US Expert: Lynas Plant is Largest, Safest in World

Lynas picMarch 1, 2013 (Source: New Straits Times) Kuantan — The Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (Lamp) in Gebeng here is the largest and safest rare earth plant in the world, according to a rare earth expert.

United States government rare earth adviser Jack Lifton described Lamp as the most comprehensive rare earth plant on earth.

“No one has built a bigger rare earth plant than in Malaysia and Lynas’ procedures are all in place,” he said, adding that he was impressed with how Lamp was being managed.

On Lynas’ safety procedures, he said the tanks containing the rare earth were all placed above ground and there were equivalent catch basins underground to contain stray leakage.

Subscribe here to receive free daily InvestorIntel updates

“The external radiation is negligible,” he said on the sidelines of the international symposium on rare earth at Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP) campus in Gambang, near here yesterday.

He said his conclusion was based on his visit to Lamp on Feb 27 to view Lynas’ first finished product, SEG carbonate.

Noting that it had only been running for 90 days, he said that as long as Lamp continued its maintenance of existing processes, then there was nothing to worry about.

“On Feb 27, Lamp produced 200kg of rare earth products. It has the potential to produce 20,000 tonnes of rare earth products a year and it will achieve this by end of June.

“Lynas investors can finally sleep peacefully after having invested RM2 billion and seeing everything working well.”

He added that plastics plants were more dangerous in terms of toxicity compared with Lamp.

On rare earth safety aspect issues raised by certain quarters, Lifton said the matter had nothing to do with the science or the government.

“When you ramp it (the industry), make money and provide jobs, pay taxes, all this (opposition) will go away and they will see the real and good sense behind it.”

Lifton, a senior Fellow of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, was one of four speakers at the seminar on “Regional Need for Rare Earth and Its Impact on the Malaysian Economy”.

Present was UMP vice-chancellor Prof Datuk Dr Daing Nasir Ibrahim.


  1. Lynas, largest, safest . . . and way behind Great Western Minerals of Canada when it comes to current performance, purity and quantity of crucial REE, and profitability.

    • That’s a pretty wild claim for a company that’s thinking about raising money to build the capacity to process ore!
      By the way, Steen is a very good high grade deposit but it’s RE distribution is no better than the Lynas CLD and inferior to Duncan when it comes on line. Who knows when: maybe about the same time as GWM’s solvent exchange lines fire up.

  2. Hi Jack,

    I wonder how you could declare the LAMP as the safest rare earth plant in the world.

    Firstly, I would like to know if you have visited all huge REO-plants in china.

    Secondly, I would like to mention the report from the german eco-institute. There might be several points regarding environmental safety that lynas seems to have clearly missed.

    “The environment is affected by acidic substances as well as from dust particles, which are emitted into the air in substantially larger concentrations than would be state-of-the-art in off-gas treatment in Europe. The storage of radioactive and toxic wastes on site does not prevent leachate from leaving the facility and entering ground and groundwater. ” a.s.o. http://www.oeko.de/press/press_releases/dok/1484.php

    Could you please give me your opinion of the mentioned matters? Thanks in advance.

    Regards

    Mathew

    • Matthew,
      I’m quite confident you’ll get your answer’s on the oeko piece in court, if SMSL are silly enough to base their case on such a flawed report.
      Surely your not naive enough to be suggesting Lynas enviro controls are not up to Chinese standards? Then again, you probably are.

      • Hi Tim,

        I am not an expert. That´s because I am irritated by differing statements from experts like Jack Lifton or the author of this report Mr. Schmidt.

        If the conclusions of the oeko-report are flawed, Lynas could sue the editors of this report because it is damaging it´s reputation. But the oeko institute is a highly respected scientific based institution in germany. Surely they wouldn´t have produced it without being sure about the facts they have claimed.

        I believe and I hope that Lynas is doing much better than the chinese regarding environment, but I don´t know this.

        I would appreciate very much if Jack Lifton could clear the picture about this matter. At least he might know what the staff at the LAMP thinks about the report.

