount of radiation from this year’s waste will remain constant over the next several hundred years as the half life of thorium is very long. But every year another 64,000 tons of waste will be generated by Lynas – which will contribute another 12.9bn radioactive emissions per year! (It was all safely locked within the earth in Mount Weld, Australia! We are going to take it out, crush it into a fine powder, transport it around and then keep it in our backyard!)

Thanks for dropping by! You are one of an increasing number of readers looking up Aliran for independent analyses and views. We work hard to keep these articles free for all to read. But we do need funds to continue the struggle for Justice, Freedom and Solidarity. To maintain our independence, we do not carry any advertisements; nor do we accept funding from dubious sources. So would you consider making a donation to keep us going - or why not become an Aliran member or subscribe to our FREE newsletters.
(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)
Jeyakumar Devaraj
Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj, a long-time Aliran member and contributor, is the Member of Parliament for Sungai Siput. A respiratory physician who was awarded a gold medal for community service, he is also a secretariat member of the Coalition Against Health Care Privatisation and central committee member of Parti Sosialis Malaysia.

28 COMMENTS

  1. ♥ 🙂 😉 😉

    CANCER AND LOW DOSE RADIATION of 250 mSv can result in a small increase in birth defects, although it is more likely to result in abortions than term births of individuals with major birth defects.

    ♥ Cataracts:

    Acute exposure to 1,000 to 2,000 mSv to the eye can cause cataracts.

    In chronic exposure, the total dose may need to be up to about 8,000 mSv before there is a danger of cataract formation.

    The result of chronic exposure to lower levels of radiation is much less understood, because cataracts are common in older individuals to begin with.

    ♥ Infertility

    An acute dose of 150 mSv to the testes can cause temporary infertility in males but would not result in long term effects. A similar dose may cause a temporary reduction in egg viability in females. Acute single doses greater than 1,000 mSv can result in long term infertility.

    ♥ Hair Loss:

    This is seem mostly in patients who are put on high dose radiotherapy and is usually temporary in nature.

    ♥ Chronic effects on the glands:

    Very high dose radiation used on patients undergoing radiotherapy may develop loss of secretion from the salivary, mucus and other glands in the body, causing membranes to become dry or irritated.

    Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah.
    FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London).

    (Note: 100 mSv = 5,000,000 % Lynas worst case scenario)

  2. *
    ♥ 🙂 😉 ♥ 🙂 😉 ♥ 🙂 😉 ♥ 🙂 😉

    ANYTHING THAT IS LESS THAN 1.25 Bq/g IN THE EU OR 1.20 Bq/g IN THE USA, IS CONSIDERED TO BE SAFE ENOUGH TO BE EATEN.

    If Lynas did not separate out their “waste” into 3 components i.e. WLP, FGD and NUF, the Lynas “waste” would have a specific activity of only 1.35 Bq/g.

    This is only marginally above the “safe to eat” level in the EU and the USA of 1.25 Bq/g and 1.2 Bq/g respectively.

    AND IF WE ADD AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF MALAYSIAN SOIL TO THE ABOVE NON-SEPARATED “WASTE” THE ACTIVITY IS ONLY = 0.72 Bq/g.

    THIS IS WELL WITHIN THE SAFE LIMIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION (IF EDIBLE) IN BOTH THE EU AND THE USA ! ! !

    SO WHAT’S SO DANGEROUS ABOUT THE LYNAS WASTE ?

    IT CAN BE SAFELY EATEN (IF EDIBLE) FROM A RADIATION POINT OF VIEW WHEN BLENDED WITH AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF MALAYSIAN SOIL ! ! !

    Kindly note:

    Blending is an internationally accepted and legitimate way of decreasing the impact of a norm (naturally occuring radioactive material) on the environment and follows the basic safety principle of the World Health Organisation, International Labour Organisation and seven more UN and other reputable international organisations – with guidelines on this existing in many countries.

    Total “waste” from Lynas plant = 290,400 tonnes/yr consisting of:

    1. water leach purification residue (WLP) = 64,000 tonnes/yr >>>> ~ 6 bq/g

    2. flue gas desulphurisation residue (FGD) = 55,800 tonnes/yr >>>> ~ 0.049 bq/g

    3. Neutralisation underflow residue (NUF) = 170,600 tonnes/yr >>>> ~ 0.029 bq/g

    Average Malaysian soil >>>> ~ 0.082 bq/g

    if we are to mix the WLP, FGD and NUF together, we will end up with a mixture of “waste” with a radioactivity of only 1.349 bq/g and if we add an equal amount of Malaysian soil to the mixture we will end up with a valuable mixture of soil enriched with magnesium, calcium and phosphate with a radioactivity of only 0.715 bq/g.

    And since this is way below 1.20 bq/g, it is considered non-radioactive even in the USA and EU.

    Regulatory limits on radioactivity in foods (source: IAEA)

    USA foodstuff = 1.20 bq/g (1,200 bq/kg)

    EU foodstuff = 1.25 bq/g (1,250 bq/kg)

    Accepted global limits on radioactivity levels in foods is 1000 bq/kg (1,200 bq/kg in the USA and 1,250 bq/g in the EU).

    Dominated by cesium-137 and SR-90, these levels were set by organisations like the IAEA and UNSCEAR after decades of study.

    In Malaysia, any material that has a radioactivity of over 1 bq/g will be considered to be radioactive and needs AELB permission to be transported.

    In the EU and USA, below 1.2 bq/g is considered to be non-radioactive and if it is edible, is also fit to be eaten.

    Please note that: The 40 year old rare earth plant in La Rochelle, France had in the past used part of their waste to fill up the low-lying areas of their plant and this has not caused any problem !

    In fact, prior to the end of 1974, this plant released all radioactive liquids and solids directly into the sea (where locals as well as tourists are swimming) without causing any problem.

    Note:

    For transportation purposes, A RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IS DEFINED AS ANY MATERIAL WHICH HAS A SPECIFIC ACTIVITY GREATER THAN

    a …. > 74 Bq/g in USA

    b …. > 10 Bq/g in Australia and

    c …. > 1 Bq/g in Malaysia ! ! !

    Why?

    Because the 1989 Malaysian Transport Regulations are closely based on the out-of-date 1985 IAEA Transport Regulations.

    As a result any material that contains Uranium and Thorium with a combined activity of just 1 Bq/g needs to be regulated by AELB.

    IT’S TIME FOR MALAYSIA TO “DOWNGRADE” IT’S STANDARDS TO THAT OF THE STANDARDS OF THE MORE ADVANCED COUNTRIES ! ! !

    Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah
    FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK) MRCP(London)

  3. *
    ANTI-LYNAS FOLKS STILL INSIST THAT THE SO-CALLED LYNAS WASTE BE SENT BACK TO AUSTRALIA.
    #

    ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF REE AND “WASTE”

    (according to OEKO):

    Annual import of Ore Concentrate = 65,000 tonnes

    Annual production of REE = 22,500 tonnes

    Therefore actual ‘Waste” of Australian origin

    = 65,000 – 22,500 = 42,500 tonnes per year

    TOTAL “WASTE” from Lynas Plant = 290,400 tonnes/yr

    consisting of

    1. WLP = 64,000 tonnes/yr

    2. FGD = 55,800 tonnes/yr

    3. NUF = 170,600 tonnes/yr

    THEREFORE AUSTRALIA CONTRIBUTES TO ONLY 14.5 % (42,000 divided by 290,400×100 %) of the so-called “waste” tonnage ! ! !

    SO 85.5 % OF ALL THE “WASTE” PRODUCED BY LYNAS IS ACTUALLY NATIVE TO MALAYSIA.

    AND HAS BEEN BORN AND BRED IN MALAYSIA FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS AND AS SUCH HAVE MORE RIGHT TO STAY IN MALAYSIA THAN ALL THE ANTI-LYNAS FOLKS !

    DON’T YOU THINK THAT IT IS A SICK JOKE TO ASK AUSTRALIA TO TAKE “BACK” A SO-CALLED “WASTE” WHICH IS OF 85.5% MALAYSIAN ORIGIN ?

    Dato’ Dr Looi

  4. *
    QUOTE Anti-Lynas (a professional architect) 16.05.13 : “Why ship the ore all the way to Malaysia instead of just refining it in Australia ?” Unquote.

    Comment:

    TRANSPORT COST LESS THAN 1% OF BASKET SELLING PRICE

    The cost of shipping the ore to Malaysia constitute only a fraction of the total cost of production (COP).

    For instance the “basket selling price” of REE in Lynas is about $30/kg or $30,000 per tonne or $660 million for the 22,000 tonnes REE annual output.

    Since each 2TEU or 40ft container can carry about 30 tonnes, the 64,000 tonnes of ore concentrate per year require about 2,000 containers and since each container costs about $2,000 as transport cost to Kuantan, the total cost of transporting the ore concentrate is only about $4 million annually.

    The $4 million transport cost is less than 1% of the selling price of the annual output of 22,000 tonnes of REE.

    Lynas built in Malaysia because of economic reasons, just like the TIN ore from Australia, imported and shipped all the way to MSC (Malaysian Smelting Corporation) in Penang for refining.

    REE ore was and to some extent is still being shipped all the way from Australia and China to the 40 year old REE plant in La Rochelle in France for refining.

    It is probably much cheaper to transport the ore concentrate from Perth to Kuantan by boat (distance = 4,174 km) than by road from Perth to a place where water is plentiful like near Melbourne, a driving distance of 3,420 km !

    In Western Australia, the labour cost is very high.

    For instance, a CLEANER IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA IS PAID THE MALAYSIAN EQUIVALENT OF RM 150,000 PER YEAR AND A TECHNICIAN WELL OVER RM 300,000 !

    Easy access to cheap water, low gas price, near to suppliers of Sulphuric acids and other chemicals, next to a first class port and a 12 year tax break are also factors which persuaded Lynas to build their plant in Gebeng

    1. Chemical Engineer : Malaysia = RM 10,000/month

    ……………………………….Australia = RM 40,000/month
    *

    2. Water

    Malaysia = RM 0.84/ cu m

    Australia = RM 6.00/cu m (provided it is available)

    *
    3. Electricity :

    Malaysia=RM 0.23 /kWh
    *
    Australia=RM 0.96 /kWh
    *

    4. Caustic Soda

    Malaysia = RM 500/ton

    Australia = RM 1,500/ton

    All in all, the cost of shipping the ore to Malaysia constitute only a fraction of the total cost of production (COP).

    Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah

  5. Quote Anti-Lynas: “The plant in La Rochelle is not like Lynas. They don’t store the waste in their vicinity, the waste is stored in a facility specialized in disposing radioactive waste.” Unquote.

    ANSWER:

    The La Rochelle plant uses Monazite-(Ce)…(Ce, La, Nd, Th, Y)PO4 and this is by far the most common and most radioactive of the 3 types of monazite ore.

    The other 2 types which are Monazite-(La) and Monazite-(Nd).

    The monazite from Malaysian Tin tailings has 6 to 7% Thorium-232 and has an activity of 284 Bq/g.

    WASTES
    Until the end of 1974, THE PLANT RELEASED ALL RADIOACTIVE LIQUIDS AND SOLIDS DIRECTLY INTO THE SEA (WHERE LOCALS AS WELL AS TOURISTS ARE SWIMMING)!

    Since, and until the end of 1990, it sent at least a part of the solid residues to the CSM. These wastes are composed, among other substances, of thorium 232, uranium 238, and their descendants (including radium 226 and 228).

    SOLID WASTES
    –A solid residue resulting from the processing prior to July 1994 and described by Andra as “Résidu solide banalisé” (RSB), solid residue made commonplace.

    As of June 1999, 8025 tons (50% moisture) with an activity of 217 GBq were on the PLANT site. The thorium 232 in the DRY PRODUCT REPRESENTED 48 Bq/g AND THE URANIUM 238, 6 Bq/g MAKING A TOTAL OF 54 Bq/g.

