- Najib announced today that he would give MACC more power if BN were returned to power. I think that offer is of little value because one thing PR will do is that they will revamp the entire MACC structure including the independence of its function. What Najib should have done is either to give independence to MACC now or offer more value added offer after the GE. Today if the PM presents a motion to the Parliament to make MACC truly independent, no MP will object. If they do they will face the wrath of the people. The current offer is not good enough even for level minded people like me to bite.
- Historically the Malaysian PSC grew from the British legacy system that was based on the Northcote-Trevelyan Report (1845). It laid down the public service ethos which emphasized that a politically neutral civil service means complete loyalty to the government of the day regardless of its political complexion. The PSC today were established under Article 139 of the FC. It is responsible for the general administration of the Public Service of the federal government. The commission has the authority to appoint and dismiss most members of the services. It gives advice to the King of Malaysia regarding appointments to positions that he has designated as Special posts. The Chairman and other members of the Commission are appointed by the King at his discretion, as laid down in Article 139(4) of the Federal Constitution.
- Unfortunately things change in the late 60’s. Prior to the change the PSC was very independent. The PSC determines its own promotion without any need for endorsement or interference from any ministers. Today unfortunately the appointment of officers to key position in all Ministry requires the endorsement of Minister or the PM before it is being sent to the King for approval. In the Malaysian Armed Forces it was very independent until sometime in 1975. The late Tun Razak changed it despite the strong public objection from General Sany.
- In fact Sany spoke his mind about the matter. Something that none of today Malaysian Generals are capable of doing. The RMAF general in fact gave away the Sg Besi airbase the moment Najib cough! Today our KSN, KSU, IGP, CDF and the Chiefs of various Military Services are no longer independent. They have become spineless. What ever the Generals want to do they have to look on the impact on their shoulders and post retirement benefit. They are made to remember about the fate of General Sany who was left in the cold after his retirement. I urged Najib to offer something of real value in Malaysia. Let the PSC, the Military and the RMP be independent. Let them decide among themselves on who should go up. But then maybe I am just asking too much from the government.
Ellese, first of all, I have to stress that my view have nothing to do with politics, I just want to explore are we on the right course in the long term.
I believe most industrialization start with foreign investment, however the two major criteria that have impact over the result is government policy on economy and education, and whether we possess the competitive advantage, we actually lack both. Our policy doesn’t cultivate competition and domestic market is relatively small.
Similar to most developing countries, we also welcome foreign investment for the sake of employment, to stimulate economy via multipliers effect and most importantly to learn and acquire the know how along the way, but unfortunately, we failed miserably on the last one though with a high price pay on tax break and subsidise, reason being that our own market is too small, and we lack the capabilities to successfully establish our own brand like what happen to the national car project.
Mahathir is trying to create a competitive advantage environment, that is why he is receptive to the idea of national car, and enlarge the domestic market via his 70 million population plan, he is using a top down approach by having a brand first and moving upstream to develop an industrialize economy, this is the reverse of what went through in Japan, Korea and Taiwan which adopt a bottom up formula, they do not start with branding but only venture into it when they acquire the technology, that is why even before there is brand, the three Asia countries I mentioned already have a supporting industry that able to provide parts and components that is needed, and quality is on par with the West but cheaper. Basically the top down or bottom up is a white cat black cat thingy, both have equal chance to succeed but top down approach require strong capital and wealth, Malaysia could afford this because we have oil and strong inflow of capital in the seventies, however our economy and education doesn’t play a role to complement Mahathir strategy and I do not want to delve into this topic yet.
Some engineer could have own the knowledge of how to produce transformer, power supply, inductor, resistor but who you could sell it to? All the establish mnc appoint and specify who would be their supplier and no way a local engineer that start up a factory could afford to supply to them with equal quality at lower price, the only option left is to source for cheaper parts but how we could compete with those part and component maker that was in the market for a long time if our product is with sub quality? China face the same issue and that is why they buy over some brand, or start own brand, IBM will not buy from China component maker but Lenovo do, and their domestic market is big enough to support local brand like Huawei, CSL, Haier, TCL. If Proton apply the mentality that stress on importance of quality, then the parts supplier have no choice but to improve, and hopefully the quality could eventually attain the requirement of other establish car maker, then we might have a different story to tell, but we all know what happen to Proton.
Now back to Lynas, it is very strategic to Australia and Japan, but how this benefit us in the long term I really don’t know, it is similar to most other investment, the moment they find a cheaper country to invest, they leave, we went through this before. We need our own brand and own industry, or else we should give up industrialize and move into financing, agriculture or food.
Ps/ Minimum wage and foreign worker is now the hot topic for manufacturer, hope rafick write something about this.
You need to consume 250,000 mrem to increase your chances by 10% of dying by cancer.. The radioactive waste from Lynas is nothing. You can dump it at the back of my house.
maybe you are right, we need more volunteer like you
I think there a few areas in our country where the people/workers are exposed to radioactive which is 100 times more than the thorium waste from Lynas. I think AELB is aware of it and is closely monitoring it.
I am thinking of more FDIs and also the 300,000 unemployed graduates and increasing by the year.. and of course the economic benefits to ECER in particular and the country in general. Sometimes we need to suspense our present judgements and choices in to order to leave/keep the future open.
Yup, you can also dispose the thorium waste at my forty korma trees farm (I think Doc is smiling…
.
sori guys… ‘to suspend’ not ‘to suspense’
Bila nak makan buahnya
Kahkahkah. You guys are funny man.
The points you raised are valid. For me any policy which brings an increase standard of living be it in terms of employment, funding expertise etc should be supported. For lynas IMHO the benefit far outweighs the losses provided it complies with our laws. But the point You mention which i wish to touch is about us becoming an innovative nation. I had a discussion on this with a friend and he pointed out for hundred of years weved actually been traders. We have been a trading nation and not innovative nation. It’s in the culture. It’s similar I argue to Singapore and hong kong. That’s been our competitive and comparative advantage. The Japanese are different. They just invent things. Say for example they have small houses. So they came up with various ideas of remarkable storage. Now I’m not saying we should not become innovative. In fact I support all policies focussing on innovativess.but we must recognize we’re changing culture. As I wrote before to change culture we need to change the incentives and disincentives of an act. It’s not enough yet.:-)
Hope this will be of use..!
More news on Lynas
Akzonobel withdraws from Lynas Malaysia
The New York Times today gave coverage to the controversial RM2.5 billion Lynas project in Malaysia. Until this report came out, Malaysians were in the dark that a crucial contractor, AkzoNobel has pulled out, according to engineers working for the Australian miner at the Gebeng industrial site as well as internal company emails. The Dutch chemicals multinational had a contract to supply important resins.
The NYT report wrote that “resins are supposed to glue together dozens of fiberglass liners for concrete-walled tanks up to the size of double-decker buses. Hundreds of tons of rare earths with low levels of radioactive contamination will be mixed in the lined tanks with extremely corrosive acids at more than 200 degrees Fahrenheit.
The corrosiveness of acids increases steeply at high temperatures, which makes acids ideal for dissolving ore but difficult to handle.
AkzoNobel has long specialized in making some of the most esoteric resins for the mining industry. It uses a secret chemical formula to help the resins hold together fiberglass even under challenging combinations of heat and corrosiveness. The company had previously announced that it would supply chemicals for the Lynas project only if it were certain that it would be safe”.
AkzoNobel withdrew from supplying the chemicals after it was told that the fiberglass liners would be installed in concrete-walled tanks that have a problem with rising dampness in the floors and cracks in the walls. The company had been in discussions about the problem of rising dampness, but only became aware of the cracks this autumn, according to the engineers and the memos. To their credit, the engineers said
they felt a professional duty to voice their safety concerns, but insisted on anonymity to avoid the risk of becoming industry outcasts.
In fact, In a report last June, the NYT had said that there were critical flaws in the design of the refinery, including the installation of the watertight fibreglass liners.
Lynas executive chairperson, Nicholas Curtis (left) confirmed that AkzoNobel had pulled out of the project but he insisted that it was not for safety reasons. He however, declined to elaborate but said that Lynas had found a new supplier for the resins, which he declined to identify.
The Malaysian Insider on the same day also mentioned that Lynas is pressing the Malaysian contractor Cradotex, to proceed with the installation of watertight fibreglass liners designed for the containment tanks without fixing the moisture problem and with limited fixes to the walls.
“These issues have the potential to cause the plant’s critical failure in operation,” Peter Wan, the general manager of Cradotex, said in a June 20, 2011 memo
(.. see Webpage..
Key contractor pulled out of Lynas plant due to safety concerns, says NYT
published February 01, 2012).
He added: “More critically, the toxic, corrosive and radioactive nature of the materials being leached in these tanks, should they leak, will most definitely create a contamination issue.”
This latest news will surely spark greater worry and concern. If this project is not stopped by the government – then I am sorry to say they are showing great irresponsibility!