        Thanks and regards

        Mathew

        • Hi Mathew,
          The report, commissioned by SMSL has a single author with modest credentials. It has several crucial flaws but I’ll mention just a few.
          1. The radiation standard he used was way below International best practice: by a factor of 100 if I recall. He then simply declares everything related to LAMP hazardous. (Including downtown Gebeng if the monitors there are correct. Before the LAMP fired up!!)
          2. He used the wrong plans for the residue storage in his critique.
          3. In the absence of tested residue samples he assumes that maximum thorium goes into EACH of the residues: ie thorium out = 3x thorium in. It nearly all concentrates in just one.
          4. He assumes insoluble thorium can penetrate heavy plastic membranes and fails to note that even if some did it would bind strongly to the thick clay layer beneath.

          That’s just a sample…

          • Hi Jan,

            I have sent your comment to the author of the report, Mr. Gerhard Schmidt. Here is his answer.

            Regards, Mathew

            Dear unknown commentator,

            Not very reliable.

            > The report, commissioned by SMSL has a single author with modest
            > credentials.

            What is the difference between a single author and several ones? Does that alone cause a quality difference? Un-reflected criterion …

            > It has several crucial flaws but I’ll mention just a few.

            > 1. The radiation standard he used was way below International best practice:
            > by a factor of 100 if I recall. He then simply declares everything related to
            > LAMP hazardous. (Including downtown Gebeng if the monitors there are
            > correct. Before the LAMP fired up!!)

            International best practice is not used here as criterion, also not internationally worst practice (everyone knows nice examples about the latter, but should those be a sustainable company policy?).
            The radiation standard applied here are the Basic International Safety Standards as set by FAO, IAEA and several other organizations for exemptions from regulatory control (individual: 10 µSv/a, collective: 1 manSv/a). They are not self-made, but international radiation protection standards. If someone wants to define his own, it would not be wise to use natural background because of the large health damages that are caused by this natural background. In case of unawareness: yes, natural radiation is risky and sometimes even dangerous! If you need literature to calculate health damages from natural background, search for UNSCEAR and natural background radiation. You’ll find lots of data material and scientific analysis there, so you don’t need to believe a single German scientist.
            For industrial activities, the 1-in- a-million-risk-standard is state-of-the-art, and also applied in Malaysia (e.g. for chemical plants). So why accept a 100-fold than that, just because it is Lynas? The company with the “zero harm” slogan?
            Basically, what has the industrial production of 1.2 Mio. tons of mill tailings to do with natural background?

            > 2. He used the wrong plans for the residue storage in his critique.

            That is an absolutely interesting argument:
            - What would be changing in the report if this picture would be completely removed? Absolutely nothing.
            - Where is a updated plan publicly available? I didn’t find one. The commentator seems to have one, so send it to me! I’ll be exchanging it in the next update (with no other consequences for the text and evaluations).
            - What error or false statement or whatever consequences result from this plan?
            - The difference between a 1.0 and a 1.5 mm HDPE layer is nearly nothing: both qualities would not be allowed here in Germany for an industrial waste storage facility, only for the construction of private garden lakes where small leakages doesn’t matter (as long as it rains enough like in Germany or Malaysia).
            So what is commented here? If one doesn’t find relevant things let us rather move to completely irrelevant ones?

            > 3. In the absence of tested residue samples he assumes that maximum
            > thorium goes into EACH of the residues: ie thorium out = 3x thorium in. It
            > nearly all concentrates in just one.

            That is absolute nonsense, completely a lie and a serious defamation of the study author’s professionalism. The taken distribution of Thorium between the three waste streams was taken from Lynas documents and is clearly documented in Fig. 6.1 for WLP, (page 100: 5.9 Bq/g), Fig. 6.4 for NUF (page 101, 0.02 Bq/g) and in Fig. 6.5 for FGD (page 102, 0.04 Bq/g). So, are all these numbers all the same? Obviously not. So how come to state that I used such a nonsense assumption instead of the data published by Lynas?

            > 4. He assumes insoluble thorium can penetrate heavy plastic membranes and
            > fails to note that even if some did it would bind strongly to the thick clay layer
            > beneath.