    Rhône-Poulenc placed 61,000 t of what Andra describes as RSB into a waste site located near its factory and belonging to the city of La Rochelle (Port de Pallice).

    The residues contain in particular thorium 232 (48 Bq/g dry product) and uranium 238 (6 Bq/g dry product), for a total of 1.65 TBq [Andra 00].
    –Radioactive minerals that have not been attacked. According to Andra, they have been used to fill in a part of the plant site;

    –Substances in suspension, the only residue produced by the minerals used today. 10,048 t (50% moisture) containing thorium 232 (2.6 Bq/g ) and uranium 238 (4.7Bq/g) for a total of 37 GBq are stored at the plant;

    –Tailings, containing thorium 232, uranium 238, and their descendents including radium.
    They are more radioactive than the RSB (see above). They are located at Cadarache and presumably in the bay of La Rochelle. They were stored for a time at the CSM.

    –Thorium nitrate and crude thorium hydroxide.
    The 2000 inventory of Andra states in a footnote that it does not take into consideration some 11,000 t of thorium nitrate (mass activity 1650 Bq/g) and about 20,000 t of crude thorium hydroxide (mass activity 720 Bq/g), the “historic” residue of the processing prior to mid-1994, because these substances are “commercialized at present “by Rhodia Terres Rares.

    The thorium nitrate is used in the manufacture of lamp sleeves; the hydroxide “is a potential raw material.”
    Apparently these substances are stored at the site [Andra 99]. The 1997 inventory of Andra listed the hydroxide as a waste.

    The waste thorium nitrate (mass activity 1650 Bq/g) has an activity which is 27,500% higher than the waste from Lynas which is only 6 Bq/g! Apparently these substances are stored at the site [Andra 99].

    8,025 TONS OF WASTE WITH AN ACTIVITY OF 217 GBq were still stored in the compounds of the plant.

    THIS “LOW RADIOACTICITY WASTE” has 48 Bq/g from Thorium 232 and 6 Bq/g from Uranium-238 giving a total of 54 Bq/g.

    You have to realise that 54 Bq/g is 900% higher than that of the Lynas waste of 6 Bq/g.

    And these wastes are still being stored in the compound of the plant.

    IF THE FRENCH ARE NOT WORRIED ABOUT 54 Bq/g OF RADIOACTIVITY, WHY ARE SOME MALAYSIANS SO FRIGHTENED OF ONLY 6 Bq/g?

    Answer: 100% pure politics from toxic radioactive politicians!

    Dato’ Dr Looi

  6. “La Rochelle, the ‘Lynas of France”

    Many would be surprised that La Rochelle has for decades been hosting a rare earths processing plant, similar to the one planned in Malaysia.

    The La Rochelle facility, which belongs to France’s Rhodia Group, has for years been operating like Lynas. Forty years to be exact. And there has been no adverse health and safety report in the tourist town.

    The Rhodia company is an active player in the rare earths business. It is a leading processor of rare earths. In fact, it’s the only fully integrated industrial player to have manufacturing operations and raw material supply both within and outside China.

    The plant in La Rochelle has been in operation for more than 40 years.

    In the early years, the plant processed rare earths ore concentrates from Australia and China just like Lynas would. For 40 years, the plant was operated in this manner, producing cerium for the world market.

    The radioactive thorium residues have been stored within the plant’s 40ha site for the past 50 years. During storage, the residues are regularly monitored by the country’s regulatory authority, the equivalent of our Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB).

    They believe the stored thorium salts will become a fuel of the future.

    What is clear is that the rare earths processing facility in La Rochelle has been operating for more than five decades without harming the population. Instead, La Rochelle has thrived over the years as an attractive tourist destination not only for the French but also for holiday-makers from other European countries and even as far away as the United States.

    Through the deployment of stringent health and safety standards, the chemical plant has been of no consequence to the local community.

    Instead, it has contributed to the local economy not only in terms of job opportunities but also tax revenues.

    After visiting La Rochelle, it beats me why there are still people who are so hung up on Lynas.”Unquote

    COMPARISON OF RADIOACTIVITY IN Bq (Specific activity.. number of atoms decaying in 1second)

    Pure Thorium-232 = 4,080 Bq/gm

    Pure Potassium-40 = 254,000 Bq/gm

    Naturally Occurring Potassium (3 different isotopes) in our body and food = 31.825 Bq/gm

    Artificially created Plutonium-238 = 634,000,000,000 Bq/gm (1/2 life=87.7 years)

    Polonium-210 from Uranium-238 decay = 166,000,000,000,000 Bq/gm (1/2 life=138 days)

    Monazite ore from Amang or Tin Tailings in Malaysia = 284 Bq/gm

    Lynas Rare Earth Waste = 6 Bq/gm

    Quote: AELB (Atomic Energy Licensing Board, Malaysia):

    Malaysia was the world’s no. 1 producer of tin. Along with tin, there’s always Thorium and Uranium and therefore this is not Malaysia’s first facility, AELB is has experience to handle this, to overcome this and AELB is prepared.

    THERE ARE MORE THAN 10 FACILITIES THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR TO LYNAS.

    SOME OF THEM ARE PRODUCING HIGHER RESIDUES, HIGHER CONCENTRATION OF URANIUM AND THORIUM.

    AELB has been able to regulate and control these factories, so it is based on AELB experience and the experience of the industry abroad.” Unquote

    QUESTION: WHY IS IT THAT THERE ARE NO DEMONSTRATIONS BY
    THE ANTI-LYNAS FOOT-SOLDIERS AGAINST THESE 10 CHEMICAL
    PLANTS ALREADY IN MALAYSIA THAT ARE PRODUCING “WASTES
    WITH HIGHER CONCENTRATIONS OF URANIUM AND THORIUM”?

    ANSWER: 100% PURE POLITICS FROM TOXIC RADIOACTIVE
    POLITICIANS !

    Dato’ Dr Looi
    *

    http://kickdefella.net/2012/04/17/lynas-negligible-radiation-but-only-toxic-chemical-waste/#more-5242

  7. *
    IS THORIUM-232 THE REAL CAUSE OF CANCER IN PATIENTS INJECTED WITH THOROTRAST?

    Dosage in “Thorotrast” Fluoroscopy = ~1,000 mSv (100 Roentgens)

    Risk in developing Cancer = 1 in 20,000 per mSv

    Therefore risk with 1 Thorotrast Fluoroscopy = 1 in 20

    Therefore in about 4 million patients, number of patients developing Cancers = 200,000 from X-ray induced Cancers!

    SO IS IT FAIR TO CONCLUDE THAT THORIUM-232 IS A CARCINOGEN, based mainly on the results of studies on Thorotrast study alone?

    (In an attempt to prevent some injuries, A LIMIT OF 100 ROENTGENS (approximately 1,000 mSv) per fluoroscopic examination was set in New York City hospitals (Braestrup 1969). Prior to this, the dosage from the “Thorotrast” Fluoroscopy may be much higher !

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) categorized Thorium-232 and its decay products as a group 1 carcinogen when administered intravenously as a colloidal dispersion of thorium-232 dioxide.

    This conclusion was made mainly on the study of certain types of cancers which were found to be increased in patients given Thorotrast for radiological investigations.

    SO IS IT FAIR TO CONCLUDE THAT THORIUM-232 IS A CARCINOGEN, based mainly on the results of studies on Thorotrast study alone?

    Please read on:

    *
    CANCER, RADIATION AND THOROTRAST

    I have known about the controversy of Thorotrast (a 25 cc vial of a 25% colloidal suspension of Thorium dioxide) since I was a medical student in Manchester about 45 years ago and in fact I have been collecting a fair amount of data with regards to this contrast media.

    Thorotrast was given as a contrast media via the vein or artery and the dose of Thorium used was huge, though this depends on the type of radiological procedure done.

    It had been estimated that as many as 4 million people were given this contrast in the 1930 to late 1950s.

    It has been claimed that there was an increase in the incidence of cancers especially of the liver.

    However, we need to consider a number of factors before we can be sure that this is the real culprit.

    1) The radiation dose from those old X-ray machines in the 1930 to 1950s are hundreds of times that of the present machines.

    For instance an 1896 X-ray machine was tested and found to have exposed the body to 1,500 times more radiation than modern technology does, largely because each image took 90 minutes to develop, dramatically increasing the patient’s cumulative exposure to the rays. By 1930 to 1950s, the radiation dose have improved a lot but still much higher than the present X-ray machines.

    Modern day X-rays require only about 21 milliseconds, and technicians place lead coverings over the body to protect vital organs from even this slight exposure.

    Even in the 50s and 60s, the dose of X-rays from Tuberculosis screening is about 100 times higher than that of today’s Chest X-Ray.

    The fluoroscope leaves the X-ray beam “on” while the physician does his examination and as such, the fluoroscope has the potential to deliver very high X-ray doses.

    In the 1920s, fluoroscopy became very popular procedure not only among radiologists, but also among many kinds of physicians.

    Radiological methods of diagnosis became so important that no investigation of a patient is considered complete without the X-rays, which generally include fluoroscopy. These studies are often carried out by a general practitioner or surgeon in his office.

    In 1942, Dr. Franz Buschke and Herbert M. Parker wrote (Buschke 1942):
    “Recently we became aware of the fact that apparently a number of pediatricians include fluoroscopy in the monthly routine examinations of infants in their care during the first and second years of life.” This pediatric practice is confirmed in Pifer 1963 and in Blatz 1970.

    After studying the radiation output of seven fluoroscopes in the offices of “reputable pediatricians selected at random,” Buschke and Parker estimated (Buschke 1942, p.527): “If the average rapid fluoroscopy by an experienced and well-adapted examiner takes twenty seconds, about 8.3 roentgens [entrance dose] will be delivered at this rate or 100 roentgens during the first year of life.” The roentgen is a dose-unit which is approximately equivalent to a rad (actually it is less as the ICRU defined the roentgen to be 2.58e -4 C/Kg in 1971)
    Fluoroscopy was popular also in hospitals.

    (Braestrup 1942, p.213):
    “During the past years, we have measured the roentgen output of large numbers of fluoroscopes, using the settings at which they are normally operated … and have found a very wide variation … Attention is called particularly to test B-116, where the R [roentgen] per minute at the panel was 127, that is, an erythema dose would be reached in about three minutes. Such a unit could be classified as a lethal diagnostic weapon and yet there are many of these still in use.”

    Of the various types of radiologic equipment, the mobile unit probably has been responsible for more radiation damage than any other piece of apparatus. These accidents have in most cases occurred while the mobile unit was used for fluoroscopy by surgeons, who apparently did not realize the high output obtained at short distances.”

    In an attempt to prevent some injuries, A LIMIT OF 100 ROENTGENS (approximately 1,000 mSv) per fluoroscopic examination was set in New York City hospitals (Braestrup 1969).

    The patients who received the Thorotrast were subjected to a huge dose of X-rays from these antique X-ray machines.

    This huge dose of X-rays may be the cause of most of the cancers, we just do not know as most of the studies are unable to assess the X-ray’s dose. All these studies are done 20 to 30 years later.
    So we cannot use other patients who have X-rays done in the 1930s to 1950s as a control group since most X-rays which do not need a contrast media consist of only 1 or 2 X-ray pictures.
    A few of the studies do have controls but these controls were cases from later years especially after 1947 when the advancement in radiological techniques and hence dosage reduction is greatest.

    It is generally accepted that the risk of radiation induced cancer is 1 in 20,000 per mSv.
    As such, a dose of about 1,000 mSv would mean a risk of 1 in 20. For 4 million patients injected with Thorotrast, THIS RADIATION WOULD GIVE RISE TO AN EXCESS OF 200,000 CASES OF RADIATION INDUCED CANCERS IN THE 4 MILLION CASES OF “THOROTRAST” PATIENTS!