Of course, I forget this is Malaysia, where the government will sing the all-too-familiar refrain, “Semuanya ok”!
–
Earth provides enough to satisfy every person’s need but not their greed.
Mahatma Gandhi.
EMAIL ETIQUETTE
You are as usual the one being irresponsible. I will argue that to pull out now is irresponsible. You can’t even argue why it’s not safe? Why are you not also seeking to ban commercial flights which potentially emanates similar radioactive exposure? I hope you don’t use commercial flight coz if you do you’re a major hypocrite.
That’s funny…
BenG, I open a new thread.
Rare earth industry margin is between 1 to 5%, the price used to be RMB30 per kilo and now drop to RMB20 and below. The reason why most countries give up on rare earth mining and processing is mainly due to environmental issue and the market is now monopolized by China, however the stockpile of respective first world countries is pretty high, base on current usage, Japan rare earth stock can last for 20 years and thus China being the main producer actually have less control over the pricing. (From Baidu)
Recent years, China started to use rare earth as business weapon to export at a higher cost with limited supplies while at lower cost for domestic consumption to attract high tech manufacturer to move into China in order to take advantage of the low pricing, the manipulation worked to a certain extent. However the case whereby China penalized Japan by halting two shipment of rare earth after an incident in Senkaku island raise concern, the rest of the world started to look for alternative sources to break the monopoly, I think Lynas is one, and look for alternative for rare earth is another. In the long term, perhaps there will be some balance and the margin for rare earth may stabalise.
I am not sure how Lynas could be a strategic investment for Malaysia when rare earth is now a trade war between China and the West/Japan (refer below link), and I don’t know how we could retain the profit when raw material is sourced from Australia.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/694054/Time-to-reassess-unfair-WTO-entry-terms.aspx
Thank you, this is an interesting piece of information from the economical perspective. I didn’t know that the stocks in first world countries are quite high, as my previous assumption was that first world countries are quite dependent on China for Rare Earth Elements (REEs). From this, I feel that Lynas is a moderately risky move. But by breaking the monopoly, I feel that China will not make any drastic moves, due to the presence of the alternative source. It is possible, that Western countries actually built Lynas to control China in supplying them with REEs at reasonable prices. As for the long term, perhaps and hopefully there will be balance to the whole thing.
I am unsure on this point, on whether Lynas is a strategic investment for Malaysia. There are too many unconfirmed reports. One mentioned that we gave them tax exemption for 5 years or so, another said Lynas will be 1% of our FDI. There is also another which mentions that the processed REEs will be shipped back to Australia, while we get the waste. I am very confused on this part on Lynas to be frank. Is there the document agreement between us and Lynas to clear this part up?
How high tech Lynas can be when China processing plant is a benchmark? China have less environmental law in the past and they are poor, this is essentially the reason why China become the main producer because human rights ideal can’t bring food onto table, look at their continuous coal mining disaster. China has less than 40% of RE reserve but produces 95% for worldwide demand, the moment they reduce the export base on environmental justification, WTO claim that China didn’t abide by rules that has been agreed upon, but do you think the Western country like US, Europe and Australia would want to revert into a business that cause great harm to their people and environment?
However I personally think that even if we reject Lynas, they will go elsewhere that need the investment, but I am just puzzle do we really gain much on the whole deal when tax break is 12 years, while Machinery and RE is not locally sources? And come on, we are now competing against China that still have 1.3 billion peoples to feed, when China change the strategy and flood the market with RE, what shall we do?
http://www.lynascorp.com/page.asp?category_id=2&page_id=41
Check out some pictures of the LAMP. Doesn’t look high tech at all to me. I was expecting the thing to be a closed system, with the atmosphere being regulated for humidity and dust concentration. Since this is open air, I really wonder how will the monitoring of the dust be accurate, considering the fact that the dust can just be blown to nearby areas due to it being an open system. But nevertheless, we can still do this in a clean way, as I said, I am for sustainable development which involves being environmentally friendly, if and only if the right people are on the job, which until now, is not.
Aih, China is quite a sad place. I went there just recently, and in nearly all their towns the air is polluted, it makes me fortunate to live in Subang currently, where you can breathe reasonably clean air
And yeah, I do hear about the constant mining accidents at China, and just to depict how polluted China is, the snow which is left for a while outside will be black! But the thing that I find missing in the population is they don’t seem to have a heart. I mean, even from waiters to CEOs, they just want to do their job and get paid, nothing else matters to them. No manners, heck they don’t even care about the environment with the constant spitting around like it is their house. Luckily Malaysian Chinese did not pick that up.
And normal simple etiquette like queuing up is not in their dictionary. Well, if the population is like that, it gives a good picture on how those up there in the chinese government are like as well. The same can be said for our country as well
Your guess is quite accurate, yes Lynas would have started to find another country for its operations. My guess is that for us, Lynas would gain because they get non-Aussie land to operate, and that they don’t have to deal with the waste on Aussie land. Whereas for us, well, you and I both know “some” people have to gain from it. And to add, elections are around the corner, and they would want to start giving out goodies(well, the money has to come from somewhere). The entire process was just rushed through, akin similar to the PAB. That was why I was already skeptical and the apparent lack of trust is there, and to add that the data for interpretation is prepared by Lynas some more? I cannot blame the public for all these speculations, well because valid information is so scarce in this country of ours. Is it 12 years exemption? My goodness, what is going on!
I believe you can model this Lynas and China scenario with a competition scenario, where you have a large company which is monopolising the market, and now you have this new company which wants to break it. Past examples and logic will tell us, unless there are regulations, the larger force will eliminate that smaller force. But having said that, I see Lynas as a Western tool in controlling China, for it makes the Western nations less dependent on China. As of now, it is an asset to their interest, as it serves to do just that, reduce dependency on China, thus being able to control China to their will. And so long as it is an asset, I would bet that Western nations would do everything in keeping Lynas via regulations. But once it becomes a liability, particularly when China decides to take a drastic action by flooding the market with cheaper prices, as you had said, Lynas will become a liability, and Westerners will dump it. What happens to us when that happens is anyone’s guess. That is one reason why I don’t quite like economics, a lot of predictions, no solid land. But this scenario thing is based on game theory so to speak, albeit a worded and informal one. One last thing I learnt during my trip to China, the Chinese ain’t stupid.
Dear Ben G,
I would like to reply to you n hua Yong one go. Didn’t realise you had deep good discussion.
I find your write ben G most rational. Many things we can be on similar page but the root of it we have to differ greatly. To me the finding that the material itself is having 6Bq/g is most reasonable and have not been challenged to the contrary. Its from here that emanates my a priori conclusion that the issue was blown out of proportion. The IAEA even felt that certain Lynas RIA input submission was too conservative and even compared with a life existing plant in china. To them The exposure to the workers to them would be less than 5mSv per year and to the public negligible which is lower than lynas input. (RIA puts the public exposure at 0.3mSv.)
Now I compare this with those flight personnel on commercial flight. According to studies they can be exposed between 200 to 500 mrem per year. Their international standard limit is 2000mrem per year. A public may receive 0.2-0.3 mrem per hour. A 500 mrem is equivalent to 5mSv. A 2000 mrem is equivalent to 20mSv.
And no one makes a fuss of commercial flight. This is the hypocrisy of the whole anti lynas argument. This is where I find IAEA most consistent with international standards.
Based on this source alone, this is where we greatly depart. you don’t even take the basis as true or a basis of argument. Where I find it very reasonable you don’t accept it. Thus consequent debate is futile. But I can respect your stand since you are consistent. The major principle we can agree upon is monitoring.
On economics, by both of your write, it’s a strategic industry. The question is whether it benefits us economically. The answer is undoubtedly yes. The huge capital investment itself brings many fold economic advantages. The 12 year tax break is a non issue. We and Singapore had exemplary records of beneficial tax incentives/exemptions policy. I will even argue that had it not been for the tax exemption incentives, Penang would not have been where they are now. Similarly with Singapore. The question now moving forward is the issue of monitoring and the other is how to capitalize this. For example force/encourage lynas to use our freight vessels or raise international Islamic financing. Am sure if the west can see this as strategic, many investors would too.
Dear Ellese,
You are accurate that the fact that this is blown out of proportion. I believe that we are on the same page there as well. Your arguments are valid as well, as they too are logical, and that to an extent, the hypocrisy is somewhat true. I wrote to an extent, because flight radiation exposure has a multitude of variables to factor in. Factors such as altitude, proximity to the magnetic poles (both north and south), and the situation at the sun (solar flares etc) affect the radiation levels drastically. I am uncertain of the data you provided me with, and particularly on what are the states of those factors as well. But from this http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/airline-radiation.html I can conclude that on a flight close to the pole, with a solar flare occuring as well, is around 12% of the annual dosage. We can monitor solar flares, as NASA has been doing for some time now. Also, we can prohibit/or reroute, which flights which are close to the magnetic poles. And finally, for domestic flights, the risks are not very profound, it is the international flights which are a main concern, particularly on flights, ie over the pacific and close to the north/south pole. Thats why I am uncertain on your data, as those factors are very profound.