            “He assumes” is completely untrue. I do not assume something here, I know the things that I write. If it would be an assumption I would write it exactly that way, so the reader gets an idea on how sure I am. Not a single “assume” in the chapter on the design of the RSF.
            The plastic membrane is a welded or glued multi-sheet installation. During welding or glue of those single membrane sheets those have to be thick enough to guarantee leak-tightness. If those are only 1 or 1.5 mm thick, no guarantee can be given that those are really leak-tight. So, no diffusion through plastic membranes is “assumed” here, it is the simple technical fact that welds can be pitted. And like a bathtub, which is 99% leak-tight, all the water leaves the tub if only 1% is not leak-tight, because the plug has been removed.
            In no case I write about Thorium leaving the RSF. The RSF is an industrial waste storage and no seepage water should leave the facility, unless it is proven that seepage water quality is at least equal or better than ground- or drinking water quality. No leaching analysis, no leachate characteristics or something else that allows to evaluate seepage water quality of the RSFs is in the EIA or other documents of Lynas that I got aware of. So seepage water quality is simply unknown. Water with an unknown quality has to be completely enclosed, because a loss of seepage water has unknown environmental consequences.
            The “thick” clay layer is simply 25 cm of clay. The same problem of leak-tightness prove applies here. I would rather call it “too thin to make sense”.
            Anything else underneath these two layer is not allowable to be used as a barrier for an industrial storage (unless water quality is … see above), just because these layers are not qualified to serve as a barrier. Do I need to write how qualifications of a barrier have to be proven?

            All in all the comment is simply unqualified.

            Gerhard Schmidt

          • GS: “What is the difference between a single author and several ones? Does that alone cause a quality difference? “
            JJ: Best practice is peer review: you substitute “The author wishes to express his thank for the reliable help of SMSL in getting documents and background information together, for the numerous open talks with Malaysians familiar with the issue…”.

            1. GS: “The radiation standard applied …. for exemptions from regulatory control (individual: 10 µSv/a, collective: 1 manSv/a).”

            JJ: At those levels absolutely no monitoring is warranted but they are misused by you to claim unacceptable danger.
            To quote the IAEA report p 10: “The control of doses as received by workers is more stringent than required by international standards as a result of the use of an ‘operational dose limit’ of 10 msv/year as compared with an overall dose limit of 20 msv/year”. Similar comment for public exposure. So I was inaccurate: you apply a threshold 200x lower than the IAEA.

            2. GS: “He used the wrong plans for the residue storage in his critique.
            What would be changing in the report if this picture would be completely removed?”

            JJ: Perhaps the claim on p60 “Since the base lining system of the RSF is weak by design, the facility will leak” would be better supported if you knew the design. Similarly your criticism of monitoring ignores various measures in the plan such as an under liner leak detection system & pit, pneumatic piezo meters to measure pore water pressure, inclinometer in order to detect any lateral movement, settlement markers and rod settlement gauges. It’s all in the PSC documentation.

            3. JJ I concede this point about multiple accounting of the Th. I must have misread it on my original read of the document.

            4. JJ: He assumes insoluble thorium can penetrate heavy plastic membranes…
            GS: “He assumes” is completely untrue. I do not assume something here, …. Not a single “assume” in the chapter on the design of the RSF. ……. In no case I write about Thorium leaving the RSF.

            JJ: Chapter 4 contains 21 assumptions if I counted correctly (some may have been repeated). These include p52 “it has to be assumed that all element/material constituents might be present in a soluble and geo-chemically mobile form” while elsewhere you state ”thorium is only soluble in hot concentrated sulfuric acid, dilution with water will render thorium insoluble”.
            On p 91 you claim of the RSF: ”The inappropriate layout will result in leakage of radioactive and toxic constituents to the near groundwater even under normal operating conditions.”. How does that sit with your claims above? If, as you maintain elsewhere mistakes are lies, then how many of your contradictory statements here are lies?

            Overall the report is biased, incompetent or both.

        • One last comment “And like a bathtub, which is 99% leak-tight, all the water leaves the tub if only 1% is not leak-tight, because the plug has been removed.”
          This is a truly stupid analogy. What if the bathtub is filled with paste? Maybe a drop will escape, probably not.

        • Matthew,

          Would appreciate it if you could pass along my queries to Gerhard below but perhaps you might like to ask him a direct question regarding the process of engagement between the oeke institute and the SMSL registered company.
          “How does the oeko institute maintain it’s integrity when appointing a sole author to a study commissioned by a company who’s sole purpose is the blocking of the subject of the study?
          Is the report intended as an impartial scientific study or simply a paid advocacy for the claims of SMSL?”

          You’ll note that neither the AELB or Lynas have felt it necessary to respond to Gerhard’s work.
          SMSL have suggested it will be submitted as “evidence” and form the basis of their case in one of the upcoming court cases defended by both the AELB & Lynas.
          Suggest both have a preference to deal with this report in a legal setting, rather than social media.