    In 1953, Dade W. Moeller (then of the Public Health Service; later, president of the Health Physics Society) published an estimate that the average entrance dose per fluoroscopic examination was about 65 roentgens (about 650 mSv) at mid-century (Moeller 1953, pp.58-59).

    The use of Thorotrast was discontinued by 1953.

    2) The contrast studies are usually done for patients who are rather ill and may have multiple other disorders.
    The cancers usually appear (as most cancers do) about 20 to 30 years later when the patients reach the “cancer” age. Because of this long lapse of cause and effect, all the studies are retrospective in nature.
    And as you know, all retrospective studies are full of problems and inaccuracies.

    3) A lot of these patients, have other disorders which may also lead to cancer like alcoholic cirrhosis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. In fact the first case of liver cancer I saw in Manchester was an old alcoholic with severe liver cirrhosis. But he also had Thorotrast contrast study more than 20 years earlier. Because of this history, the surgeon had to report him as a Thorotrast induced cancer.

    4) With about 4 million by now old people, we are bound to come across a lot of cancer cases. Since the life time risk of cancer in the advanced countries is 1 in 5, there should be about 800,000 cases of cancer due to other causes.

    So how many if any of these (taking into account all the above problems) are really caused by the radiation from the massive dose of intravenous Thorium-232… nobody can be really sure. If anybody says he can tell, then either he is lying or he does not know what he is saying.

    Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah
    FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK) MRCP(London)

    • Hi Looi boy,

      Still at it? My, my, hard at work with the cut and paste. But I have to say, your quack science is boring, you know. You have so much to say, but still afraid to start your own blog. Still worried about lack of readers?

      Hey, what happened to all your pro-Lynas propaganda ‘friends’ from Australia? Have they given up and left you alone to fly the flag? Tsk, tsk, you are all alone in defending this plant.

      Try harder, Looi boy. The Lynas share price still looks pretty depressing.

  8. Ayoh, sudah-lah Looi boy, awak macam satu rekod, bosan-lah! Mau tunjuk saja, bagaimana pandai awak ni. Orang lain pun ada huruf belakang nama macam JPJ, PBA, TNB, MPPP, MPSJ, DBKL, semua pun ada. Buat apa angkuh dan pandai sangat. Cakap terlalu banyak, lain hari nanti syer tumbang, duit pun hilang. Kalau alam sekitar kami ni tercemar oleh bahan radioaktif Lynas, makanan pun tadak. Awak mau makan duit awak- kah? Tu-lah, nama awak ni ‘looi’ makna duit-kan. Jangan- lah jadi mata duitan, nanti kena makan ringgit dan sen juga, bolehkah? Awak seorang pelanggan Bank Neraka-kah? Memang jenaka!

  9. Quote The Hon. Dr Jeyakumar Deveraj dated 21.02.13: “. Let’s calculate the amount of radioactivity that is going to be introduced into the country…….. 64,000 tons of waste will be emitting 6.4 x 64 x 109 radioactive rays each second. Multiply that by 60sec x 60min x 24hr x 365days and you will get a measure of the amount of radiation we will be introducing into our country for the year – 12.9bn RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS EACH YEAR ..”. Unquote.

    COMMENT:

    12.9 BILLION RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS EACH YEAR sounds like a very dangerous amount, but counting the number of Bq per year is meaningless.

    For instance, the human body has 4,400 Bq from Potassium-40 and another 3,000 Bq from Carbon-14 giving a total of 7,400 Bq. which will be =

    233.37 BILLION RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS EACH YEAR !

    SO IF THE GOOD HON. DR JEYAKUMAR HIMSELF PRODUCES 233.37 BILLION RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS EACH YEAR,

    WHAT’S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT LYNAS PRODUCING ONLY 12.9 BILLION RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS EACH YEAR !

    What’s more important is what the biological effect of the radionuclide has on the human body.

    Since the average absorbed Beta energy of K-40 decay is 499 keV and the average absorbed Gamma energy is 156 keV,

    THE INTERNAL DOSAGE from K-40 ~ 0.24 mSv/yr:
    (120x Lynas worst case scenario)

    The human body is subjected to an internal dose of ~ 0.4 mSv from Potassium-40, Carbon-14 and other trace radionuclides and as such

    Sleeping next to someone (i.e. your wife or husband) for 8 hours a day will lead to an exposure of 0.02 mSv/year (Source: UNSCEAR and EPA) i.e. 10x that of Lynas worst case scenario.

    There is no natural way for Metallic Thorium or insoluble Thorium compounds or even soluble salts when adsorbed with clay to enter the body in any significant amount and as Nick Tsurikov, International Radiation Safety Expert and Co-author of IAEA Radiation Safety Report says

    “THORIUM IN ‘WASTE’ IS INSOLUBLE AND CANNOT POISON ANY PLANTS, ANIMALS OR THE ENVIRONMENT – EVEN IN THEORY.” Unquote.

    There has not been a single death or injury that has been definitely and conclusively proven beyond any scientific doubt from the accidental inhalation or ingestion of Thorium-232 !

    Compare this with death caused by Water i.e. from drowning… 388,000 drowning deaths in 2004 alone (WHO).

    It is also not possible for Thorium-232 to get into the lungs of the Kuantan folks because only particles of between 0.65 to 5 microns are able to get deep into the lungs.

    Those particles which are larger than 5 microns are trapped by the mucosa in the upper respiratory tract and are cough out with the phlegm.

    Those particles which are smaller than 0.65 microns will behave like the nitrogen gas in the air and is exhaled with the exhaust air.

    Particles of less than 5 microns are found only in the Thorium or Uranium mines where powerful machines are used, or where there is combustion.

    THE LYNAS PLANT IS NOT A THORIUM MINE AND KUANTAN FOLKS ARE NOT MINERS !

    QUOTE NICK TSURIKOV, INTERNATIONAL RADIATION SAFETY EXPERT WHO IS THE CO-AUTHOR OF IAEA RADIATION SAFETY REPORT:

    “On dust particles – THERE IS NO WAY WHATSOEVER FOR

    DUST PARTICLES OF AROUND 10 MICRONS TO GET INTO

    THE LUNGS –

    THE STUFF THAT GETS THERE IS 5 MICRONS OR LESS,..

    The vast majority of the (Lynas) concentrate is EITHER 10 MICRONS or above, SO THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY ISSUE HERE.” Unquote.

    Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah
    FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London)
    *
    http://aliran.com/archives/monthly/2002/6e.html

    • Dear insecure Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London)…

      What’s the matter. You got plenty of free time? No other work except copy and paste? Medical business bad?

      Please stop pretending that IAEA is an independent expert group. They are a pro-industry group. As for being experts, check out the cover-up of the Fukushima reactor meltdown and how the IAEA responded: http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverup-of-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-iaea-knew-reactors-had-melted-down/24971

      And check out the IAEA’s ties with the WHO.
      http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/iaeawhoagreement.htm

      http://enenews.com/exposed-world-health-organization-beholden-nuclear-interests-videos

      Still think they are independent? Sorry to burst your pro-industry bubble.

      Why not start your own blog instead of filling up the comments here with your pro-Lynas propaganda? Afraid no one will read if you started your own blog?

      Whatever the pro-industry quack science you are trying to promote, people know better and you can’t stop the downward slide in the Lynas share price. Too bad, Looi boy. You are not as clever as you think.

      ..

      • To Anti-Propaganda,

        Still have no guts and still cowardly hiding under a pseudonym when passing silly, nonsensical childish remarks ?

        Still clowning with utterances of idiotic, nonsensical brainless statements because you are still incapable of debunking any of the scientific facts that I have posted?

        You are just a typical Anti-Lynas Red Guard who is not intelligent enough to debunk the scientific facts presented by me and fall back to the typical Anti-Lynas Red Guard’s tactic of “MAKE CHILDISH ATTACKS ON THE PERSON IF YOU ARE BANKRUPT OF IDEAS TO COUNTER THE TRUTH”.

        I think it is time for you to grow up and have enough guts to admit that you are completely bankrupt of ideas and are really scratching the bottom of the barrrel.

        IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR BRAINY MASTER BRAINWASHER DO HAVE SOME COMPASSION AND AFTER CAUSING SO MUCH PAIN AND SUFFERING TO THE PEOPLE OF MALAYSIA, HAVE DECIDED TO EMPLOY AN INTERNATIONAL CLASS VILLAGE CLOWN TO ENTERTAIN THE MALAYSIA AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE WORLD.

        Please don’t try so hard to compete with the rest of the Anti-Lynas clique for the title of “The World’s Greatest and Most Silly Village Clown “.

        You have already achieved that title in all the other websites by the persistent, continuous, repeated parroting of the same nonsensical words and illogical phrases.

        Please do not try in persisting to repeatedly display your unflattering IQ, inferior upbringing and poor moral values in order to entertain and amuse the world audience.

        As Rahim Sulong said with regards to the Anti-Lynas red guards like you

        “Where is their common sense?

        Do they still have any integrity and pride?”

        Even if you do not feel embarrassed, THE PEOPLE OF MALAYSIA, THE PEOPLE OF KUANTAN,

        and THE PEOPLE OF GEBENG (sorry for plagiarizing the anti-lynas favourite punch line),

        DO FEEL THE EMBARRASSMENT and HUMILIATION in the world wide web!

        PLEASE DO NOT KEEP ON CLOWNING FOR THE AMUSEMENT AND ENTERTAINMENT OF THE WORLD AUDIENCE !

        Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah
        FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London)
        *
        http://aliran.com/archives/monthly/2002/6e.html

  10. Quote The Hon. Dr Jeyakumar Deveraj dated 21.02.13: “. The British Parliament found this so disturbing that they set up a special committee – the Cherie Committee – to study this increased incidence. The minority report of this committee posits that the health effect of exposure to low levels of radiation has been grossly under-estimated by perhaps a factor of 100, because the effect of “internal emitters” has not been factored in.” Unquote

    COMMENT:

    Quoted from Ng Ai Soo response to the Hon. Prof. Chan ‘s article in the Malaysian Political Podium and Insider:

    “The inverse square law applies to trillions and trillions of particles, not just the one particle. That one particle IS the radiation only “dilutes” in a quantum sense… it otherwise remains one particle no matter how far it is from the source… so the cellular damage by that one particle is the same, no matter how far it travelled to get into the cell.

    But it must survive that journey into the cell and for different particles the survival rates are different.

    The “precautionary principle” has to be used judiciously… overuse can lead to awkward situations.

    For example, the other day a football player collapsed and very nearly died mid-game, therefore nobody should play football… never mind rugby! More than a million people die on the roads worldwide each year, therefore nobody should use roads… to say nothing about air travel.

    The use of coal results in fatalities not only in mining, but also due to emissions… therefore we should not use coal. So where do you draw the line.

    The methods used to get such high damage estimates from radiation, if applied to other sources, can also lead to silly results.

    For example, if applied to air travel (high altitude leads to higher radiation) such methods will give hundreds, if not, thousands of casualties.

    As pointed out by Dr. Looi, people have lived very healthy lives for many, many generations in Ramsar despite (or because of?!) a background of more that 100mSv/yr… likewise in Kerala where the background exceeds 50mSv/yr… apply the extreme methods to these people and you will find thousands of expected radiation casualties over the millennia, not to say mutations and such… but the people have been and are all healthy if not better than average.

    Nuclear power stations cannot be constructed in Cornwall because the natural background radiation is about 8mSv/yr.

    Why are there no cancer clusters there? You put it best when you say “excess childhood leukaemia near nuclear power plants that can’t be explained by radiation exposures which are much below the “safe thresholds””… that is, they are not caused by radiation exposure from the nuclear power stations.

    In fact such clusters occur in other places as well, nowhere near nuclear power stations, and in one case, a cluster was found at a site at which a nuclear power station was planned but not yet built!