To add. The sun has a solar cycle, which is around 11 years. Every 11 years, sun activity will increase quite drastically as it approaches solar maxima, which also, will cause an increase in solar flares etc. We are headed to the next peak, which is predicted to be in 2013. Thus, flight radiation data will also have to consider this into account. You can read more about solar cycles here http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solarcycle-primer.html
As for cosmic radiation, it is quite a constant, so we can determine that.
However, my main point in comparing both Lynas to flights and also “the banana argument” is choice. I have a choice, whether I want to fly frequently, or also to eat that many bananas (as long as I don’t overdose on potassium intake). And to add as well, I still think most individuals are not very frequent fliers, save for the pilots and flight attendence. I guess that is one of the job hazards involved. But the concern with Lynas is that, if I am living next to it, I have no control over it. That is why I strongly believe people fear Lynas, and not flying. It is because they have control over the latter, and not the former. Similarly with smoking, I have a choice to smoke or not to, but I don’t think I will have a choice if Lynas decides to build next to my house, unless I shift my house of course, which I also don’t think most people are capable of such a thing. This can be further elaborated in the form of risks. Given that the probability of someone dying from a plane crash/accident is much higher than someone dying in a car accident, why is it that people still like to drive. Even like say domestic travels (for international cases they don’t really have a choice), people still prefer to drive or take the bus down to Johor, or up to Penang, instead of flying there. Granted that there are other factors as well, and that this analogy is not perfect, but my point is that at most times, human risk’s evaluation is irrational if you are basing your argument on probability of “dying”. People like to drive because most times, they have control over the vehicle, but as for airplanes, only the pilot has the control. This can be linked back to the discussion on choice. Control is something nearly everyone strives for, and that when they lose that control, fear takes root.
“Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.” Yoda.
And I respect your stand as well as it is also true and plausible.
As for the economical perspective, as I’ve said, I am out of my field in that. I find both yours and Hua Yong’s arguments valid. And I do recall Singapore practicing free trade in the past, with tax exemptions. Thank you both for this discussion.
Sorry, forgot to add in regards to the risks evaluation discussion. Humans also evaluate risks based on the gains. Ie, if I risks this much, what will I gain. Of course, greed comes into play in this. People take buses as it is cheap and easier, thereby risking a higher chance of an accident for some gains. Gambling would be a good analogy to this. I risks losing this much, to have a chance in gaining that much. If people had been rational in evaluating risks, I think there will be no casinos in the world, as you always have a higher chance in losing than winning, and that from calculations, you have an expected loss.
Thanks. Its been highly informative and pleasant engaging you. For your information there’s a number of research on this. It’s done all over the world. Youre right it varies but in average its about right I believe. For example one study states as follows.
Los Angeles to Honolulu: 26 mrem per 100 block hours
London to New York: 51 mrem per 100 block hours
Athens to New York: 63 mrem per 100 block hours
Tokyo to New York: 55 mrem per 100 block hours
In another study, crew members averaged 673 block hours and pilots 568 block hours.
Average annual cosmic ray dose for cabin crews was 227 mrem.
Average annual cosmic ray dose for long-distance flight captains was 219 mrem.
Sorry I’m just cutting and paste for reference rather than summarizing it.
On choice, this is where we differ again. One: the nearest residential house is 3km away. It’s located in an industrial area. To me if it poses too minimal a threat, objection made on choice is not reasonable. The law is clear. Theres always competing claims. You have a right to adjacent area. But to object a plant 3 km and for kuantan residence 25 km away is most unacceptable and unreasonable if the plant complies with the law and international standards. The public exposure is so minimal. Again to me this is blowing things out of proportion. On this score I think we have to depart again coz we can’t agree on the raw material. I can respect your decision coz you’re consistent.
On balancing competing gains and losses, it reminds me of the press conference by pas nuclear scientist together with another malaysian nuclear scientist. He said those in tin industry has a worse exposure. Now How come nobody makes such a big fuss? Why is it people can accept the fact that the economic advantageous in tin industry outweighs the risk associated with it while not for lynas when it poses less threat. (it’s on the you tube). Let’s sit back and rationalize it like what you’re doing. Whatever we decide we must be consistent. If we close lynas plants we must also ban all activities of the same nature like flying, smoking, x ray Etc etc.
P.S in fact I don’t mind banning smoking. But don’t even see this implemented in Pkr selangor state. Fauziah oh Fauziah!
Yes your values check out from my source as well. More flight radiation data can be found here http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0316.pdf
Sorry, I’m not used to the unit rem and milirem, but after conversion to Sv(the conversion can be found in the report above), it will be around an exposure of 2mSv. This value is somewhat comparable with the rate a Lynas plant worker is getting annually. Well, that is based on a predicted value plus there is a strong possibility that that value can be lower (comparable to the China case, where dust conc is similar), or higher, with the uncertainties. Anyway, at least we are in agreement that they should be monitoring the situation. Perhaps more data will be posted after the EPA decides to review the Lynas mine in Australia(from what I read that is, that ANAWA was quite quiet on Lynas until this fiasco erupted), then we can conclude better. I am referring to workers, because I really doubt a lot of people will be flying as frequently as pilots or air crew members, plus it is a job hazard. As for people like me, who does not take international flights (plus Malaysia is very close to the equator) very often (maybe 1 or 2 flights per year), I believe the radiation exposure due to flights are minimal to zero.
I am uncertain as for the resident’s case, as because from the pictures of the plant, I concluded that it will be an open system, and that the dust can be airborne. If it had been a closed system, I would be satisfied. Having said that, I do not know about the residences opinions on it, as I am not living there. I am just judging as if that I am in their shoes, based on the information given to me and info I can find. But if it is an open system, and that dust monitors check out, then it will be better. Plus not to mention wind direction as well, which is unpredictable. I think it’ll just be easier to make it a closed system.
Yes I saw that video about the PAS nuke scientist. I recommend you this read. http://eprints.utm.my/4818/1/AhmadRahmanSongip1989_TheDigestionOfThoriumCake.pdf
This report is the sort of thing I would love from IAEA, just saying. It is referring to tin tailing and conc of Th in them, Moreover, it also discusses to an extent on the Bukit Merah plant and it’s purpose. Yes the tailings have a higher activity conc than for the Lynas case (assuming of course that the Lynas results are valid) if and only if the tailings are put together. If you were to spread it out far and wide, in theory the exposure would be lesser. I am not sure on how are the tailings dealt with, and I’m unable to find any reports on it. But, if you try to put it together and concentrate it (Bukit Merah), then it will be very bad. Brazil and India are using their Thorium cakes for nuclear fuel, which is one plausible scenario. But that practice is not very popular due to several factors. As for this Lynas case, it is a fact that the waste will be stored together (thus, making things a bit dangerous). Moreover, there are some sites which mentions that the amang was buried but it can’t be confirmed.
As I said last time. I am for Lynas, provided the system is transparent and the data is for all to see, verified by an independent audit. I do not want to ban Lynas, but considering the current circumstances, I am for postponing its operations.
Human choice is something that is unpredictable, due to the human factor. It involves a multitude of factors, from probability of death, to level of gains/losses obtained. Like taking an X-ray, a human gain as it provides a view of his internal system and the doctor can diagnose better. People don’t just take an X-ray just for fun (unless of course the individual is mentally ill). Plus, the probability of death due to it is low. Smoking may also be modeled as such. The individual gains by being in a pleasure state during a smoke, despite having a higher probability of death. As for this case, consider that the fact that the residence have nothing to gain from the plant (direct gains, something which can be obtained directly by them. So far, the government gains from the plant, but the residences do not gain anything direct from the plant, unless the person is employed), and there is a risk of a contamination, well, that is one reason why people are against it. The balance between risks and gains varies from individuals, some like to play it safe, others not so. Another factor which may affect this balance is the amount of knowledge the individual has in the issue. Not many people will know about flight radiation risks, and as a result, people still fly. I am uncertain on the consistency which you seek, as because if you are talking about choice, then it is impossible. If you are talking about being consistent in an idea/philosophy, perhaps that is possible.
As for the amang, there is another explanation. You are comparing and assuming that the technology is the same then and now, that communications are excellent, and our understanding on radiation is adequate. Back then, in the 1980s and before that, our understanding on radiation effects are minimal(the most serious case was the 2 atomic bombs, and of course Chernobyl which occured sometime in the 1980s), and to add, communications are basic. Now you can learn the effects of radiation with just a click, and our understanding on radiation effects are adequate, hence the growth of several anti-nuclear proponents. I’ll say, the anti-nuclear protests had finally reached Malaysian shores. Oh, and I’m for nuclear energy. I see it as a transition energy from fossil fuels to renewable energy, provided it is done properly.