  3. Gerhard,

    As part of your study did you consult with Lynas regarding your conclusions, or approach them directly for some of the information you say is lacking? Did you request an internal inspection of the LAMP or meet with any of Lynas’s technical staff regarding your concerns?

    Have you consulted with the AELB, the local authority, regarding their criteria for approving the LAMP for operation, particularly in relation to where you feel there were short comings?

    Have you consulted the IAEA regarding their report that the LAMP was essentially safe to operate? As an individual how do you feel you are better qualified to comment on LAMP safety than the international team from the IAEA?

    Interestingly, Christoph Wilhelm from the Karlsruhr Institute of Technology, the man in charge of decommissioning Germany’s nuclear plants inspected the LAMP re radiation safety and made the comment “I would move my wife and young children to live in that plant because the background radiation is lower than where I live in Germany.”

    How is it that you alone find differently to Wilhelm, the AELB & the IAEA teams, who were all impartial commentators versus your commissioned status?

    As a sole author, for the sake of credibility, please detail the process of external peer review for your report.

    BTW, I’m certainly no radiation expert but I’m pretty confident you missed the first stage dilution of the WPL. Kinda makes the rest of your numbers look rather silly.

    • Good questions Tim.
      The answer is “of course not”. He knows who to talk to:
      ““The author wishes to express his thank for the reliable help of SMSL in getting documents and background information together, for the numerous open talks with Malaysians familiar with the issue”.
      The report was funded by SMSL and respects their toxic political agenda.

      • The following article really makes you wonder how seriously Gerhard’s oeko report is taken by anyone other than the small, noisy band of agitators that paid for it, and apparently supplied all the background material:

        “UPWARD TREND: Prices likely to soar with launch of MCKIP in Gebeng KUANTAN: PEOPLE continue to buy and rent houses here despite the Lynas issue being politicised and exploited.

        The launching of the Malaysia-China Kuantan Industrial park (MCKIP) in Gebeng on Tuesday will also boost property prices as more people are expected to buy or rent houses in the surrounding areas.

        State Real Estate Housing Developers Association chairman Cheoh Chee Guan said none of the buyers had expressed concerns about Lynas when they bought the properties here.

        “Nobody asked any question about it (Lynas) at all. This is reflected in brisk demand for houses in areas like Balok which are priced between RM150,000 to RM180,000 per unit,” he said adding that most people understood that it was all right to live near the controversial plant.

        Lynas Advanced Materials Plant has been a bone of contention for the opposition, although foreign and local experts have confirmed that it is a normal chemical plant that will not harm the people and the environment.”
        “At present, he said at least 50 developers were actively involved in housing projects in Kuantan.”

        Full article:
        http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/kuantan-property-demand-strong-in-spite-of-plant-1.214374

  4. “- Where is a updated plan publicly available? I didn’t find one. The commentator seems to have one, so send it to me! I’ll be exchanging it in the next update (with no other consequences for the text and evaluations).”

    The Lamp RSF description in the IAEA report p.17. This document is referenced in the Oeko report. Publicly available information. Poor research on Gerhard Schmidt behalf.

    The detailed design of the RSF is presented in “Residue Storage Facility –
    Detailed Design Report” dated 11 December 2009 and takes into consideration the geological, hydrological and meteorological characteristics of the site and the nature of the waste to be stored. The embankments for the residue storage cells and waste water treatment plant lagoons are constructed of earth fill and/or dried and compacted FGD and NUF residues. The design of these embankments has included extensive geotechnical analysis and modelling to ensure acceptable factors of safety. Seepage analysis and settlement analysis of embankments were also carried out during the design. Embankment slopes and basins incorporate leachate control measures, decant water structures, erosion protection and emergency spillways. The design process has also incorporated an analysis of failures such as ground subsidence and embankment failure.

    http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/pdf/lynas-report2011.pdf

    • - The difference between a 1.0 and a 1.5 mm HDPE layer is nearly nothing: both qualities would not be allowed here in Germany for an industrial waste storage facility, only for the construction of private garden lakes where small leakages doesn’t matter (as long as it rains enough like in Germany or Malaysia).