    Of course what happened at Cerrie is well known (see

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/24/4/E02/pdf/jr44e1.pdf ,

    http://www.cerrie.org/ and http://www.comare.org.uk which advises the UK

    government) and is due to two members, one of whom is Christopher Busby

    who, it seems, sells radiation protection kits to Fukushima survivors (see

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/21/christopher-busby-radiation-pills-fukushima and

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/nov/22/christopher-busby-nuclear-green-party ).

    Busby is very political and even ran for office. Please advise all that protection has to be sought for exposure to Busby emissions, if nothing else, from his reported profanity.

    And what about other pollution and/or radiation sources in the environment before Lynas even starts.

    For example, a 1,000MW coal plant after just 1 year of operation produces 6,000,000 tons of CO2, 44,000 tons of SO2, 22,000 tons of NO2, 320,000 tons of ash containing 400 tons of heavy metals (arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead etc.) and, here’s the kicker, including 5 tons of Uranium and 12 tons of Thorium from which the radon gas of both decay chains are out the chimney and into our air… and we are building TWO of these now to add to those we already have on the peninsula. Where do we store this waste?

    Does this waste go into making our roads or construction material? What is Lynas waste in comparison?!

    How did we manage to put up with that yearly radioactive and toxic waste, and plan to build more of the same, with no objection from you?

    Be fair… if you want to protect us from industrial radiation pollution, then tackle the whole lot of them in proportion to their pollution, not just Lynas.

    Dr. Looi’s presentation of the facts is clear and persuasive compared with the unnecessary fear, uncertainty and doubt that taints your article.”

    Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah
    FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London)
    *
    http://aliran.com/archives/monthly/2002/6e.html

  11. Quote The Hon. Dr Jeyakumar Deveraj dated 21.02.13: “..the Cherie Committee – to study this increased incidence.

    The minority report of this committee posits that the health effect of exposure to low levels of radiation has been grossly under-estimated by perhaps a factor of 100, because the effect of “internal emitters” has not been factored in (Submission by Dr Chan Chee Khoon…)….” Uquote.

    COMMENT:

    All the above claims come from The Learned Hon Prof. Chan :

    QUOTE No. 01 :
    Quote from the Hon. Professor “…childhood leukaemias observed among the children of Bukit Merah? (Recall also the inverse square law — the intensity of radiation from a radioactive particle a metre away from a human body increases a trillion-fold when that same particle sits at micron-level distances on the body’s cells and tissues.)

    ANSWER by Ng Ai Soo

    “The inverse square law applies to trillions and trillions of particles, not just the one particle. That one particle IS the radiation only “dilutes” in a quantum sense… it otherwise remains one particle no matter how far it is from the source… so the cellular damage by that one particle is the same, no matter how far it travelled to get into the cell. But it must survive that journey into the cell and for different particles the survival rates are different.

    The Hon. Prof. Chan

    A quick response to Ng Ai Soo (?): I’m referring to macroscopic radioactive particles (e.g. thorium-containing dusts), not to a radioactive atomic nucleus nor sub-atomic particles.

    Comment by Me.

    1. In addition to the clarification by Ng Ai Soo of the inappropriateness in invoking the inverse square law to just one particle, if we assume that the intensity is increased by a trillion fold, an alpha particle from Thorium-232 with an energy of 4 MeV is magnified by a factor of 1 trillion, the energy would be 0.64 Joules and this is so “intense” that all the cells that are hit, will be vaporized. We know that DEAD CELLS do not and cannot turn into cancer cells!

    2. Even if we are referring to thorium-containing dusts in Bukit Merah and “not to a radioactive atomic nucleus nor sub-atomic particles,”
    it would not work either because at 1 metre away, alpha particles from the Thorium-232 can travel about a couple of centimetres, and since the cells are subjected to an intensity of radiation at 1 metre = 0 units.
    Therefore at micron level, 0 multiplied by 1 Trillion is still = 0 units

    This shows that if we use retrograde calculations in these situations, we can end up with some rather embarrassing results.

    QUOTE No. 02 :
    : “Dr Looi’s cites the Argonne National Lab’s fact sheet on thorium to argue that only a miniscule portion of thorium-232 which is ingested via food or water is absorbed into the bloodstream, of which only 4 per cent gets deposited in the liver where it is retained with a biological half-life of 700 days.”

    ANSWER:

    I have never quoted the Argonne National-Lab’s fact sheet in any of my postings. This is just a figment of the fertile but confused imagination of a person infected by the highly dangerous anti-lynas virus.

    QUOTE No. 03 :
    ” Allow me also to bring to Dr Looi’s attention a 1993-1994 study of male miners at the Bayun Obo rare earths and iron mine in Inner Mongolia which was reported in the Journal of Radiological Protection in 2005.
    In that study, highly dust-exposed miners had 5.15 times the age-adjusted lung cancer rate compared to the rate among Chinese males in the general population. ”

    ANSWER:

    It was claimed that a 20 year study in one of the largest rare earth mine, the Bayun Obo mine has shown that inhalation Thorium has proven to cause lung cancer. The number of miners in 2001 were 6,983 of which 3016 were exposed to dense dust in the mine.

    After correcting for the heavy smoking, there was an excess of 10 cases of lung cancer in workers who had worked for about 30 years or so in the mine.

    But this study cannot exclude crystalline silica (SiO2) in the dust as being the cause of the lung cancers. Silica is a confirmed carcinogen while Thorium by inhalation or ingestion is not.

    SILICA IS A CONFIRMED GROUP 1 CARCINOGEN by inhalation whereas Thorium-232 is considered to be a carcinogen only IF ADMINISTERED INTRAVENOUSLY AS A COLLOIDAL DISPERSION OF THORIUM-232 DIOXIDE.” (IARC).

    QUOTE 04:
    “The “safe thresholds” of 1 mSv/yr (public) and 20 mSv/yr (occupational) that Dr Looi, Dr Che Rosli Che Mat (MP, Hulu Langat), Lynas, AELB, and IAEA repeatedly invoke are derived from ICRP risk models which are currently under critical scrutiny and challenge, IN THE WAKE OF EXCESS CHILDHOOD LEUKAEMIA NEAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS that can’t be explained by radiation exposures which are much below the “safe thresholds”.

    ANSWER:

    The British study (COMARE) published in 2010 clearly showed that there is NO INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF LEUKAEMIA CASES in young children living near nuclear power plants.

    This study which covers a period of over 35 years is far more comprehensive than the French study which covers only a period of 5 years.
    The research, conducted by scientists on the Committee of the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), found only 20 cases of childhood leukaemia within 5 km (3.1 miles) of nuclear power stations between 1969 and 2004.
    The rate was virtually the same as in areas where there were no nuclear plants.
    A study on Germany, published in 2007, did find a significantly increased risk, but the COMARE team said these findings were probably influenced by an unexplained leukaemia cluster near a nuclear plant in Krummel, north Germany, that lasted from 1990 to 2005.
    Excluding Krummel, evidence for an increased leukaemia risk among young children living close to German nuclear power plants was “extremely weak”, it said.
    The French study found that between 2002 and 2007 (only 5 years), 14 children under the age of 15 living in a 5-kilometre radius of France’s 19 nuclear power plants had been diagnosed with leukaemia.

    This number of cases (14 in 5 years) is so small that even a small unaccounted unknown factor would lead to a false statistical result.

    QUOTE No. 05 :

    “The US Public Health Service (1990) reports that the natural background level in North American soil is typically ~ 6 ppm of thorium.”

    ANSWER:
    The average Malaysian soil ~ 20 parts per million of thorium.
    Nick Tsurikov, Radiation Safety Expert: ” THE MAJORITY OF THIS LYNAS “WASTE” WILL HAVE ONLY HALF THE THORIUM THAN IN NORMAL MALAYSIAN SOIL.

    So, in fact most of Lynas residues are only half as radioactive as the sand the kids all over Malaysia play in the kindergartens”
    (Note: Sand or crystalline SiO2 is also classified as a group 1 Carcinogen by IARC).

    If you do look through the Lynas RIA together with UN (not IAEA) reports – you will clearly see that two most ‘voluminous’ residues from LAMP will have less than 12 parts per million of thorium – and the average Malaysian soil – 20 parts per million of thorium.

    QUOTE No. 06 :

    “A UK expert panel for instance (2004, http://www.cerrie.org : ttp://www.cerrie.org/) could not arrive at a consensus regarding the health risks of low-level exposure to internal emitters (inhaled or ingested radioactive particles). Opinions among the UK panel members ranged from negligible adverse effects to an underestimation of risk by at least a 100-fold.”

    ANSWER:
    Quote: Nick Tsurikov, Radiation Safety Expert “The point that I would like to make is to illustrate clearly that ECRR “100-200 times” factors cannot possibly be correct – have a look:

    The ‘official’ risk of getting cancer from radiation exposure is 1 in 20,000 per 1 milliSievert of dose. So, if the hazard is ‘understated’ by, say, 200 times – it becomes 1 in 100, per 1 mSv of dose.

    Thousands of people in Malaysian amang industry and in heavy mineral sands industry world-wide have been exposed to about 5 mSv every year for (let’s say, on average) 6 years of working life, so their cumulative dose was 30 mSv.

    WHICH MEANS THAT IF ECRR IS CORRECT, EVERY THIRD WORKER IN THE AMANG INDUSTRY WOULD BE DEAD FROM CANCER BY NOW !

    And what about those who were exposed to about 20 mSv for five years or more (in any industry, uranium included) – in accordance with the ECRR coefficients – the chance is 1 in 1, so they are all dead from cancer by now…

    I do not see any cancer epidemic happening… What about all the tin miners in Malaysia in 1950’s-1970’s: they all should’ve died within several years after starting their work (as their coefficient would be close to 5 to 1…) Just some points for general consideration…” Unquote.

    Quote No. 07: Hon. Prof Chan:

    “Potassium-40, when absorbed, is distributed more uniformly throughout the human body, mostly in muscle tissue which is among the least radio-sensitive of the body’s tissues, Thorium entering the bloodstream localises to the bones where it is retained with a biological half-life of 22 years.
    The risk of cancer mortality per pCurie is higher in inhaled thorium-232 when compared with that of INHALED potassium.” Unquote

    ANSWER:
    When Potassium is taken into the body it is not just concentrated in the muscles but concentrated in the INTRACELLULAR spaces of ALL CELLS where the cancer sensitive chromosomes are located!

    So to say that Potassium concentration is less in the radiosensitive cells of the blood, lymphoid tissues, testis, ovaries and intestine is definitely not in line with basic human physiology.

    It is concentrated and equally distributed in ALL INTRACELLULAR SPACES . In terms of per cell mass, it may be slightly less only in fat cells.

    Intracellular Potassium = 139 to 140 mEq
    Extracellular Potassium = 4 mEq which is tiny compared with the Intracellular Potassium.

    Thorium-232 stays mainly in the extracellular space where it is not so harmful.
    Practically all the data on the acute and long term toxicology of Thorium-232 comes from the study of Thorotrast.

    Most of the human data for thorium exposure comes from diagnostic studies. A massive dose of 1 to 2 vials of 25 ml of 25% Colloidal thorium-232 dioxide (Thorotrast) was injected into patients as a radiographic contrast medium between 1928 and 1955.

    Thorium dioxide in Thorotrast is insoluble and in a colloidal form i.e. in the form of particles. ALL INSOLUBLE PARTICLES ARE TAKEN UP BY THE MACROPHAGES AND OTHER CELLS OF THE RETICULO-ENDOTHELIAL (RE) SYSTEM and deposited into the tissues of the RE system i.e. the liver, spleen, lymph nodes, bone marrow and parts of the small intestines and not just the bones.

    In humans, WHERE WILL the SOLUBLE AND NON-PARTICULATE FORM OF THORIUM SALTS BE DEPOSITED and what is the renal clearance and hence their biological half life ? Nobody really knows because, for obvious reasons, all studies done on Thorium are conducted on animals. The results are only applicable to rats, rabbits, cats and dogs !