PS: Ban smoking? I’m all in. But there are a lot to discuss on it as well, as in the ethics of smoking and banning it. Perhaps another discussion on it in the future. Maybe I can pressure my ADUN rep to ban smoking in public places, who knows, since elections are so near. Hahahaha…
But to most people 99.99999% they know hoots and these unresponsible politicians create irrational discourse and arguments. This is what I am wholly against. That’s where we get gohblok IA etc etc who were conned into this and finally unable to defend call me names like toilet scientist etc etc without dealing with the matter.
As for you, you are open to reason. If you can accept at 6Bq/g a number of concerns can be addressed as IAEA suggested. But you require further evidence. I take this as fair since you demand same standard from anti lynas proponent.
Think I’m repeating already. In short until w can agree on the raw material it’s difficult for both of us to find common stand to lynas though in general matters like monitoring we can find some common ground. Adios muchacos amigo.
Yes I do know of a lot of people being conned into this as well. A simple check on facebook confirms this unfortunate fact. But apparently, (it is unconfirmed) from cloudstat, it shows that a large majority (nearly 80%) of people are infact neutral on this, possibly just being concerned as you and I are in regards to the waste disposal and monitoring. Maybe there is still hope in this young country of ours.
And till next time. Adios amigo
hi both, very rush, a short one.
before we look at the benefit, which is a little bit hard to quantify, i just do a simple calculation our benevolent on tax break when foreign investor move in, they construct a plant and import machinery, base on my experience of a medium size electronic / electrical mnc that come with investment of 100 mio (140 mio book value) machinery, let say 7 years.
cost
1) inflated machinery price 40% of 100 mio = 40 mio
2) capital allowance = 140 mio
3) ita 60% x 140 mio = 84 mio
4) transfer pricing for a period 7 years = minimum 100 mio
5) raw material 80% import
6) subsidise via elec / gas
benefit
1) construction cost = 50 mio
2) salary payout for 2000 workers per annum = 20 mio x 7 years = 140 mio
3) 20% locally sources, mostly is packaging and agency for foreign goods
4) transportation / services
this is the price to pay for any developing country and that is fine, but the valid question is did we successfully acquire the technology in the end? in most cases, hardly. will elaborate why if have time.
It’s an interesting proposition for discussion. I’ll wait for your further write.
Independence of service? Or sandiwara again?
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/a-g-sends-back-nfcorp-investigation-papers-to-police/
MAS losses soar to RM2.5b !
SIA net profit for 2011 SGD 1.09 b (RM2.6 b)!
The difference is competent and honest leaders!
Do think the “sub-human” will comment this as much as he did in other issues?
Integrity: You Know It But Do You Have It?
It is a very well written and interesting articles by Tun Hamid Mohamad, former Chief Justice of Malaysia. see the link below.
http://art-harun.blogspot.com/2012/02/integrity-you-know-it-but-do-you-have.html
Wow. Thought initially I don’t want to read what tun Hamid said but glad I overcame the reluctance. Put aside him in person and focus on the context, I think it’s a really commendable read. Among others I like that part when he said in mekah no one steals when things are not guarded but when you buy things the seller takes full advantage to charge exorbitant prices. You feel like youre being had. Had that mix feeling on values as well. Similarly in Egypt. Contradicting value experience. My Japanese people experience was by far excellent examplary and more consistent. They show consistent good values in general.
In Britain and the US, civil servants are often summoned to testify before Parliamentary committees or Senate committees in the US, on matters of national importance.
These public officers are expected to tell the facts as they understand it, regardless of what their politician masters may have told the public.
In Malaysia, that would basically be a useless exercise, because the Public Servants take their cueue from the politicians.
No. It will still be under oath. We need to promote more of this culture going forward.
The perceived lack of independence of the Public Service and uniformed agencies (sometimes for real, sometimes just imagined) is having a very corrosive effect on overall governance and public discourse in Malaysia.
The professional head of a government regulatory agency, a man with a Masters Degree in Biophysics, stood in front of a public forum and said the Lynas plant is safe.
Based on information released by the government, it looks like the Lynas plant should be safe to operate.
Do the public trust him ? No.
Because they don’t regard him as independent of his political masters, regardless of his past professional standing.
Do I trust him ? No.
I will not accuse him presenting false information, but I don’t consider him independent either.
Sometimes, I feel very sad for Malaysia.
The lynas plant is safe but the dumping of the rare earth is unsafe !
no problem,the waste is kept on site on temporary basis.. define temporary…. ? no one can give a specific answer
then is that sensible to argue on the basis not include the dumping?
Dear AK, Doc and HY,
I thought of responding earlier but had to deal with kittykat first.
I think the waste management is a concern but not a major issue. There are three types of wastes/residue being produced: Flue gas desulpharization (FGD), Naturalization underflow residue (NUF) and water leach purification residue (WLP).
The FGD and NUF is not an issue at all. This is what IAEA reported:
“the radionuclide concentrations in FGD and NUF are expected to be very low – similar to normal rocks and soil worldwide (and in Malaysia). They even recommended that these be exempted from being regulated and treat this as a non radioactive waste.
(to the uninitiated and not to the three of you, Ive written earlier, that we are all exposed to radiation. Its naturally occurring in the environment. Eating banana is a good example. Flying commercial plane another example of man made events. So we should read the above in that context. See my previous write)
The main issue is WLP residue which has a higher radionuclide concentrations. PLease note that Lynas intend to recycle it and plan to store it in a temporary storage. IAEA has deemed acceptable but suggested to turn it into a permanent storage.This is still being finalized. Now what does this mean for laymen like me? How serious is this issue? Should it be temporary or permanent? This is what IAEA said:
“The WLP contains relatively low concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides and thus the hazards are equally low.It can therefore be assumed that the development of the safety case will be straightforward and that they can rely on established methodologies and assessment tools”
Ta da!! Fauziah and anti lynas proponent are again misleading the issues with pack of unjustified arguments. To me when they initially argued about the plant operation being dangerous and when cornered then move the goalposts now to waste, its pure politics of deceits and lies. And 20000 people are being conned into this useless protest. You protest for a cause. I can agree with doc that initially out of no clear information you have a right to be concerned. But things progressed and you should analyze the risks. The IAEA report is clear. Its available on the web. Even if you don’t trust IAEA look at the figures in there and how its being argued. Thats why I think this protest is wholly unjustified. Theres a lot of bad faith and unfair recrimination. Its wrong. We should condemn it.
Waste management is part of the plant operation lar… Don’t be misleading and speculating again lar… Why don’t Lynas setup the plant in Australia? Why won’t the Australian government accept the waste? Don’t be too naive lar…
I’m sorry I beg to differ. Being in an engineering line, I find this report has many many expectations and assumptions and vague sources. You can see it in the language they use, it is somewhat different as compared to any report/article by IAEA which has solid facts and also sources. Their argument is based on the assumption that the radioactivity conc. of WLP is 6Bq/g. I was initially wondered how did they get this magical number from thin air, which they stated later on in page 33 :
“The documentation examined by the review team revealed that … …Confirmation of these activity conc values and the basis of the assumption of radioactive equilibrium should be provided in the next licensing phase.”
This paragraph alone casts doubt on their entire argument on the safety of the WLP waste. A few questions that needs to be addressed: What documents? Which means that the IAEA experts did not test the material for themselves? I have never seen an IAEA report that is so vague in nature, usually they would mention what study has been done or examples they used (like the China plant which is a little bit below it) to compare. Also, considering the report was done in the 2nd phase, and that the TOL has been given already, has the activity conc been confirmed? Or the assumptions been proven right? Where are all the documentation of all these?
And to add, page 32: “The input data and assumptions used in the analysis were largely based on data provided by Lynas.” Couldn’t the IAEA have tested it out for themselves? And if you observe their timetable below, it seems that they only stayed in Malaysia the entire time, they have not visited Australia to see nor test for themselves the ore that is arriving to Malaysia.
Finally, the report further reinforces our fear in not having a permanent waste disposal facility, and that at the time, no such thing was finalized. Until now, based on news reports it is reported that they are still finding a suitable site for it. A permanent disposal facility is important as it will act as a fail-safe should anything bad happens to the RSF. Should the RSF fail for unknown reasons, the waste could be relocated to the permanent disposal facility. Any civil engineer knows, having a fail-safe is paramount, particularly when it involves safety.
Ellese, i don’t comment much on topic i know very little, however i think the link i provide below on the same subject do sound convincing.
http://crankshafted.blogspot.com/2012/02/lynas-introspect-of-why.html
Dear HY,
To be frank I don’t buy this argument of anti lynas that since Australia does not want to take the waste, lynas must be in the wrong.