      Gerhard Schmidt must be an expert in manufacturing HDPE liners. There are many aspects that need to be considered when selecting the correct HDPE liner for an RSF. Foundations, liner bedding, over liner and effective normal stress that the liner will be subject to just to name a few. At no time does Gerhard Schmidt offer an reasoning as to why Lynas RSF design is inadequate except when mentioning “it would not be allowed in Germany”. How is the welding of 2.5 mm HDPE liner sections going to prevent leakage better than welding 1.6mm HDPE? Does he have any scientific study’s to prove this assumption? As mentioned above, selecting a HDPE liner is much more involved than “Germany would not allow it”. Senior researcher indeed.

  5. You can take “Radiophobia” to extremes.
    Radionuclides are found naturally in the air,
    food,& water. You will probably find them in your body.
    Natural radioacitivy is common in rocks,soils,water,oceans,
    building material,etc.
    Is there anywhere on this planet that you cannot find
    natural radioactivity?
    I was raised in a mining family and my father used nasty yellow
    powdered chunks of uranium as props on the window sills.
    I live most of the year in Nevada…I probably have ingested
    radionuclides for years.
    My point is that you should not be panic stricked over
    moderate or low levels of radiation.
    …and I subscribe to the school of thought that these levels
    of radioactive exposure are actually beneficial to your health.
    Drop your geiger counters and take a course in “Hormesis”.

    • So, given that you subscribe to this Hormesis jazz, what is the optimal dose of radiation (below which, more is better, and above which, more is worse)? Perhaps you feel that LAMP will not provide enough radiation to the surrounding populace, and they should hold out for changes by Lynas to increase the radiation?

      • EVEN UNSCEAR NOW ADMIT 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.

        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.

        Now the Japanese people can start eating their own food again and stop being as afraid. Source: United Nations

        A very big report came out last month with very little fanfare.

        IT CONCLUDED WHAT WE IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR DECADES –

        RADIATION DOSES LESS THAN ABOUT 10 rem ( 0.1 Sv ) ARE NO BIG DEAL.

        (Note: 0.1 Sv = 100 mSv or 50,000 times Lynas worst case scenario)

        The linear no-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) does not apply to doses less than 10 rem (0.1 Sv), which is the region encompassing background levels around the world, and is the region of most importance to nuclear energy, most medical procedures and most areas affected by accidents like Fukushima.

        The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (UNSCEAR 2012) submitted the report that, among other things, states that uncertainties at low doses are such that UNSCEAR “does not recommend multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or below natural background levels.”

        You know, like everyone’s been doing since Chernobyl. Like everyone’s still doing with Fukushima.

        Finally, the world may come to its senses and not waste time on the things that aren’t hurting us and spend time on the things that are.

        And on the people that are in real need. Like the infrastructure and economic destruction wrought by the tsunami, like cleaning up the actual hot spots around Fukushima, like caring for the tens of thousands of Japanese living in fear of radiation levels so low that the fear itself is the only thing that is hurting them, like seriously preparing to restart their nuclear fleet and listening to the IAEA and the U.S. when we suggest improvements.

        The advice on radiation in this report will clarify what can, and cannot, be said about low dose radiation health effects on individuals and large populations.

        Background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 350 mrem (3.5 mSv) will not raise cancer rates or have any discernable effects on public health.

        Likewise, background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 100 mrem (1 mSv) will not decrease cancer rates or effect any other public health issue.

        Note – although most discussions are for acute doses (all at once) the same amount as a chronic dose (metered out over a longer time period like a year) is even less effecting. So 10 rem (0.1 Sv) per year, either as acute or chronic, has no effect, while 10 rem per month would.

        UNSCEAR also found no observable health effects from last year’s nuclear accident in Fukushima. No effects.

        The Japanese people can start eating their own food again, and moving back into areas only lightly contaminated with radiation levels that are similar to background in many areas of the world like Colorado and Brazil.” Unquote.

        Dr Looi Hoong Wah

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

  6. Hello Jan, Tim, Goofy, George and Bob,

    thanks for the answers. I am not an expert and don´t know who is right and who is wrong. But your answers sound reasonable.

    I have sent Gerhard Schmidt the link to this page so that he could express his opinion here if he likes. But I am not sure if he wants to defend himself. The case with SMSL will be at court so we finally will hear what the outcome is.

    regards

    Mathew

    • Matthew, I’m not asking Schmidt to defend himself but rather the damning information he has put in the public forum as a paid consultant of a registered company SMSL. He seems to suggest it was a “scientific” study but did he consult all stakeholders? Was there an acceptable peer review process, and by whom?
      No matter, it’s validity & accuracy will be tested in a court of law shortly and perhaps Schmidt may hear a little more on the matter. Be interesting to know if he plans to be court to present and defend his study.