    To mention that the lifetime risk of cancer mortality per pCurie is higher in inhaled thorium-232 when compared with that of INHALED potassium is not always valid.

    And it is not easy to find the heavier than lead Thorium-232 particles in the air for someone to inhale, even when near to a chemical plant like the Lynas Rare Earth Plant.

    You would only be able to find the correct sized particles of about 1 to 5 microns in the Uranium or Thorium mines or Thorium refining plants or where there is combustion.

    It sounds very impressive indeed to say that the lifetime cancer mortality risk for inhaled Thorium-232 is 200 times that of inhaled Potassium-40.
    But we must know how these mortality coefficients are being calculated. For example in the case of Potassium-40:

    (EPA USA) To estimate a lifetime cancer
    mortality risk, if it is assumed that 100,000 people
    were continuously exposed to a thick layer of soil
    with an initial average concentration of 1 pCi/g
    potassium-40, then 4 of these 100,000 people
    would be predicted to incur a fatal cancer over
    their lifetime.

    Why not 40, or 80, or 800 or 8,000 or 80,000 of these 100,000 people would be predicted to incur a fatal cancer over their lifetime!

    Any good mathematician would tell you that when an assumption is put into a mathematical equation, the result would be just RUBBISH!

    AND WE MUST ALSO REMEMBER THAT THERE IS ALWAYS 4,400 Bq OF K-40 in the body and there is NEVER any chance of a significant quantity of Thorium-232 ever entering into the body of ordinary non-miners or Thorium workers, whether by ingestion or inhalation.

    The 4,400 Bq of K-40 contribute to a dosage of ~ 0.29 mSv/yr of the ~ 0.41 mSv/yr of radiation from internal radionuclides. The other ~ 0.12 mSv/yr comes from Carbon-14. (0.29 mSv/yr is 145 x Lynas worst case scenario).

    In places like Kerala, a coastal belt in India, the concentration of Thorium-232 in the soil average about 4,000 ppm.
    The radiation at Karunagapally, Kerala has been assessed at 5 to 8 milisievert/year. In certain location on the coast, it is as high as 70 milisievert/year.

    Thorium-232 is strongly adsorbed to clay and there is no natural way it can get into the body. Even the plants and fruits do not contain any Thorium in these high Thorium areas.

    The amount of Thorium in the human body is so tiny (estimated to be only 30 micrograms per body) that only extremely sophisticated equipments are able to measure the true level.

    The epidemiological data from these studies show that the primary health effects of high doses of injected Thorotrast are blood disorders and liver tumours.

    However, these tumours and blood disorders could have been caused by the massive doses of X-rays from the rather antique X-ray machines used at that time.

    Because these are contrast studies, more than 20 to 50 X-rays need to be taken and the dose is really massive. None of the studies have factored in this massive dose of X-rays as all the studies are done retrospectively.

    Some evidence of increased incidence of lung, pancreatic, and haematopoietic cancers was found in workers occupationally exposed to thorium via inhalation.

    However, these workers were also exposed to several other toxic agents especially Silica (SiO2) which is a group 1 carcinogen and in some cases to other radionuclides like Uranium, K-40 and Radium, so direct causation cannot be inferred.

    Inhalation of Thorium-232 by the general population like those living in the cities is practically impossible for the particles that can get into the lungs need to be between 1 to 5 microns.

    These tiny particles can only be found in the thorium or uranium mines or unsophisticated refineries.

    Few data are available regarding the health effects associated with low (e.g., environmental) levels of exposure from either inhalation or ingestion.

    Dr Looi

  12. Quote Anti-Propaganda: “…How does your quack pseudo science measure up against the German consultants’ report?..” Unquote

    AS REPORTED IN THE FZ SUNDAY during the Videoconferencing with Gerhard Schmidt of OEKO Institute.

    Gerhard Schmidt, of Oeko Institute said, the WLP waste produced by Lynas, with the highest radioactive content, would be 1,000 TIMES ABOVE INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED PROTECTION LEVELS for the release of radioactive materials from regulatory control.

    Comment:

    By Nick Tsurikov the Renown International Radiation Safety Expert who is the co-author of the IAEA safety report:

    ” GERHARD SCHMIDT IS SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG that it is not even funny.

    The WLP waste produced by Lynas would be 6 to 7 times above internationally accepted protection levels for the release of radioactive materials from regulatory control.

    I HAVE NO IDEA WHATSOEVER WHERE HE GOT “1000 TIMES” FROM…

    But I would like to respectfully note that a researcher/scientist from Germany is unlikely to have more knowledge and understanding of the issue than numerous reputable UN and other organisations, such as:

    – World Health Organisation,

    – UN Environment Programme,

    – International Labor Organisation,

    – International Atomic Energy Agency,

    – Pan-American Health Organisation etc. etc.,

    Which ALL agreed once again in the 2011 ‘basic safety standards’ that the materials below 1 Bq/g are beyond regulatory concern.

    If there is some other international opinion, it surely is not accepted by the vast majority of the world…”

    Dr Looi
    *
    http://aliran.com/archives/monthly/2002/6e.html

  13. Quote The Hon. Dr Jeyakumar Deveraj dated 21.02.13: ” Lynas is trying to pull wool over our eyes!……if one “dilutes” it by mixing this solid waste up with nine parts of road fill material, then its radiation level drops to 0.64 Becquerel – Hey Presto! No longer radioactive!” Unquote

    COMMENT:

    DILUTING A SUBSTANCE WILL NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY, BUT YOU MUST REMEMBER THAT IT IS AN INTERNATIONALLY LEGITIMATE AND ACCEPTED WAY FOR REDUCING ANY RADIONUCLIDE’S IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

    For instance, STRYCHNINE IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS POISON AND YET WHEN PROPERLY DILUTED IT HAS BEEN USED FOR DECADES AS A TONIC !

    CHORINE WHICH IS ALSO AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS POISON, WHEN WELL DILUTED IN WATER IS PERFECTLY SAFE AND IS DRUNK BY ALL THE ANTI-LYNAS FOLK IN THE FORM OF TAP WATER!

    Blending of tailings follows the basic safety principle of World Health Organisation, International Labour Organisation and seven more UN and other reputable international organisation – with guidelines on this existing in many countries

    AVERAGE MALAYSIAN SOIL = 20 ppm OF THORIUM

    Nick Tsurikov, Radiation Safety Expert: ” THE MAJORITY OF THIS LYNAS “WASTE” WILL HAVE ONLY HALF THE THORIUM THAN IN NORMAL MALAYSIAN SOIL.

    So, in fact most of Lynas residues are only half as radioactive as the sand the kids all over Malaysia play in the kindergartens”

    ACTUALLY LYNAS DO NOT PRODUCE ANY WASTE BUT ONLY RECYCLABLE RESIDUES AND WATER TREATED TO A PURITY LEVEL THAT CAN BE DISCHARGED INTO ANY RIVER.

    A “waste” is by definition something that is unwanted and needs to be removed as a rubbish.

    The residue from the Lynas operation is not unwanted for it can be easily converted into the 3 types of useful, profitable gypsum products.

    The operation of the plant will result in the generation of three major residue streams, namely the

    1. WLP .. Water Leach Purification Residue (WLP) from the cracking and separation process,

    2. FGD .. the Flue Gas Desulphurisation Residue (FGD) from the waste gas treatment system (scrubber) and the

    3. NUF .. Neutralisation Underflow Solids from the wastewater treatment process (NUF).

    ORE FOR LYNAS PLANT ~ 1,600 ppm (parts per million)

    TWO MOST VOLUMINOUS LYNAS “WASTE” = 12 ppm

    3rd RESIDUE STREAM = 1,500 ppm of Thorium

    AVERAGE MALAYSIAN SOIL = 20 ppm OF THORIUM

    The first two are classified as non-radioactive as its radioactivity is only half that of Malaysian soil and is much much less radioactive than the SAND THAT YOUR CHILDREN PLAY WITH in our beaches.

    Lynas will recycle them as synthetic gypsum for plaster board, magnesium rich synthetic gypsum as fertilizer and synthetic aggregate as clinker for road and other construction projects.

    Gypsum is nothing more than just hydrated Calcium Sulphate (CaSO4.2(H2O) and comes probably from the neutralization of SO2 and Sulphuric acid vapour by our own Limestone (CaCO3) or Calcium Oxide in the scrubber.

    The 3 types of Gypsum products are:

    1. Iron Phospho Gypsum from the WLP with a very low NORM and radioactivity and after dilution according to international standard, can be used as clinker for road and in the construction industry.

    2. Synthetic Gypsum with a radioactivity only 1/2 of Malaysian Soil.

    3. Magnesium Rich Gypsum also with a radioactivity only 1/2 of Malaysian Soil and is a valuable fertilizer.

    SO THE MAJOR PART OF THE RECYCLED RESIDUE PRODUCT ACTUALLY CONSISTS OF THE CALCIUM, SULPHATE AND WATER WHICH WERE BORN AND BRED IN MALAYSIA FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS.

    THE MAJOR PART OF THE SO-CALLED RECYCLED “WASTE” IS ACTUALLY NATIVE TO MALAYSIA AND IN FACT HAS MORE RIGHT TO REMAIN IN MALAYSIA THAN THE ANTI-LYNAS NINCOMPOOPS !

    The global market for synthetic gypsum is approximately 150 million tonnes per annum.

    At the current rates of production, supplies of synthetic gypsum co-products are beginning to outstrip natural gypsum, thus providing valuable new alternative materials and preserving the planet’s natural resources.

    WATER MANAGEMENT AT LYNAS PLANT

    1) All process wastewater from the LAMP will undergo physico-chemical and biological treatment onsite prior to discharge.

    The concentration of any residual chemical from the process (organic and inorganic) which is still remaining in the treated effluent will be monitored and assessed using the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) parameter.

    COD is defined as a measure of the oxygen-consuming capacity of inorganic and organic matter present in wastewater.

    The use of COD as an indicator for both organic and inorganic pollutants arising from industrial wastewater is an internationally accepted practice.

    (2) Under the Fifth Schedule of the Environmental Quality (Industrial Effluent) Regulations 2009, permissible limits for mercury, lead, arsenic and, other hazardous metals such as cadmium and chromium (trivalent and hexavalent) have been specified and enforced by the DOE.

    Water quality data collected from the river (at 7 locations during the high and low tides) in 2008 indicate that mercury, lead and arsenic were not detected in the river water samples despite the fact that the river has been receiving discharges from the chemical and petrochemical industries operating within the Gebeng industrial area since the 1990s.

    Sediment samples collected as part of the Lynas EIA baseline study indicate the absence of mercury and arsenic in all samples; and very low concentrations of lead.

    The treated effluent from the LAMP will NOT contain cadmium, chromium (trivalent and hexavalent), mercury or arsenic.

    Only lead will be present at 0.07 mg/l which is well below the Std. B limit of 0.5 mg/l.

    (3) The water quality modeling approach employed in the Lynas EIA is consistent with the requirements of the DOE in Malaysia.

    The modeling exercise considered the likely contribution of the Lynas discharge to the Balok River and, predicted the concentrations of key water quality parameters in the river under six scenarios representing both untreated and treated discharge.

    (4) The water quality modeling carried out for the plant, which simulates the water quality of the Balok River upon receipt of the Lynas discharge, indicates that the impact of treated effluent alone on the river water quality is very low, and is likely to be diluted by a factor of 150 by the river water.

    Although the COD within the river body at the point of the Lynas discharge is close to the Class III limits, the river BOD concentration is approximately only one-third of its standard value.

    This suggests that the oxygen consumption due to the biological decay of organic material over the short term (5 days) will be relatively small.

    COD is a measure of the total oxygen demand, but it does not give an indication of the rate at which the oxygen is consumed; BOD is comparatively a better indicator of this rate.