Unless theres economic reason, I think no country take the waste used by another country and I personally would object to it if it were Malaysia. Even if the waste is non toxic. Thats been the practice of many countries for years and I cannot understand how this can be the main argument for anti lynas proponent.
Let me take through. We consume huge amount of coal for our power plants. The by product of that use is the ash content. Huge ash content. You can’t just shipped backed your waste to the coal producing country. Why should they take back the waste when you economically use it. You use it and you be responsible for the waste. Similarly with use of uranium. YOu don’t simply shipped back the by product.
I find this is a simple spin by anti lynas proponent for easy buy in. IF you go to see the consistently of the question, it cannot be supported. I will go to crankshaft to explain and even then if he accept contrarion view. Otherwise as usual they will ban me.
Dear Ellese,
Quote: “I will go to crankshaft to explain and even then if he accept contrarion view. Otherwise as usual they will ban me.”
Itulah… selalu kena ban, tak insaf lagi? Bertaubatlah…
Hehehe. Untuk kebenaran tak perlu bertaubat. Mesti Lebih istiqamah.
I’m sorry I beg to differ. Being in an engineering line, I find this report has many many expectations and assumptions and vague sources. You can see it in the language they use, it is somewhat different as compared to any report/article by IAEA which has solid facts and also sources. Their argument is based on the assumption that the radioactivity conc. of WLP is 6Bq/g. I was initially wondered how did they get this magical number from thin air, which they stated later on in page 33 :
“The documentation examined by the review team revealed that … …Confirmation of these activity conc values and the basis of the assumption of radioactive equilibrium should be provided in the next licensing phase.”
This paragraph alone casts doubt on their entire argument on the safety of the WLP waste. A few questions that needs to be addressed: What documents? Which means that the IAEA experts did not test the material for themselves? I have never seen an IAEA report that is so vague in nature, usually they would mention what study has been done or examples they used (like the China plant which is a little bit below it) to compare. Also, considering the report was done in the 2nd phase, and that the TOL has been given already, has the activity conc been confirmed? Or the assumptions been proven right? Where are all the documentation of all these?
And to add, page 32: “The input data and assumptions used in the analysis were largely based on data provided by Lynas.” Couldn’t the IAEA have tested it out for themselves? And if you observe their timetable below, it seems that they only stayed in Malaysia the entire time, they have not visited Australia to see nor test for themselves the ore that is arriving to Malaysia.
Finally, the report further reinforces our fear in not having a permanent waste disposal facility, and that at the time, no such thing was finalized. Until now, based on news reports it is reported that they are still finding a suitable site for it. A permanent disposal facility is important as it will act as a fail-safe should anything bad happens to the RSF. Should the RSF fail for unknown reasons, the waste could be relocated to the permanent disposal facility. Any civil engineer knows, having a fail-safe is paramount, particularly when it involves safety.
PS: Sorry Dr. Rafick for the double posting.
Thank you. This is where I have to highly disagree with you. I think the casting of aspersion on IAEA is unwarranted and in any event does not provide any argument for anti lynas proponent. Since you’re an engineer then you should be able to justify your stand. We should go slightly deeper.
1) Lets us focus on waste or residue produced. Do you agree that NUF and FGD posed no threat and should be treated as recommended by IAEA as non radioactive? If not please detail out your objection with similar case scenario.
2) On WLP, is your contention that a concentration of 6Bq/g does not posed major threat and agree with the recommendation of IAEA for such case. If not please outline your objection.
3) On what basis that you think that the concentration of 6Bq/q for WLP is not reasonable. Can you outline other cases as well. The plant is not build yet. The IAEA took into account the following observations: 1) that Lynas plant is not unique and there are many similar plants around the world 2)that there are many mineral concentrates that are more radioactive than the one proposed by Lynas.
The rare earth concentrate proposed to be used by Lynas contains 0.13-0.16% thorium and 0.0021-0.0029% uranium. “The sum of the activity concentrations of TH 232 and U238 is therefore according to IAEA is 6 Bq/g.” Now on what engineering/ scientific ground are you arguing that the WLP concentration of 6 Bq/g is so unreasonable?
4) I cannot follow your argument on your basic standards of engineering. IAEA have applied and based on all relevant international standards. They have even listed out the standards therein in which there are too many to list here. PLease tell us which standards are you challenging that makes IAEA conclusion to you as not correct. You name me which particular standard that IAEA fail to follow and Ill go and read.
Dear Ben
I hope you’re not kittykat and don’t believe you are. Ill try to approach this on a dialectic manner probing toward a common stand on the issue rather than put in the face standpoint of view like I did with kk, I tell you upfront where Im coming from. We should focus purely on waste management. I take IAEA started with what was given and they’ve analyzed it. They’ve credible people and no apparent conflict at all. If any submission by Lynas is not reasonable they would certainly point them out. So lets focus on waste management to see whether their assumption is reasonable. we can go on other topics later. I have priced the issues and threads as above.Then we will see whether your question of their integrity is right or wrong. But more important is the basis of their conclusion. If I find its not reasonable Ill back down. I expect similarly for you to affirm if otherwise. Lets go though.
You seem to be diverting the issue altogether. Your question (1), (2) and (4) is irrelevant to my interpretation of the report. In any scientific field, the thought process is very simple, you have input, then the process/interpretation of the input data, and finally the output or the conclusion. My understanding based on this report is the fact that the majority of the input data comes from Lynas itself, with the possibility that even data primarily on Th and U conc. in rocks are coming from Lynas documentation. The fact that “anyone” in Lynas could have manipulated those values and serve them to the IAEA officials is a strong possibility. I would have loved for the IAEA to test the ore for themselves, and to see that the values given by Lynas is correct. Moreover, I would also prefer that IAEA obtain a majority of the input data for themselves, not being served by Lynas on a silver platter instead. Considering that the fact that public trust is at an all time low, or near zero, wouldn’t you think that this action would given Lynas more public trust?
Note: I AM NOT QUESTIONING THE INTEGRITY OF IAEA OFFICIALS. Your action in attacking me for undermining IAEA officials is uncalled for and it shows that you misunderstood my statement (severely?), which was clear that I am concerned for the origins of the input data.
To be frank, with my calculations, the IAEA calculations do check out in regards to the activity conc of the raw ore. That even I would produce the same conclusions as with the IAEA on this matter IF I am given the same input data.
Moreover, in any scientific field, particularly in engineering, any assumptions made in any calculations MUST be confirmed, otherwise, the conclusion is based on the assumption, which may or may not be true. The IAEA officials knew this, as would any scientist and mathematician in the world for that matter. That is why it is STATED that those calculated results/assumptions taken be confirmed immediately, to validate their calculations. My question is, has those assumptions/calculations validated with any monitoring data? Considering that a TOL has been issued, where is the documentation for this? That brings to another issue on transparency altogether, which I will not venture, for now.
As for the waste management, I am only concerned with the (lack of) long term disposal plan for the WLP waste. Also, I noted that the IAEA stated that Lynas officials had not planned anything in the event a flood or erosion occurs at the RSF(or in other words, a lack of uncertainty in their analysis). Therefore, I strongly believe that the long term disposal structure would be a prime suitable place to be a fail-safe.
In regards to your question (3), I will highlight again the same paragraph (which I had done earlier)which made me doubt the activity concentrations.
“The documentation examined by the review team revealed that … …Confirmation of these activity conc values and the basis of the assumption of radioactive equilibrium should be provided in the next licensing phase.”
The fact that every calculation here has various assumptions used here and there PLUS the fact that those assumptions are as of yet unconfirmed worries me. I am basing my analysis on the report on mainly 2 items (since we are in agreement on a long term disposal plan, I believe),
(1) That the fact that MAJORITY of the input data comes from Lynas, which has a very large vested interest in this matter.
(2) That the fact that assumptions and calculated results are as of yet unconfirmed.
I can assure you that you will not be able to wiggle your way out of this argument, as because in order to prove these 2 points wrong is beyond yours and my capabilities as a normal citizen (however, perhaps you are an AELB official and you can get some documentation which shows otherwise ;p). It is fact that the (2) point here cannot be solved by anyone, UNTIL that those assumptions and results has been justified by monitoring data/scientific testing. But point (1) can be solved by simply allowing an independent team of experts (IAEA again? why not) to test for themselves the ores etc. Is that so hard to do?
My trust in the IAEA has not diminished one bit at all after this report, as I can see that it is done professionally. But I find this report vague, due to the simple fact that the input data is vague. Just look at how they elaborated on the RSF and how they elaborated on the liquid waste management. I would have produced something similar as well if I had been given the same data. If you had misinterpreted this entire post of mine again, I will not entertain you, not because I am angry, but because you are diverting the issue at hand, and I don’t have time to entertain those type of people.