  7. The German author of the oeko report lacks any form of credability in commenting on the LAMP or Lynas, the report was commisioned from the anti Lynas group, Gerhard Schmidt is just a stooge.

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

  9. 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

    • TYPO:

      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 !

      TO BE REPLACED WITH:

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

      100,000 x10^15 femtometers/hr or

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

  10. Quote Anti-Lynas: ” The recent floods in Kuantan shows that Lynas is lying about their waste retention ponds….even when there is no flood the ponds will leak through the thin plastic lining” Unquote.

    COMMENT:

    The retention ponds are built above ground with a thick outer wall of more than 3 meters high that is strenghtened with large granite boulders. As such no flood will be able to breach the wall and wash out the residues.

    Even if we have a Super Tsunami that is capable of washing away all the residues, so what !

    Even if the ponds leak, so what !

    The WLP which is only very weakly radioactive with 6 Bq will just blend with the rest of the native Thorium-232 in the Malaysian soil in the Gebeng area and becomes part of the landscape.

    Thorium-232 is strongly bound (adsorbed) by soil especially clay soil. The thorium concentration in the clay particles is about 500,000% higher than in the water between the clay particles (the interstitial spaces of the clay particles). So, it cannot be leached out by water or intestinal juice.

    When ingested, there is insignificant absorption of the thorium because of this strong bond between clay particles and thorium. Practically all the thorium will be excreted in the faeces with the clay.

    So the actual amount of thorium that is absorbed into the blood stream when mixed with clay soil as in the case of the Lynas waste is much, much less than 0.02% as stated in the EPA article.

    Since Lynas waste contains 1,650 parts of thorium per million and even if we take the inflated rate of 0.02% absorption, it would mean that to get 0.33g of thorium into the blood stream, we have to swallow 1,000kg (1 tonne) of Lynas waste!

    Practically all the data on the carcinogenic effects of thorium-232 was obtained retrospectively from the intravenous use of a massive dose of thorium dioxide called Thorotrast (a 25cc vial of a 25% colloidal suspension of thorium dioxide) in investigative radiological studies.

    Studies appear to show that a small number out of the 4 million patients who were given this massive dose of 1 to 3 vials (containing 5.58g to 16.7g of thorium) of Thorotrast, developed cancer especially of the liver 25 to 30 years later in their old age.

    So 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!

    Note: Malaysian soil (if SG ~ 1.25) has 20 ppm of Thorium-232 and a tiny piece of Malaysian Land 165 meters by 165 meters and 165 meters deep will

    CONTAIN 98.8 TONNES OF THORIUM-232

    AND THAT IS MORE THAN THE THORIUM-232 IN ALL THE LYNAS “WASTE” ACCUMULATED IN 1 YEAR.

    So even the top metre of soil (if SG ~ 2.5) in a Malaysian garden of 10 x 40 metres will contain

    20 Kilograms of thorium-232 ! or

    81,600,000 Bq of activity !

    As such the WLP will not significantly increase the concentration of the Thorium in the local soil.

    Thorium-232 is strongly adsorbed to clay. There is no natural way it can get into the human 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 nomal 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 and co-author of the IAEA Safety Report on Radiation:

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

    Dr Looi Hoong Wah
    FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London)
    *
    http://kickdefella.net/2012/04/17/lynas-negligible-radiation-but-only-toxic-chemical-waste/#more-5242

  11. 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

    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.”

    #####

    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

    #####

    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.

    #####

    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. K-40 is always in your body, Th-232 is never in your body in any significant amount.

    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.

    ####

    26. Study by scientists at John Hopkins University published in 1988 by American Journal of Epidemiology, concluded that, their study plus the fact that there is NO CONGENITAL DEFECTS DEMONSTRATED IN STUDIES ON THE ATOMIC BOMB SURVIVORS IN HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI, suggests that

    LOW DOSE RADIATION CANNOT CAUSE CONGENITAL DEFECTS.

    Even UNSCEAR has now admitted THAT RADIATION DOSES of LESS THAN ABOUT 10 rem (100 mSv ) per year ARE SAFE.