    The bulk dilution analysis indicated that the treated Lynas effluent would only increase both COD and BOD concentrations in the river by relatively small amounts.

    Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah
    *
    http://aliran.com/archives/monthly/2002/6e.html

  14. Wah! Datuk (grandfather) – you want to impress-ah telling all the grandfather stories. You got so much time, may be you got shares in that radioactive waste plant-lah. Oh, very rich-ah. You better give more money to charity than waste time ‘jadi mulut’ Lynas. Next time can ask you to donate for medical treatment of people living near the plant who get radioactive disease. Sooo, better start saving now, going to bring the donation box to your house!!!

    Don’t say “boh looi” when we come round OK?

  15. Hello insecure Looi boy with the alphabet soup at the end of your name.

    Touched a raw nerve there, haven’t we.

    You claim to be just an ordinary citizen so concerned about the Lynas workers’ welfare, Well, what about the thousands of people in the Kuantan area who are against the project? Are they stupid and only Looi boy is so clever?

    How does your quack pseudo science measure up against the German consultants’ report? Oh wait, I forgot, only Looi boy with the alphabet soup is so clever and the rest are plain dumb.

    Give it a rest, Looi boy. You are not impressing anyone.

    And no CAPITAL letters please. It doesn’t add anything to your quack science. Plus, it’s bad internet manners, Looi boy.

    • To Anti-Propaganda,

      Still have no guts and still cowardly hiding under a pseudonym when passing childish, silly and non-physical remarks?

      You are just a typical Anti-Lynas Red Guard who is not intelligent enough to debunk the scientific facts presented by me and fall back to the typical Anti-Lynas Red Guard’s tactic of “ATTACK THE PERSON IF YOU ARE BANKRUPT OF IDEAS TO COUNTER THE TRUTH”.

      ALL THAT I HAVE WRITTEN MUST BE THE TRUTH OTHERWISE IT WILL NOT MAKE BRAINLESS ANTI-LYNAS RED GUARDS LIKE THE COWARD BY THE PSEUDONYM OF “ANTI-PROPAGANDA” SO AGITATED!

      Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah.
      FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London
      *
      http://aliran.com/archives/monthly/2002/6e.html

    • Quote Anti-Propaganda: “…How does your quack pseudo science measure up against the German consultants’ report?..” Unquote.

      COMMENT:

      THE GERMAN OEKO Institute REPORT ON LYNAS

      COMMENT:

      The above report reminds me of the Chinese saying “If you have enough money, you can make even the Devil pull your cart for you !”

      There is actually nothing new in this report but rather the same old mundane arguments that have been persistently harped on by the Anti-Lynas clique.

      What this report does is exploiting the well known technique of presenting the incontestable facts in a devious complicated way so as to confuse the general population and to evoke a response that is completely opposite to that if the same facts were presented in a SIMPLE HONEST WAY !

      For instance, instead of saying that my rocket propelled car is capable of a maximum speed of 100 km/hr (which is obviously very slow for a rocket car),

      I can just boast and say that my rocket car is capable of going at

      100 x10^15 femtometers/hr or

      100,000,000,000,000,000 femtometers/hr !

      This makes it look like going at warp speed !

      Example 1: “USING A UNIT OF MEASURE UNFAMILIAR TO MOST PEOPLE.”

      The RADON-220 concentration is stated as 167 fg (femtogram) at secular equilibrium.

      167 fg looks like a huge amount of dangerous gas which will cause cancer in a lot of people in Kuantan.

      Only people in the scientific community will know that 167 femtogram is an incredibly miniscule quantity.

      If the data is put in an honest uncomplicated way like this below, you would see that it is such a tiny amount that it can be safely ignored:

      “1 TONNE OF LYNAS ORE WILL PRODUCE ONLY A TINY AMOUNT OF RADON-220 GAS i.e.

      0.000000000000167 grams

      of gas and since Radon-220 has a half-life of only 55 seconds, the concentration will be halved in every 55 seconds and after about 10 minutes this amount will be near 0 !

      And again, only the tiny fraction of gas at or very near the surface of the pile of Lynas ore or WLP residue will be able to live long enough to escape into the air.

      In the air, when it is spread over the 500 acres of the Lynas facility, IT WILL BECOME VIRTUALLY UNDETECTABLE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF

      THE PLANT AND WILL POSE NO HEALTH RISK TO ANYBODY or even to any living creature ! ”

      An almost similar trick was used by another of the Anti-Lynas commissioned report i.e. the NTN report.

      Here it was claimed that the Lynas ore contained 62 Bq/g instead of 6.2 Bq/g and as such implied that Lynas was lying.

      There are essentially two ways of doing this, one is old fashioned way which use the total activity and the other is the modern currently in use and internationally accepted one and this uses only the concentration of the “mother” radionuclide.

      Old method: “Since each atom of Thorium-232 decays into 11 other atoms of other radionuclides (12 atoms involved), each Bq of Thorium-232 had been assumed to be multiplied by a factor of 10 (10 because the end result Lead-208 is considered non-radioactive though this may not be true as it still has a half life of 19 million billion years, and Bismuth-212 decays either into Polonium-212 or to Thallium-208 both of which then decay into Lead-208..so Po-212 and Tl-208 can be considered as 1 Bq only).”

      Quote: International Radiation Safety Expert Nick Tsurikov:

      ” On this basis, if a material contains 400 parts per million of thorium – its specific activity is calculated as follows:

      a) Outdated method – 400 x 4.09 (specific activity of Th-232) x 10 (number of radio nuclides in the thorium decay chain) = 16,360 Bq/kg, or 16.4 Bq/g

      b) International standard (IAEA, AELB and Australia) – 400 x 4.09 = 1,630 Bq/kg, or 1.64 Bq/g.”
      Unquote.

      The Anti-Lynas folk is now using this old fashion way of looking at specific activity to confuse the people.

      Because of all this, they claim that the Lynas “waste” is not 6.2 Bq/g but 62 Bq/g and Lynas has been misleading the people about the radioactivity.

      The truth is that nobody, except some of the Chinese in China still use this non-standard way of looking at specific activity of a series radionuclide.

      The old method has been discontinued internationally since about 1997.

      Actually, when we use the standard description “Lynas waste has only 6.2 Bq/g”, we have already factored in the radiation from all the daughter radionuclides.

      All the dose coefficients given by IAEA of 0.39 microSv/hr/Bq/g for radiation at 1 metre from a pile of Thorium, and by UNSCEAR of 0.604 microSv/hr/Bq/gm for radiation dose from an infinite field of Thorium DEMANDS THAT WE USE THE STANDARD WAY OF DESCRIBING SPECIFIC ACTIVITY i.e. 1 Bq of activity in both a series or single non-series decay means 1 atom of the “mother” radionuclide decaying.

      So as far as the dosage in terms of biological effects is concerned, whether we use the standard 6.2 Bq/g or the old Chinese way of 62 Bq/g to describe the radioactivity of the Lynas “waste”, there is NO DIFFERENCE, as, if we were to use the old Chinese 62 Bq/g, we will have to divide the IAEA and UNSCEAR coefficients by a factor of 10.

      Example 2: “ADDING COMPLICATED IRRELEVANT DATA TO REPORT in order to confuse and to give an air of authority and legitimacy”

      The concentration of Uranium-238 oxide in the Lynas ore is only 29 ppm,

      whereas the Uranium-238 from Zircon from Kampar in Malaysia is 0.25% or

      2,500 ppm (Journal of Nuclear and Related Technology Gol.7, June 2010) !

      And yet the OEKO Anti-Lynas report showed an irrelevant chart with the minute details of Uranium-238 decay and its decay products.

      The U-238 oxide content in the Lynas ore and residue is too small to be of any significance.

      Example 3: ” COMPARING A TOXIN OR RADIONUCLIDE WITH SOMETHING LOWER BUT HIDING ALL HIGHER COMPARATIVE DATA”.

      Quote OEKO: “Thorium content of the ore

      • very high compared to the lowest bandwidth of uranium content of commercially mined uranium ores today (> 0.03% U, e.g. at Rössing/Namibia), while the uranium content of the ore concentrate is lower by a factor of 10 compared to those uranium ores,

      • considerably higher than the thorium content in many other REE ores, e.g. by a factor of roughly 3 larger than at Mountain Pass (USA), but by a factor of roughly 10 less than in (historically or currently mined) monazites.

      COMMENT:

      The concentration of our own Tin Tailings or Amang is 284 Bq/g or 69,608 ppm.. so what so great about the 1,600 ppm in the Lynas ore !

      And according to the AELB we have more than 10 plants handling these amang which are 4,700% more radioactive than the Lynas ore.

      There are lots of data in this OEKO report which are intentionally displayed in a way to evoke an effect which will have the complete opposite of what it would be if presented in an HONEST, UNCOMPLICATED WAY.

      Nick Tsurikov the international radiation safety expert who is the co-author of the IAEA safety report had categorically maintained that there is absolutely no radiation or significant toxic waste problem from the Lynas plant.

      Quote Nick Tsurikov:

      1. RADIATION FROM THE PLANT WILL BE UNDETECTABLE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES (of the plant);

      2. THORIUM IN OTHER WASTE IS INSOLUBLE AND CANNOT “POISON” ANY PLANTS, ANIMALS OR THE ENVIRONMENT – EVEN IN THEORY;

      3. Maximum dose to workers is not expected to be more that ~25% of the limit, therefore – in accordance with international guidelines – personal monitoring is not even necessary: the doses are so low that they can be assessed for a ‘work group’, no need for ‘individual’ assessments.
      Unquote.

      CONCLUSION:

      As the old Chinese saying goes ” If you have enough money, you can make even the Devil pull your cart for you !”….. AND THIS CART IS FULL OF CRAPS WHICH THE DEVIL WILL TRANSFORM AND SELL FOR YOU AS VALUABLE REAL CRABS !

      Dr Looi
      *
      http://aliran.com/archives/monthly/2002/6e.html

  16. *
    Quote The Hon. Dr Jeyakumar Deveraj: ” As lead is the final product in the decay chain for thorium, there will be a significant amount of lead in the solid waste. Lead can cause mental retardation in children if ingested by them. Lead dust in road mix would not add to the quality of our environment.”
    *
    LEAD IS THE FINAL END PRODUCT OF THE RADIOACTIVE DECAY CHAIN FOR THORIUM.Unquote.

    COMMENT:

    Half Life of Th-232 = 14.2 x 10^9 years

    The ore contains about 5.9 ppm of Thorium-232 and after the rare earths have been extracted at LAMP, the concentration of the NORM is NOT increased and remains at about 6 Bq/g in the form of WLP.

    Lynas is expected to produce about 824,400 cubic meters of WLP in the 1st 10 years of operation or 82,440 cubic meters of WLP per year (in terms of dry weight only 32,000 tonnes in year 1 and this dry WLP has a SG of 0.7).

    If the average volume of the yearly production given by Lynas of 82,440 cubic meters refers to the dry volume of the WLP residue, then the dry weight of WLP will be = 0.7 X 82,440 = 57,709 tonnes of dry WLP per year.

    This will produce only 57,709 tonnes X 0.00165 = about 95 tonnes of Thorium-232 per year

    It will take 14.2 Billion years for half of the Thorium-232 to decay into Lead.

    So in 14.2 billion years, half i.e. 47.5 tonnes of Th-232 will have decayed into 208/232 x 47.5 tonnes of Lead-208 = 42.59 tonnes of Lead-208

    So the annual “production” of Lead-208 = 42.59/14.2×10^9

    = 2.999×10^-9 tonnes = 2.999×10^-9 x 10^6 grams

    = 2.999 x 10^-3 = 2.999 milligrams or 0.00299 grams of Lead-208 per year per 57,709 tonnes of WLP

    AND THAT IS 0.00000005 ppm (parts per million of Pb-208 in the WLP) !