Sorry. I just had to put question 3 to determine the extent of your acceptance of input data. You seemed not to accept all that Lynas said and that all their data must be verified and analyzed by IAEA and for that matter AELB themselves before you can accept the same. I can somewhat accept your position. But on this basis you too cannot accept what any anti lynas proponent is saying coz they can’t verify anything. This is an acceptable stand but seek you to be consistent in your argument.
I approach this differently. In essence I take the IAEA team as credible and the report professionally done. There is no instance of conflict. The report is made open and transparent and will be benchmarked against other similar plants in the world. Lynas is not unique and there are many other plants that the IAEA knows which use higher radionuclie concentrations. No one has been putting the argument that the input data is wrong, unreasonable or erroneous. They are well aware of the material mentioned from the report.
The the crux of the issue between you and me is therefore goes to the root of the material being deposited and thus the reason I had to ask question 3. Lynas has alleged that it uses minerals of certain characteristics. The IAEA not only look at the documents, they interviewed all and did field work. They reviewed the analysis. IAEA stated:
“A chemical and radiochemical analysis were variously available for several rare earths concentrates and the latter analysis confirms that the thorium and uranium decay series radionuclides are in secular equilibrium.” (p27)
They confirm the 6Bq/g and deem the material as non radioactive material.What more do you want? Why is it relying on analysis is wrong and inadequate? Are you saying that they conclude the analysis wrongly? Are you saying the analysis is not independent? Are you saying the analysis was doctored? Are you saying that IAEA have to conduct the lab analysis themselves and only then can be relied upon? What are you saying?
This forms the crux of the issue at hand. I do expect you to respond and clarify. Otherwise I do think youre making a too sweeping statement attacking the credibility of the report and dismissing the report. Once we establish this we relate back to the waste management.
Ah, here is where you assumed that I am advocating for anti-Lynas. I am not advocating those rubbish pesky politicians are talking about. With all those (foolish) videos that I’ve watched in youtube, describing whatever rubbish consequences, where most, if not all are fake and impossible. The worst case scenario that I could come up with (based on the report and some scientific background of course), is a reduction in moisture content of those waste ‘cakes’ and that would release a lot of dust into the air. Taking into mind that Th is pyrophoric, that is, it is combustible given that it is very fine (or dust here). Well, a fire may occur, and thus it’ll spread Th into the air and you get the idea. That to me is the WORST case, with a probability of occuring that is very very small. But still, I hope that they will monitor the moisture content of the cakes and dust content of the atmosphere.
Just to make my stand clear, I am for Lynas, if and only if that they practice in a manner which I deem transparent and trustworthy. I understand that this is a very subjective point of view, but hear me out, perhaps we can be in agreement on this.
My requirements are as follows:
1) Have an ICE (independent checking engineer) oversee the plans for the plant, RSF and also the permanent disposal facility (if any).
2) Have a qualified agency (IAEA) retest and obtain their own data and also collaborate with the ICE in determining whether the plant, RSF and also the permanent disposal facility is safe. After the plant is constructed, have Lynas perform a trial run overseen by IAEA and the waste be tested to confirm any assumptions and calculations.
3) Have an independent agency (not necessary IAEA now) to monitor all monitoring devices, including Geiger counters, dust and humidity monitors, pH indicators in the liquid waste, and also perform monthly or quaterly checks on the environment. I think an environmental group (like EPA for the US, maybe malaysian version of EPA?) should do this. Moreover, publicly publish all results from the monitors online.
4) The more documents (about the procedure etc) published online for the people to see, the better.
5) Operations must not begin until a permanent disposal facility is finalized, or constructed.
I believe if the government applies these 5 points, they would definitely be trusted by the middle, non-partisan population. Those pro-PR can continue bickering, but they will be out of ammo by then. Maybe point 1 is too much, of course some people (possibly you?) may disagree with what I want, but like I said, this is very subjective.
Based on the current situation and the documents, sorry, but I’m for anti-Lynas. If the government even satisfies some of the points, I’ll be happier and more trustful of the government. Trust is earned over time.
Yes I do take the IAEA team as credible, but I don’t take the data they used in their analysis as credible. In your response, you wrote in regards to the secular equilibrium, and that the IAEA had done a radiochemical analysis to prove it in pg27. Do understand that activity conc and secular equilibrium are 2 different things. One being the quantity, while the other being the variation in the quantity. I usually do not use wiki references, but for simplicity sake, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_equilibrium
So they had confirmed that one assumption. That is good, but no where did they mention they confirmed the activity conc of the ore. All they said that it was “reported” and also from “documentation”. In this regards, I am cautious and skeptical at the quantity. There are also other assumptions that they had taken, which involves the dust quantity and to be able to compare Lynas Malaysia to the China plant, they want to confirm that it is the case where the workers only get 0.2mSv of radiation dosage. As stated above in my demands, I would love that IAEA conduct their own tests on the ore. And to be frank, the only “field work” that they did as according to the timetable, was to check out the Lynas plant. The IAEA team is smart in a sense, they are taking the middle ground. Whatever that they can prove, they do it. What that they cannot prove, they are unable to disprove as well. Just saying, if the IAEA team is allowed to test the ore samples, do you think they will write the report in this manner? They would be very confident of their calculations already. Therefore, you will definitely see that they cannot say the data is faulty, neither can you see them confirming that the data is accurate. Infact, I am taking this report as a “plea” by IAEA to confirm all their calculations.
I cannot blame the IAEA team for this report which is filled with assumptions and expectations. The way I see it, they did their best in trying to present a plausible scenario, as I believe they too are cautious of the data they have been fed with. Hence the presence of so many “expectations” and “assumptions”, plus they are telling the reader to confirm all their calculations and assumptions. I am not exactly to say making a sweeping statement. If you look closely, most of their arguments are based on the 6Bq/g activity conc, which I am and they are doubtful of. I am attacking the possibility of not credible input data, and also advocating that all their assumptions be proven by monitoring data. That is my stand on this.
Lynas shouldn’t be the one providing them with whatever documentation/data, especially on important things like activity conc of the ore, as because Lynas is one of the parties involved in this. If the data is from an independent agency, I’ll be fine with it.
PS: Apology accepted. Have a good day
Thanks for responding. The more you write the more I think you’re kittykat. Nevertheless I appreciate the clarification and learn a bit as well. There are some convergence of views here and some departure of views.
With respect to monitoring, I am for monitoring and making it transparent. There is a convergence in principles though we may differ in the mechanism. For me the law is adequate and complies with international standards. The AELB to me is credible and they should and must regulate it in a transparent manner. I can accept the RIA regime.The one good thing about anti lynas is it makes AELB transparent. The website is informative.
Your argument against lynas are essentially based on trust issue. Its not so much the technical aspect of it. It all boils down to the trust on the input data provided by lynas. To me you make too much of a sweeping statement to dismiss the report. The IAEA actually reviewed all the documents and analyze it based on acceptable international standards practice and experience. AT page 32 it states:
“In general the review team concluded that sufficient information is available on the safety method, models, scientific data and site specific data for making an adequate evaluation for making the short and long term on the radiological impacts on humans and the environment. The safety assessment process, in the material made available to the team, was found to be consistent with international standards and no instances of non compliance with the standards were identified.”
They’ve done this many times. They know what information they want, what is required and what is sufficient and adequate. To dismiss the whole report simply because you doubt the whole input data, that, to me actually undermine their credibility and professional credence. Sorry, I just think its an unfair comment.
On lynas I have approached this totally in opposite to your approach of trust. Ive written this before. I think we should weigh the balance of it. On one hand there is huge economic benefit to the economy and on the other risk associated with rare earth. I do find the risk was somewhat minimal and can be controlled and monitored. The benefits simply outweigh the cons. On the scheme of things the most responsible thing is to proceed.
Hahahaha, I’m not Kittykat, despite both being in an engineering background. Yes we will definitely have a divergence in views as we both are from different backgrounds, both life and career wise I believe. As someone who wants to participate in the scientific community actively, I prefer working with data. That is why should they release the data, anyone who knows how to deal with that data will be able to form conclusions, and that their arguments/interpretations can be checked by other people as well. It will be in effect, sort of a self-regulation, kind of what science is all about really. Someone conducts an experiment and comes up with a hypothesis, which will be tested by others as well to be proven either true or false. Moreover, I personally fell that this plant can even be sort of used as an encouragement for teens/children in the field of science, if the developers are open that is. A sort of learning experience. And those who will major in environmental science can help in the monitoring of the waste data. Maybe this is kind of too ideal, but hey, anything is possible. If it is really transparent, then I see no problem incorporating all of these, provided certain individuals are hardworking enough in making it a reality.
Erm I think you got me wrong somewhere. I did not reject the entire report. Parts which I deem credible, such as the RSF is acceptable to me. But also, I feel that it can be improved as well. Maybe thats just overengineering on my part, sorry about that. Heck, different engineers have different views on the level of safety. The part which I am concerned about are mainly, the activity conc, as I would like to know what documentation they reviewed, they were not specific on that issue (unlike on other issues, like how they mentioned the Detailed Design Report for the RSF); Liquid waste management, as there was near zero elaboration there; and of course, the long term waste management. I feel that at this current phase (phase 2), they are able to resolve these issues. As for phase 3, I would like to know what monitors have been installed, for constant assessment of the situation both inside and outside the plant. That is all.