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

    Dato' Dr Looi Hoong Wah.
    FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London).
    *
    http://kickdefella.net/2012/04/17/lynas-negligible-radiation-but-only-toxic-chemical-waste/#more-5242

  12. Mr. Gerhard Schmidt: you probably will not answer the questions posted at this blog, just like you did not answer mine just after the publication of the OEKO (?, or just Schmidt)-report payed for by SMSL. Not consulting the accused party is makes this report ver unscientific.

  13. I would suspect that most of us believe that the
    outcome of the Lynas LAMP project will be
    determined by Politics rather than the Scientific Community.
    The below URL will lead you to a book on Nuclear Power
    environmental concerns issued by University of Pittsburg
    in 1990.
    I think it is a good read for the general populus as it is
    written for the “Layperson” to understand… rather than
    the professionals working in the Industry.
    The LAMP “is not” a Nuclear Power Plant.
    However, some of the content addresses the concerns of
    the Anti-Lynas activists.
    (They should read this to alleviate their Phobias)

    I have started you out on chapter five.(Radiation)
    After reading the chapter I suggest that you go to the
    home page and pick out the chapters that are of interest
    to you….have a good weekend.
    http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html

  14. EVEN UNSCEAR NOW ADMIT 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.

    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.

    Now the Japanese people can start eating their own food again and stop being as afraid. Source: United Nations

    A very big report came out last month with very little fanfare.

    IT CONCLUDED WHAT WE IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR DECADES –

    RADIATION DOSES LESS THAN ABOUT 10 rem ( 0.1 Sv ) ARE NO BIG DEAL.

    (Note: 0.1 Sv = 100 mSv or 50,000 times Lynas worst case scenario)

    The linear no-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) does not apply to doses less than 10 rem (0.1 Sv), which is the region encompassing background levels around the world, and is the region of most importance to nuclear energy, most medical procedures and most areas affected by accidents like Fukushima.

    The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (UNSCEAR 2012) submitted the report that, among other things, states that uncertainties at low doses are such that UNSCEAR “does not recommend multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or below natural background levels.”

    You know, like everyone’s been doing since Chernobyl. Like everyone’s still doing with Fukushima.

    Finally, the world may come to its senses and not waste time on the things that aren’t hurting us and spend time on the things that are.

    And on the people that are in real need. Like the infrastructure and economic destruction wrought by the tsunami, like cleaning up the actual hot spots around Fukushima, like caring for the tens of thousands of Japanese living in fear of radiation levels so low that the fear itself is the only thing that is hurting them, like seriously preparing to restart their nuclear fleet and listening to the IAEA and the U.S. when we suggest improvements.

    The advice on radiation in this report will clarify what can, and cannot, be said about low dose radiation health effects on individuals and large populations.

    Background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 350 mrem (3.5 mSv) will not raise cancer rates or have any discernable effects on public health.

    Likewise, background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 100 mrem (1 mSv) will not decrease cancer rates or effect any other public health issue.

    Note – although most discussions are for acute doses (all at once) the same amount as a chronic dose (metered out over a longer time period like a year) is even less effecting. So 10 rem (0.1 Sv) per year, either as acute or chronic, has no effect, while 10 rem per month would.

    UNSCEAR also found no observable health effects from last year’s nuclear accident in Fukushima. No effects.

    The Japanese people can start eating their own food again, and moving back into areas only lightly contaminated with radiation levels that are similar to background in many areas of the world like Colorado and Brazil.” Unquote.

    Dr Looi

  15. (Please Note: This statement by Gerhard Schmidt has been copied and extensively propagated in all blogs and Facebook pages of the cyberspace by the Anti-Lynas folks.)

    Quote Gerhard Schmidt, of Oeko Institute said:

    “MAIN RESULTS: WASTE MANAGEMENT

    Our own dose calculation based on Lynas waste data shows:

    # The WLP waste with the highest radioactive content would be by a factor of more than 1,000 above internationally accepted protection levels for the release of radioactive materials from regulatory control (Beyond Regulatory Concern, BRC level).

    # Even if diluted 1:1 with gypsum the WLP waste is 200-fold above those internationally accepted levels!

    # Even if diluted 1:100 with gypsum (technically unrealistic) the doses would still exceed BRC level!

    # Even the less contaminated wastes FGD and NUF are above that level and require 1:4 resp. 1:9 mixing before they can be released (assumed that the material properties meet the necessary requirements and their toxic by-product content is below any non-radiological environmental concern).”

    Unquote.