    According to K.S. Low from the Universiti Pertanian of Malaysia,

    Grass in Kuala Lumpur roadside = 200 ppm of Lead

    Soil in Kuala lumpur roadside = 700 ppm of Lead

    SO WHY WORRY ABOUT AN INCREASE OF 0.00000005 ppm when the lead content of your roadside soil lead is 700 ppm ! ! !

    It will take 14.2 Billion years for half of the Thorium-232 to decay into Lead.

    BUT YOU MUST REMEMBER THAT THE EARTH WILL BE SWALLOWED UP BY THE EXPANDING RED GIANT SUN IN ONLY ABOUT 5 BILLION YEARS !

    EVEN LONG BEFORE THAT, IN ABOUT 1 BILLION YEARS FROM NOW YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL ALL BE BARBEQUED AND INCINERATED BY THE EVER INCREASING RADIATION OF THE RED GIANT SUN !

    SO THERE IS NO NEED TO WORRY YOURSELF TO DEATH ABOUT THE THORIUM-232 TURNING INTO LEAD AND POISON THE PEOPLE OF MALAYSIA AND YOUR CHILDREN IN 14.2 BILLION YEARS TIME !

    EVERY LIVING THING INCLUDING YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE DEAD AND GONE LONG BEFORE THAT !

    Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah.
    FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London).
    *
    http://aliran.com/archives/monthly/2002/6e.html

  17. SAFETY OF THORIUM-232

    It is safer and cleaner than uranium because its radioactivity is significantly lower:

    Quote Richard Martin, famous journalist with extensive experience in Thorium

    “A CHUNK OF THORIUM IS NO MORE HARMFUL THAN A BAR OF SOAP”.

    You can safely hold metallic Thorium-232 in your hands as it is an alpha emitter and alpha particles cannot penetrate even a piece of paper.

    #####

    2. Thorium-232 is strongly adsorbed to clay. There is no natural way it can get into body. Even the plants and fruits do not contain any Thorium in places with high Thorium in soil.

    The amount of Th-232 in the human body is tiny (estimated to be only 30 micrograms per body i.e. to get 30 gm of Th-232, you need 1 million bodies!

    NICK TSURIKOV, INTERNATIONAL RADIATION SAFETY SPECIALIST

    THORIUM IN “WASTE” IS INSOLUBLE AND CANNOT POISON ANY PLANTS, ANIMALS OR THE ENVIRONMENT – EVEN IN THEORY.

    RADIATION FROM THE PLANT WILL BE UNDETECTABLE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES (of the plant).”

    #####

    3. QUOTE NICK TSURIKOV, INTERNATIONAL RADIATION SAFETY EXPERT WHO IS THE CO-AUTHOR OF IAEA RADIATION SAFETY REPORT:

    “On dust particles – THERE IS NO WAY WHATSOEVER FOR

    DUSTPARTICLES OF AROUND 10 MICRONS TO GET INTO

    THE LUNGS –

    THE STUFF THAT GETS THERE IS 5 MICRONS OR LESS,..

    The vast majority of the (Lynas) concentrate is either 10 MICRONS or above, SO THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY ISSUE HERE.”

    #####

    4. BECAUSE OF THE EXTREME LOW SPECIFIC ACTIVITY OF TH-232, THE AMOUNT OF DECAY PRODUCT IS MINUSCULE e.g.

    Thorium-232 produced from the WLP per year is only about 95 tonnes and as such a 1 year accumulation of Th-232 produces only 0.5098 MICROGRAMS OF RADON-220/HR OR 0.00005172 ML (CC)/HR of Thoron gas at STP.

    At secular equilibrium, the amount of daughter Radon-220 is only 167 femtograms per ton of Lynas WLP i.e.

    0.000000000000167 grams.

    THIS AMOUNT IS NOT ENOUGH TO TICKLE THE BACKSIDE OF A NEWBORN PIGMY BABY CATERPILLAR !

    #####

    5. THE longer the half-life of a substance, the less its radioactivity.

    As an analogy, if it takes 14 billion years for half of a house to be burnt, there is no chance of anybody getting hurt. But if it takes only 14 minutes for half of the house to be burnt down, many will be injured or killed.

    Thorium-232, which is found in the Lynas waste, has an incredibly long half-life of 14 billion years and as such is much less radioactive than the potassium-40 whose half-life is only 1.25 billion years

    #####

    6. LEAD-208 WHICH IS USED IN YOUR CAR BATTERIES HAVE AN EVEN LONGER HALF LIFE OF 19 MILLION BILLION YEARS AND AS SUCH IS REGARDED AS NON-RADIOACTIVE…i.e. it decays extremely slowly and therefore the radioactivity is incredible low!

    So it’s silly and illogical to say that thorium long half life means that it is dangerous.. It means that is very only very weakly radioactive and can even be held in your hands!

    #####

    7. KEROSENE GAS MANTLES USED IN HAWKER’S LAMPS
    THESE GAS MANTLES ARE MADE OF FABRIC SOAKED IN THORIUM-232 AND AFTER THE INITIAL “FIRING” BECOMES ALMOST PURE THORIUM DIOXIDE.

    MILLIONS HAD HELD THESE “DANGEROUS, RADIOACTIVE” THORIUM GAS MANTLES IN THEIR HANDS.

    REMEMBER THORIUM DIOXIDE HAS A SPECIFIC ACTIVITY OF 3,585 Bq/g ! THE “WASTE” FROM LYNAS IS ONLY 6 Bq/g.

    WHY FRIGHTEN OF 6 Bq/g FROM WASTE AND NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE 3,585 Bq/g FROM THEIR KEROSENE LAMP ?

    #####

    8. THE ANNUAL DOSE RATE EXPOSURE

    1. FROM MALAYSIAN CLAY BRICK HOUSE = 0.43 mSv/year
    (215 x Lynas Worst Case Scenario)

    2. SLEEPING IN WOODEN HOUSE = 0.20 mSv/yr
    (100x Lynas worst case)

    3. SLAG BRICK AND GRANITE HOUSE = up to 2.0 mSv/yr
    (1,000x Lynas worst case)

    SO TO ALL ANTI-LYNAS FOLKS, YOU SHOULD PITCH UP A TENT NEXT TO THE LYNAS PLANT AND SEND YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY TO LIVE NEXT TO LYNAS AS THIS IS HUNDREDS OF TIMES LESS RADIOACTIVE THAN LIVING IN YOUR PRESENT WOODEN OR BRICK HOUSES

    CONT.

    #####

    9.

    1. WASTE FROM MALAYSIAN AMANG INDUSTRY > 100 Bq/g

    2. WASTE “SCALE AND SLUDGE” IN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

    ________ LIKE IN PETRONAS = 1,000 Bq/g

    3. and ___Lynas WLP only = 6 Bq/g !

    SO WHY NO GREENIES PROTESTS AT THE MORE THAN 10 AMANG
    ( TIN TAILING ) PLANTS AND AT PETRONAS ?

    #####

    10 Nick Tsurikov, Radiation Safety Expert ” THE MAJORITY OF THIS LYNAS “WASTE” WILL HAVE ONLY HALF THE THORIUM THAN IN NORMAL MALAYSIAN SOIL.

    Lynas residues are half as radioactive as the sand the kids all over Malaysia play in the kindergartens

    If you do look through the Lynas RIA together with UN (not IAEA) reports –

    you will clearly see that two most ‘voluminous’ residues from LAMP will have less than 12 parts per million of thorium –

    and the average MALAYSIAN SOIL – 20 ppm OF THORIUM.

    #####

    11. IN MOST OF THE ADVANCED COUNTRIES LIKE THE USA, CANADA AND AUSTRALIA WHERE THERE ARE NO HALF BAKED SELF STYLED SCIENTISTS, ANY MATERIAL THAT HAS AN ACTIVITY OF LESS THAN 10 Bq/g is regarded as non-radioactive for transport and do not require any special permission.

    LYNAS ORE = ONLY 6 Bq/g AND THEREFORE REQUIRES NO SPECIAL PERMISSION IN MOST OF THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.

    #####

    12. THE MOST BIOLOGICALLY DAMAGING FORMS OF GAMMA RAYS OCCUR IN THE GAMMA RAY WINDOW OF BETWEEN 3 MeV AND 10 MeV.

    Those below 3.0 MeV are NOT very harmful. They have poor penetrating power and do not deposit much energy.

    Those higher energy gamma rays of greater than 10 MeV are
    NOT very harmful because the body is relatively transparent to them.

    THE AVERAGE ENERGY OF THE MOST ABUNDANT EMISSION OF Th-232 IS ONLY 0.059 MeV.

    #####

    13. UNSCEAR ADMIT THAT THEY WERE WRONG TO IMPLY THAT THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION !

    There IS a safe level !

    UNSCEAR (THE UNITED NATIONS SCENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON THE EFFECTS OF ATOMIC RADIATION) HAS FINALLY ADMITTED THAT RADIATION DOSES LESS THAN ABOUT 10 rem (100 mSv ) per year ARE SAFE.

    (Note: 100 mSv = 5,000,000 % Lynas worst case scenario)

    #####

    14. RADIATION EXPOSURE OF 100 mSv/yr IS SAFE: Prof WADE ALLISON

    Nick Tsurikov, International Radiation Safety Expert:

    “EXPERTS INCLUDING Professor WADE ALLISON OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY ARGUE THAT THE DOSE LIMIT CAN SAFELY BE RAISED TO 100 mSv, based on current health statistics.”

    (100 mSv/yr = 50,000 times or 5,000,000% higher than Lynas worst case scenario)

    #####

    15. SLEEPING NEXT TO SOMEONE for 8 hrs/day
    (e.g. your wife or husband) = 0.02 mSv (UNSCEAR)
    (10x Lynas worst case)

    SO DON’T SLEEP WITH YOUR WIFE OR HUSBAND since this is like sleeping next to 10 Lynas plants!

    Dose in worst case scenario for Lynas plant = 0.002 mSv/yr

    Malaysian Monazite Ore in Tin Tailings or Amang = 284 Bq/g or 69,608 ppm

    Lynas ore and Lynas WLP “waste” ~ 6 Bq/g or < 1,600 ppm

    #####

    16. THE FINISHED PROCESSED RARE EARTH PRODUCT EMITS ONLY 0.156 mSv/yr ( A TARMAC ROAD EMITS 2.4 TO 2.6 mSv/yr ! ) – so a fraction of what people in everyday life naturally experience.

    The radiation from a tarmac road comes from Thorium-232, Uranium-238, Potassium-40, Radium and other trace radionuclides in the Tar and the Granite stones.

    #####

    17. When the mother radionuclide has an extremely long half life and the daughters have very short half life, there is very little accumulation of the short half life daughters.

    The concentration of the daughter radionuclides is negligible e.g. there is only 1 atom of Radium 224 for every 1.4 trillion atoms of Thorium-232 at equilibrium.

    CONT.

    #####

    18. As far as radon gas is concerned, it must be remembered that Radon-220 from the decay chain of Thorium-232 has a very short half life of only 55 seconds!

    As such only a tiny amount of Radon-220 (a.k.a. Thoron) within a few centimetres of the surface of a huge pile of waste will be able to live long enough to escape from the pile and see the light of day!

    #####

    19. A lot of people have mistaken Radon-220 from Thorium-232 decay series with the more notorious Radon-222 which has a much longer half life of 3.8 days. Radon-222 comes from Uranium-238 decay series.

    Because of its much longer half life, Radon-222 can and do accumulate in the cellars and poorly ventilated areas of domestic dwellings. Radon-222 is the gas that has been linked to lung cancers in especially non-smokers.

    #####

    20. Since the average absorbed Beta energy of K-40 decay is 499 keV and the average absorbed Gamma energy is 156 keV,

    THE INTERNAL DOSAGE from K-40 ~ 0.24 mSv/yr:
    (120x Lynas worst case scenario)

    So why complain about radiation from Lynas when there is the equivalent of 120 Lynas plants producing radiation already inside your body in the form of Potassium-40 !