To be frank, as what Kittykat had said, cut the crap, give us raw hard data. Those who wants to do their calculations will be able to do it from there and judge for themselves. Or at least, minimally, tell us where did the data come from, not with just a generic answer called “documentation”. Well they did mention that their data came from Lynas, but what document is it in? The RSF report was something which I liked, as it mentions on seepages, settlements, hydrological conditions on site etc. Despite it not providing the data, I feel that it is well elaborated. As for why the data is not provided, I may be able to say that it is due to the shear volume of data related to geotechnics.
The issue as I had said was not whether there was sufficient information or not, rather, it is whether the sufficient information is good. As one of my coworkers said to me, crappy input results in crappy output. For my view point, they definitely had sufficient information, albeit possibly minimal sufficient information (due to the lack of elaboration on those parts I’ve mentioned).
They had done it before definitely, no doubt about that. But I’ve also known certain engineers who had been in the business for a long long time, and were given falsified SI reports, and only realised about it sometime later, with problematic implications. As I’ve said, crappy input, crappy output. I am not blaming the IAEA, for it is their job to process the data, and arrive at a conclusion, albeit a cautious one. Similarly, I cannot blame those engineers who had designed the works based on the false data. It is their job after all. But what I would like is a confirmation on the IAEA’s part on the given data. Similarly, the engineer should confirm the data as well, whether via their own random sampling, or performing random visits.
People like me draw the line between input, process, output, because even in secondary school science, these lines are well defined. From the tabulation of data, to interpretation of data, to finally confirmation/rejection of hypothesis and conclusion. These are more apparent in the scientific community, and to use an incident (the particles being faster than speed of light incident) to illustrate this. The data was available, if you know how to find it. As I observed, various interpretations of that data was published, with various theories in describing this phenomena. Some are similar, while some are widely divergent. The experiment was repeated by taking into consideration the effect described in the more “popular” theory, and it was proven correct. That is why for me, I am not blaming the IAEA on this, but rather, I would just like to prove the input data, and until that is proven, I have my reservations on the interpretations of it. But considering that we come from different backgrounds, I think we can agree to disagree on this.
As for the economy wise, I would be in agreement with you. A friend of mine, who is involved in the business/economic field, was pro-Lynas and so we had a discussion on this issue. I would accept both his and your points on the economical side of this issue. But also, I am for sustainable, responsible growth. I feel that this article highlights the discussion on this. http://www.thenutgraph.com/the-doughnut-of-justice/
PS: Sorry, I do not reply during weekends. And to Dr. Raffick, I am sorry that in my current position I am unable to help you, but do know that I will be hoping that you will succeed in your quest for a better world for others. Good luck
Dear both, thanks, i learn a lot.
BenG “As for the economy wise, I would be in agreement with you.”
Base on my observation, Malaysia seldom gain much economy benefit besides employment in the long term for investment which we don’t possess/assess to both raw material and technology, and when domestic market is too small.
Dear Hua Yong,
I am uncertain on your observations. I admit, my knowledge in economics is minimal, and that I rarely follow up on economical matters in Malaysia and the world, and perhaps you are right. My personal views on this Lynas matter is that it is the wrong field for us to invest in, for we should accelerate in areas such as agriculture, manufacturing etc, and to promote research in these areas. But having said that, my friend had pointed out that it is too late for Lynas to pull out, that this project has gone too deep to be aborted without serious consequences to the economy in the long run. Therefore, I think the best solution would be a compromise, that the plant stays, but with precautions and plans. As for what I understand so far, it seems that this REE thing can rake in a good deal of profits, I am only unsure whether a percentage of it will go to the people, which if based on history of our government, is unlikely. But if good, trustworthy people were to tap that profits, it’ll be a good source of income for our country to expand.
Sorry, to clarify. I am Particularly concerned with the (lack of) long term disposal plan for the WLP waste. Not “only”. There are also other waste management issues, but this is the most severe of them all. My next concern on the waste issue is on liquid waste disposal, or the lack of elaboration on it to be exact. The error is regretted.
Ellese,
Sorry…., I Sekolah Pondok…, tak paham….., just send this waste to your inlaws or to Putrajaya. Store it below the lake at the East Point for 14 billion years.
Haprak punya bangkai….., : The Moral to this comment….is that the country don’t need this money….., unless you useless idiot’s in BN need your fix.
We Malaysian sincerely don’t need this project in our shore…., thats it.
If the Fed’s have to pay them to relocate,,so be it….! but not here for Lynas.
We will them redeem the looses from these idiot’s.
Anyway…Ellese…, don’t try to be a Toilet Scientist in this forum..!
Ellese,
We cannot even manage lead waste in our IC companies…, and you want to write about your F@@@ up theories.
True… when he didn’t know one thing, he would search and read 2~3 articles and then started to bash others as if he knew everything… However, he seldom commented on more corrupted issues especially related to UMNO/BN, e.g. NFC, or mismanagement in some GLCs like MAS and Proton. When others made peaceful assembly or road demonstration to protest, he blamed those were useless. But, when UMNO/BN kacau other ceramah or assembly, dia buat tak tahu. These are still OK because he has the freedom to choose what to comment and what not to comment. Unfortunately, he never respects other comments and simply labels others with bad words when others think differently. He always reacts unprofessionally until DrR advised him to comment in a professional manner. Also, he also likes to read part of an article or just the subject/title of an article and starts to spin and speculate. That’s the reason why his comments can not be trusted. He also likes to put words on other mouths. He can fool some people but not all people all the time. I personally think that he’s even worse than KJ because KJ at least has the balls to tell he supports UMNO/BN. The rakyat are facing real world problem, which can not be easily solved by just referring 1~2 articles!
This is another personal attack. Don’t speculate and be professional. If disagree reply to my content you moron. Ive proven you lalang, misleading with false facts, cannot think and totally devoid of integrity. YOu think people are now stupid to believe in your every solution to follow ABU. I caught you many times with simple spin and standard one argument. I told you and everybody right and wrong does not depend on who you support but what you do. I don’t know where you learn your religion to be such a hypocrite. At least the stupid gohblok went to sekolah pondok. YOu have absolutely no morals following other peoples ass. Even if they fart you say it smells good. Bodoh gila.
Stupid personal attack type of comment. I am entitled to my opinion. Just because you are malas membaca you don’t condemn me personally. Just read. I am entitled to read what I want. I am entitled to form a view what I want. If don’t like reply the content you moron. I have along the course substantiate and defend my comment. Not like an idiot gohblok. YOu continue this, we go personal. Im trying to have a good discussion with ben. Ive had much more detailed discussion than these before. So watch your mouth. Give me four letter words, I can do the same like hell. Dahlah bodoh, malas membaca and think through your ass. Stupid, imbecile and utterly without garbage person..
sorry it should be…. utter garbage person with a sick mind and full of hatred. Go fly kite and F yourself.
He tries to be the scientist of everything… macam Hackson Rli tries to an expert in every religions…
And you try to be a stupid lalang. Bro please use at least standard one intelligence boleh tak?
Western Australia is so big and some places so remote that “somebody could get lost there and not be found for 100 million years” (quote from a forum). Why Lynas cannot find a suitable place to build their plant there is a question on many people’s minds.
What kind of question is this. If we’re in Australia why should we receive it or any types of waste. There’s no economic benefit. Rather than arguing in a roundabout way, tell us whats the waste it’s producing?
Problem is we have a closed mind. You don’t have to believe him. Just do a bit of diligence. Read the IAEA report. Read the AELB response. Read about nuclear technology. Read about far greater nuclear risk of temporary and permanent storage. Then make a reasonable judgement and conclusion. Don’t follow people blindly. I want to touch on waste management. So please focus on the issues. all these have been blown out of proportion. It was probably due to initially a lack of unlicensed participation process by the government. But many things developed since. Just go through. From your write I can only surmised you have not even read the report at all. You’re highly qualified and should be able to go deeper.
Ps. Please don’t argue that lynas is not relevant in another thread. It’s not relevant here either isn’t it?
“Unlicensed” should be ” public”.
The post here is about the perceived lack of independence of the civil service.
I linked it to the Public officials who have been trying to talk to the public on Lynas – and the lack of trust the public have in them., because they are not seen as independent. That is relevant here.
The overall debate about Lynas, the IAEA report , radiation exposure, how much waste Lynas produces, how and where its going to be stored is not relevant to this post..
AK doc n hua Yong all talk about dumping and waste. You didn’t tell them it’s not relevant.