    COMMENT:

    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. This is the only slightly radioactive residue at ~ 6 Bq/gm or about 5.7 Bq/g of Thorium-232.

    2. FGD .. the Flue Gas Desulphurisation Residue (FGD) from the waste gas treatment system (scrubber) ~ 12 ppm,

    3. NUF .. Neutralisation Underflow Solids from the wastewater treatment process (NUF) ~ 7 ppm of Thorium-232

    BOTH THE FGD AND NUF HAS LESS THAN 12 ppm (parts per million) of THORIUM-232.

    MALAYSIAN SOIL HAS AN AVERAGE OF 20 ppm of Thorium

    Quote Nick Tsurikov, International Radiation Safety Expert and Co-Author of the IAEA Safety Report on Radioactivity:

    ” 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.

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

    SO, ACCORDING TO OEKO, If 12 ppm are above that level and require 1:4 resp. 1:9 mixing before they can be released,

    WHAT ABOUT ALL THE SOIL IN THE WHOLE OF MALAYSIA WHICH HAS 20 ppm OF THORIUM ?

    THE WHOLE OF MALAYSIA IS above internationally accepted protection levels for the release of radioactive materials from regulatory control (Beyond Regulatory Concern, BRC level).

    ALL MALAYSIANS HAVE TO MIGRATE TO GERMANY OR SWIM TO AUSTRALIA !

    THIS IS JUST PURE INSANITY ! ! !

    With reference to the misleading claim that the radioactivity from the Lynas “waste” was 1,000 TIMES ABOVE INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED PROTECTION LEVELS for the release of radioactive materials from regulatory control, have a look at this rebuttal 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…” Unquote.

    Dr Looi

  16. I have sent mr Schmidt an email today ( in German) asking him why he did not respond to the reasonable questions asked here. I resend him the link of the blog, so he is able to respond soon…

  17. *
    QUOTE REPORT ON LYNAS BY OEKO :

    “3.1.3 Gamma doses and dose limitations

    The gamma rays, emitted during the decay, can easily be detected.

    In the vicinity of the ore concentrate a gamma dose rate of 2 to 3 μSv/h can be measured, adding up to approx. 26 mSv/a if a person were to stay for a whole year (8,760 h/a) in this vi-cinity..

    This dose would

    • slightly exceed the adopted protection level for workers of 20 mSv/a,

    • exceed accepted protection levels for the general public from the controlled emissions of nuclear installations of 1 mSv/a by a factor of 26..” UNQUOTE.

    COMMENT:

    The dose coefficients given by IAEA is 0.39 microSv/hr/Bq/g for radiation at 1 metre from a pile of Thorium, and by UNSCEAR is 0.604 microSv/hr/Bq/gm for radiation dose from an infinite field of Thorium.

    Therefore if a worker is at 1 metre from a pile of Lynas waste, he would be exposed to a dose of:

    0.39 x 6 = 2.34 uSv/h

    AND SINCE NO LIVE SANE WORKER CAN EVER STAND IN FRONT OF A PILE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE 24 HOURS A DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR, WE CANNOT SAY THAT:

    the annual dose is “approx. 26 mSv/a if a person were to stay for a whole year (8,760 h/a) in this vi-cinity!”

    This shows that our learned friend Gerhard Schmidt has absolutely no idea on how the dosage workers are exposed to, is calculated.

    IN THE MEDICAL FIELD, WE NORMALLY TAKE THE MAXIMUN HOURS THAT A WORKER CAN BE EXPOSED IS 2,000 HOURS PER YEAR.

    A WORKER NORMALLY WORKS 40 HOURS PER WEEK, GIVING A TOTAL OF 2,080 hrs per year.

    This is already an overestimation for no worker would be standing at 1 metre from a pile of Lynas waste for every second of the day while he is working!

    So the actual dose that a worker at Lynas receive, cannot be more than:

    2.34 x 2,000 = 4.68 mSv per year.

    This dosage is well below that of the protection level for workers of 20 mSv/a as prescribed by the ICRP.

    As far as the claim that the dose exceed accepted protection levels for the general public from the controlled emissions of nuclear installations of 1 mSv/a by a factor of 26:

    THIS IS ANOTHER SICK JOKE BECAUSE NO NORMAL, SANE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE STANDING NEXT TO A LARGE PILE OF LYNAS “WASTE” 24 hrs OF THE DAY FOR 365 DAYS IN A YEAR ! ! !

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>