    #####

    21. AS STATED BY MORMAN FREDERICK MOORE, THE AUSTRALIAN MINISTER FOR MINES AND PETROLEUM, IF LYNAS HAVE CHOSEN TO OPERATE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA, IT WOULD BE WELCOMED WITH OPEN ARMS !

    1. Alkane has decided to build a multi-billion dollar rare earth plant in the outskirts of Sydney.

    2. Arafura is building a huge Rare Earth Processing Plant costing over A$1 Billion in Whyalla in South Australia.

    #####

    22. Since the average absorbed Beta energy of K-40 decay is 499 keV and the average absorbed Gamma energy is 156 keV,

    THE INTERNAL DOSAGE from K-40 ~ 0.24 mSv/yr:
    (120x Lynas worst case scenario)

    So why complain about radiation from Lynas when there is the equivalent of 120 Lynas plants producing radiation already inside your body in the form of Potassium-40 !

    ####

    23. There is no natural way for Metallic Thorium or insoluble Thorium compounds or even soluble salts when adsorbed with clay, to enter the body in any significant amount and as Nick Tsurikov, International Radiation Safety Expert and Co-author of IAEA Radiation Safety Report says

    "THORIUM IN 'WASTE' IS INSOLUBLE AND CANNOT POISON ANY PLANTS, ANIMALS OR THE ENVIRONMENT – EVEN IN THEORY." Unquote.

    There has not been a single death or injury that has been definitely and conclusively proven beyond any scientific doubt from the accidental inhalation or ingestion of Thorium-232 !

    Compare this with death caused by Water i.e. from drowning… 388,000 drowning deaths in 2004 alone (WHO).

    ####

    24. Metallic Thorium or it's insoluble compounds are chemically innocuous and inert especially when adsorbed by clay.

    Soluble form in the absence of clay absorption = 0.02 to 0.05%.
    With clay, much much less.

    Studies show that a small number out of the 4 million patients who were given this massive dose of 1 or 2 vials (containing 5.58g to 11.7g of thorium) of Thorotrast, developed cancer especially of the liver 20 to 30 years later in their old age.

    Even if we ignore the incredibly strong adsorption to clay, in order to get 5.58g of thorium-232 (equivalent to 1 vial of Thorotrast), we have to swallow an incredible 17,000kg or 17 tonnes of Lynas waste!

    Even with 11.7 g of Th-232 given parenterally, no acute toxicity noted.

    ####

    25. Thorium-232 is not a Carcinogen (cancer causing agent) if Inhaled or Ingested according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC.

    Thorium-232 is considered to be a carcinogen only IF ADMINISTERED INTRAVENOUSLY AS A COLLOIDAL DISPERSION OF THORIUM-232 DIOXIDE.

    Even this may not be true as the carcinogenic effects of the massive dose of Xray from those antique Xray machines (about 1,000 mSv per fluoroscopy and some of the 4 million patients may have had more than one fluoroscopy done in their lifetime) was not taken in consideration when IARC came to the conclusion that Th-232 given parenterally is a carcinogen.

    Dato' Dr Looi Hoong Wah.
    FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London).

  18. *
    *
    Quote Ariel: “However much scientific data cannot erase the painful memories of the Bukit Merah incident.” Unquote

    COMMENT:

    Pictures of a children with cerebral palsy, mental retardation as well as many other pictures with congenital defects and leukaemia from the Bukit Merah area has been used repeatedly to instil fear into the unsuspecting naive population of Malaysia in a very sick attempt to link Lynas to these terrible illnesses.

    THE LINK BEWEEN CONGENITAL DEFECTS, CEREBRAL PALSY AND RADIATION IN BUKIT MERAH ARE MISINFORMATIONS MALICIOUSLY CREATED BY THE ANTI-LYNAS FOLKS !

    In a unique study by scientists at the John Hopkins University, published in 1988 by American Journal of Epidemiology, researchers investigated the association of parental occupational exposure to low-level external whole-body penetrating ionizing radiation and risk of congenital malformations in their offspring.

    THE UNIQUE FEATURE OF THIS STUDY WAS THE LINKING OF QUANTITATIVE INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS OF EXTERNAL WHOLE-BODY PENETRATING IONIZING RADIATION EXPOSURE OF EMPLOYEES AT THE HANDFORD SITE IN WASHINGTON STATE, USING PERSONAL DOSIMETERS AND THE DISEASE OUTCOME i.e. CONGENITAL MALFORMATIONS.

    The study population included 672 malformation cases and 977 matched controls from births occurring from 1957 through 1980.

    Twelve specific malformation types were analyzed for evidence of association with employment of the parents at Hanford and with occupational exposure to ionizing radiation.

    Two defects, congenital dislocation of the hip and tracheoesophageal fistula, showed statistically significant associations with employment of the parents at Hanford, BUT NOT WITH PARENTAL RADIATION EXPOSURE.

    Neural tube defects like spina bifida showed a slightly significant association with parental preconception exposure, but the number of cases is too small to be conclusive of a definite co-relation.

    Eleven other defects, INCLUDING DOWN SYNDROME AND CEREBRAL PALSY showed no evidence of such an association.

    When all malformations were analyzed as a group, there was no evidence of an association with employment of the parents at Hanford.

    Given the number of statistical tests conducted, some or all of the observed positive correlations are likely to represent false positive findings.

    In view of strong contradictory evidence in this well conducted study and the fact that there is NO CONGENITAL DEFECTS DEMONSTRATED IN STUDIES ON THE ATOMIC BOMB SURVIVORS IN HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI,

    THE CONCLUSION IS THAT “IT IS UNLIKELY THAT LOW DOSE RADIATION CAN CAUSE CONGENITAL DEFECTS.”

    After analysing thousands of well conducted studies, even UNSCEAR has now admitted THAT THEY WERE WRONG TO IMPLY THAT THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION !

    There IS a safe level and that is,

    RADIATION DOSES LESS THAN ABOUT 10 rem (100 mSv ) per year ARE SAFE.

    (Note: 100 mSv = 5,OO0,000 % Lynas worst case scenario)

    *
    Have a look at this article recommended by Nick Tsurikov, the International Radiation Safety Expert and Co-author of the IAEA Radiation Safety Report.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/

    Excerpts of Article in Forbes:

    “UNSCEAR (THE UNITED NATIONS SCENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON THE EFFECTS OF ATOMIC RADIATION) HAS FINALLY ADMITTED THAT WE CAN’T USE THE LNT HYPOTHESIS TO PREDICT CANCER FROM LOW DOSES OF RADIATION.”

    Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah.
    FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London).

    • Hi Looi boy,
      I was wondering when you would show up again. Still using that ridiculous alphabet soup at the end of your name, I see. Still feeling very insecure you have to show off your so-called credentials and titles and whatnot?

      So tell me, why are you so ‘rajin’ in defending Lynas against the interests of your fellow Malaysians? You are behaving like another one of those pathetic pro-Lynas propaganda boys, ya know. Nobody will bother to read your long-winded ‘thesis’ here, full of hot air, signifying nothing. So give it a rest, loser. Or start your own blog and see how many suckers bother to read your pro-Lynas propaganda.

      • To Anti-Propaganda,

        Still have no guts and still cowardly hiding under a pseudonym when passing sillly remarks ?

        You are just a typical Anti-Lynas Red Guard who is not intelligent enough to debunk the scientific facts presented by me and and fall back to the typical Anti-Lynas Red Guard’s tactic of “ATTACK THE PERSON IF YOU ARE BANKRUPT OF IDEAS TO COUNTER THE TRUTH”.

        Kindly note: I am not Pro or Anti Lynas or Pro or Anti Government. I have absolutely no links whatsoever with any political parties or NGO or being paid by anyone or has any share in Lynas.

        I owe nobody a living and nobody owes me a living. I have not received even a word of thanks from Lynas for debunking all the CRAPS posted by the Anti-Lynas folks.

        I have nothing to gain by saying what I have said, except for brickbats, numerous four letter words and other unmentionable expletives from the Anti-Lynas Thugs.

        I AM JUST AN ORDINARY CITIZEN OF MALAYSIA WHO IS NAUSEATED BY ALL THE LIES THAT ARE BEING PROPAGATED AND RADIATED BY THESE ANTI-LYNAS THUGS.

        THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO QUALMS OF RUNNING DOWN THEIR OWN COUNTRY BY CREATING A SCAPEGOAT IN AN ULTRA-MODERN CHEMICAL PLANT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ENABLING THEIR MASTER BRAINWASHER TO GAIN A FEW EXTRA FILTHY VOTES IN THE COMING GENERAL ELECTION.

        DO THEY CARE 2 HOOTS ABOUT THE 1,750 PEOPLE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY LYNAS AND WHOSE SALARIES OR INCOME ARE NEEDED TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLES FOR THEIR FAMILIES TO SURVIVE?

        DO THEY CARE WHETHER THESE POOR HARD WORKING INNOCENT FELLOW HUMANS HAVE A JOB AND A HOME AND FOOD FOR THEIR CHILDREN ?

        ALL THEY THINK ABOUT IS TO DESTROY LYNAS AND STOP THE CONSTRUCTION ANY NEW PROJECTS WHICH PROVIDE JOBS, SHELTER, FOOD AND A DECENT LIFE FOR THE POOR PEOPLE……….WHILE THEY THEMSELVES HAVE A COZY JOB, SHELTER AND PLENTY OF FOOD FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

        IF THESE BRAINWASHED ZOMBIES ARE SO CARING, WHY DON’T THEY PROVIDE THE JOBS AND PROVIDE THE FOOD AND SHELTER FOR THE POOR PEOPLE INSTEAD OF JUST EMPTY TALK !

        Unscrupulous people have been using videos and pictures of patients with congenital abnormalities and other illnesses from the Bukit Merah area to instil fear into the population. There is absolutely no scientific proof that these cases are caused by radiation.

        THEY POST PICTURES OF POOR SUFFERING CHILDREN AND OTHERS WITH UNRELATED TUMOURS AND DISEASES …. THEY MILK THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS IN A SICK ATTEMPT TO LINK LYNAS TO THESE TERRIBLE ILLNESSES … THIS IS TRUELY IMMORAL AND DESPICABLE ! !

        Only people with ulterior motives would use pictures and videos of these unfortunate patients whose disorders have nothing to do with radiation to score political points!

        Dato’ Dr Looi Hoong Wah

  19. I am puzzled by the logic that because it is cheaper to run the plant in Malaysia the safety standards are less. It costs twice as much to build an LNG plant in Australiia compared to the USA. Does that mean safety standards are any less in the US? Australia has prohibitively high labour costs which are making many industries uncompetative on a global level. Countries like Malaysia will benefit from Australia’s stupidity.

    • OK, that statement is illogical. In the broader context, the question is, are safety standards in Malaysia indeed lower than in Australia? It is apparent that costs are significantly cheaper in Malaysia, no issue with that. But are lower costs the only reason for producing it here rather than in Australia?

      • Lynas built in Malaysia because of economic reasons

        For instance, a CLEANER IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA IS PAID RM 150,000 PER YEAR AND A TECHNICIAN WELL OVER RM 300,000 !

        1. Chemical Engineer : Malaysia = RM 10,000/month

        Australia = RM 40,000/month

        1. Water………………… : Malaysia = RM 0.84/ cu m

        Australia = RM 6.00/cu m

        1. Electricity…………… : Malaysia = RM 0.23 /kWatt hr

        Australia = RM 0.96 /kWatt hr

        1. Caustic Soda : Malaysia = RM 500/ton

        Australia = RM 1,500/ton

        Easy access to cheap water, near to suppliers of Sulphuric acids and other chemicals, next to a first class port and a 12 year tax break are also factors which persuaded Lynas to build their plant in Gebeng

        Dr Looi

Leave a Reply