I sense another TSM by you. There unless you admit mistake you purposely mislead people with old datas and pure conjecture. I questioned your intergrity there and now. You cannot complain of others integrity or independence if you yourself are not. Don’t take moral high ground. It’s like people complaining bribe but they themselves give one. Or people complaining racism but support segregation of our young into different racial schools. Pure hypocrite. You bragged of your super qualification so take it through. I don’t have engineering degree so if you want you can whack me. And I told you if you can argue I’m wrong I will admit it and retract the relevant statement. I’ve done this. But dont give me bull story of relevancy. Especially to relate to lynas. Own up. Back up your allegation. So apart from extraction process and waste management what other things you’re objecting. If want to touch Bukit Merah I repeat please tell me whether the raw material and process is the same.
I will not respond to trolling
Now accuse me trolling. You are insidious. You purposely use outdated data to sow hatred against another. You provoke and brag you’re superqualified engineer implying all others cannot be trusted. You were Dishonest in arguing. At first want to debate and when trapped say not relevant and when caught you write irrelevant stuff now accuse me of trolling. You pick and challenge me but chicken out accusing me of trolling. Now go check meaning of trolling. I believe I’ve captured every angle of the meaning to qualify you as trolling. So check the man in the mirror.
Unless you want to continue I will stop pursuing you. You fail to respond 3 or more times to question on lynas. The only conclusion left is that you gave unjustified partisan argument. I categorize you as another blind follower of fauziahs crap. it’s sad really, there are still issues on lynas but because of hatred and extreme prejudice it’s sad to see a very qualified engineer failing to read a page of an independent report to know the truth. Why are all (at least whom I’ve met) can’t even read the report to find out the truth. Do a bit of diligence on the net to verify it. So kittykat
You just provided more proof that you are a troll
Totally agree…
Why is making personal remarks more relevant than discussing merits of lynas case? You provide one flimsy excuse after another. Just admit that even with super qualified engineering background you know nuts about lynas and supported anti lynas due to hatred of the present government and to even up the score. Pathetic.
No need to be an engineer to understand the issue…
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/302422/20120222/malaysia-china-lynas.htm
Now accuse me trolling. You are insidious. You purposely use outdated data to sow hatred against another. You provoke and brag you’re superqualified engineer implying all others cannot be trusted. You were Dishonest in arguing. At first want to debate on lynas and when trapped suddenly argue its not relevant and when caught you now argue its not relevant stuff n accuse me of trolling. You pick and challenge me but chicken out accusing me of trolling. Now go check meaning of trolling. I believe I’ve captured every angle of the meaning to qualify you as trolling. So check the man in the mirror.
Unless you want to continue I will stop pursuing you. You fail to respond 3 or more times to question on lynas. The only conclusion left is that you gave unjustified partisan argument. I categorize you as another blind follower of fauziahs crap. it’s sad really, there are still issues on lynas but because of hatred and extreme prejudice it’s sad to see a very qualified engineer failing to read a page of an independent report to know the truth. Why are all (at least whom I’ve met) can’t even read the report to find out the truth. Do a bit of diligence on the net to verify it. So kittykat don’t mention anything on lynas or complain others integrity when you don’t practice and believe it. Try to be fair and objective as much as possible. Don’t believe in spin be it by bn or pr. Politicians are all the same without exception. They disregard the truth coz talk is cheap.
Had enough of your trolling and toilet research …, we are not keen in this Stupid project…, so Prof Toilet…seize to engage…., unless you sound like a paid Idiot…to counter.
;
;
;kk46
No need to be apologetic
Surely you did not trust the guy bekoz-
>he is lying thru his teeth
>he is telling half truth
> he has not explain the extent of
danger of the waste and the process
so speak your mind
And as lc is kissing yr arse, give him/her a piece
of your mind too
.
.
Is Najib saying that now MACC is BN’s lapdog and only if they are given 2/3 majority in the next GE it will be independent? He is only confirming what most people already believe.
We know too well it is only more b.s. from a desperate Najib to try con the public. We know too well when there is an independent MACC, there won’t be enough cells in the Kajang prison to host all the corrupt ministers and their cronies starting with the top guy himself!
Doc,
In your dream by asking that from present BN goverment.
Doc,
Can you ask “Observer” to use another name. I am afraid that it may cause others to think that I have becomed more balanced!
wow so honest to admit that u r not that balance?
HY,
No point fooling others. Just need to be honest as to one’s position.
may i suggest u use observer 1
maybe use “another observer”?
A very fair write n requestA fair write. But to me It’s actually asking too much from our politicians. Things have changed much to make a difference.
The popular idea is that the civil servant in particular the KSN KSU SS etc must be able to work with the PM ministers or even MBs and excos. Unfortunately Don’t see in near future this will change. We won’t get much to see people like SANy, tun Ismail Ali, TS Raja Alias, TS Azizan, Hassan Merican etc anymore. It’s a reflection of us. We don’t and can’t take independent values. Its either My way or the highway attitude. Politicians need to reward those in line with them. For example You of all person to me should be appointed as councillors for BA. But its not to be. These problem is symptomatic with our society throughout. I used to lament that those uneducated are having this problem. But now the educated middle class is likewise. Quite a sad state of affairs.. But to me It’s actually asking too much from our politicians. Things have changed much to make a difference.
The popular idea is that the civil servant in particular the KSN KSU SS etc must be able to work with the PM ministers or even MBs and excos. Unfortunately Don’t see in near future this will change. We won’t get much to see people like SANy, tun Ismail Ali, TS Raja Alias, TS Azizan, Hassan Merican etc anymore. It’s a reflection of us. We don’t and can’t take independent values. Its either My way or the highway attitude. Politicians need to reward those in line with them. For example You of all person to me should be appointed as councillors for BA. But its not to be. These problem is symptomatic with our society throughout. I used to lament that those uneducated are having this problem. But now the educated middle class is likewise. Quite a sad state of affairs.
Hmm. Didn’t realise I accidentally repaste it.
Why not now?
No PR MP will object if meaningful and real reform on MACC. Not sure about BN or UMNO MPs. I doubt UMNO warlords and corrupt MPs will support Najib for MACC reform!
Look at what happened to 1 Malaysia? Is it in the dustbin now?
Dear Doc,
PM is trying his level best to make a deal with the Rakyat.
Give BN 2/3 and BN will give MACC more power.
What the….^%$#@@!!
Rakyat DO NOT make deals with UMNO. Do your job or get sack!
Doc quote: “Today if the PM presents a motion to the Parliament to make MACC truly independent, no MP will object.”
>> That’s right! PM, just do it immediately, don’t play with the Rakyat that you need 2/3 to do it.
What a cheapskate proposal like, “wa tolong lu, lu tolong wa”.
Reform MACC now, or get sack from the Rakyat!
Isnt LGE promise to give rm 1000 if PR win also “Gua tolong Lu Lu tolong Gua” approach?
Dear Ellese,
If both political parties want to play “lu tolong gua, gua tolong lu”. You know very well who will be the winner at the end of the day. You also know who has millions to offer. Apo nak dikato?
and… you do not know, because you do not go to any opposition ceramah, the attendee provide DONATION to the opposition parties.
How’s that for a take?!
Ellese, you question is a spin again. Told you already what… don’t spin.
This topic about is MACC given more power, freedom of action and independent.
This topic is to prove that MACC has none of the above, hence PM offer to make a change. What the…&^%$#@!
This topic is to prove that all these while Rakyat was taken for a ride for believing that MACC is an independent investigation body without any fear or favour.
This topic is about the refusal of PM to make a motion in Parliament for a change, but instead held us, the Rakyat at ransom for a change.
Hai… Ellese, when are you going to stop spinning…
Doc talks on all government machinery and not only MACC. I wrote b4 saying its a good write.
Now tell me why I shouldnt consider your statement Lu tolong Gua.. a spin? I saw ur spin and wanted to show an inconsistent stand. A spin is always inconsistent and can’t stand rigour of examination. Since you raise it I have ‘sambut’ it simply to show it cannot stand.
Spinning is his professional job…
Dear Abdul Ibrahim,
Since you mention the word “professional”, it is really professional that comes with a fee.
I really hope it is value for money.
You insinuate. Please be informed that I don’t get a single sen from anyone. I write what I believe in.
You’re a paid pr cybertrooper. Please be fair n balance.
Have ever LGE mentioned ““Gua tolong Lu Lu tolong Gua”” before like what Najib did in Sibu? Don’t speculate…
Don’t speculate? I never said that.
Only a idiot of a PM will utter such stupid statements.
Why need 2/3 majority,…for BN…., if it makes a difference for the rakyaat…everybody will vote in favour..! BN and PR…!
Just shows we have sick idiots running the country. So sick they will just sell themselves.
Dear Doc,
I have my reservations on the statement of ” no MP will object”, even in the matter of declaring assets of MP faces a direct snub from the Law Minister.
Ahill