Discussion: Lynas issue

[henry_yew]

Originally Posted by shuwenteo

Pollution in Sarawak is already out of control. Looks like Australia is indulging in that old trick of doing its dirty work offshore. Who benefited most from these mega projects?

Okay, let's out of topic for a while. Did you know how crazy is the oil palm plantation in Sarawak?? Take a look at this picture. The milky brown color indicates the oil palm plantation area in Samalaju.

(Picture removed to reduce clutter)

And what is your point, shuwenteo? You showed us a partial map of Sarawak, but I don't see a connection between the oil palm plantation and pollution. How is the pollution in Sarawak out of control? How is that similar to the case of Lynas (or indirectly, Australia)? How is something organic (oil palm) related to something that is inorganic (rare earth)?

The question is: How?

We want answers, too, not just rhetoric.

[Nicholas92]

I have to type this a bit quickly, but just to comment on your Fukushima point - ugh why does everyone end up saying the same thing? 'Look at Fukushima, built so well also shit happened in the end'. Discounting for the moment that this is a nuclear plant we're talking about (different story) out of all the many, MANY nuclear plants in the world, how many meltdowns and breakdowns can you name? Probably, only Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. That's IT. Out of so, so many. You know how unfortunate it was what happened at Fukushima? It was so damn unlucky because, what are the odds? The fallout is potentially very bad, yes, but when you take into account the odds (and the fact that when you look at it now, Fukushima still did not inflict as much damage as say the Boxing Day Tsunami) to me it's nonsensical to hold it up as a reason why we shouldn't build nuclear plants, let alone rare earth plants.

We might as well not build offshore oil rigs too, because on the off-chance something goes wrong, BAM - pollution and lots of crap.

But then, all the countries and consumers dependent on it would say otherwise.

[adele123]

^ i like the point you are making

almost similar to saying "don't drive a car too, cause there's a chance that one dies in a car accident"

let me digress a bit, everything has a chance of happening no matter how small, so do not object things because of that

[Cactus]

Originally Posted by adele123

^ i like the point you are making

almost similar to saying "don't drive a car too, cause there's a chance that one dies in a car accident"

let me digress a bit, everything has a chance of happening no matter how small, so do not object things because of that

I believe as an actuarial science student you'd agree that this statement needs some qualification.

I suppose in principle anything has a chance of happening, however small the chance is. But how small is small? Considering the probability of something "bad" actually happening versus the potential benefit (economic, political, social) "we" might reap, does the potential benefit outweighs the other opportunity cost and risk, and hence justifies the construction of the plant? Even if it does, WHO receives the benefit? Who bears the risk? Are the risk-bearers justly compensated? These are the issues that need address and should not, in my humble opinion, be simply brushed off with a one-liner like "everything has chance".

[youngyew]

Fear is irrational, and people cherry pick facts to feed and justify their irrational fear while disregarding the objective statistical truth.

Do you know that statistically more people are killed by vending machines than sharks?

Do you know that if you have serious kidney or heart disease, your likelihood of surviving more than 2 years is way less than most cancers?

Do you know that you have more chance of dying from a bee sting than commercial flights?

Do you know that coal fire stations output 10x more radiation than nuclear power plant, and for every person who dies from a nuclear plant, 4000 people would have died from coal power generation, for the same amount of power?

Yet we fear sharks, cancers and commercial flights more than vending machine, kidney disease and bees.

I concur there are safety aspects that need to be looked at closely for nuclear energy, and in this topic, (slightly) radioactive waste disposals; but let's be reminded that quite often fear clouds our objectivity, and if a "mutated alien baby" is what your mind conjures when you click "like" in Anti-Lynas activism, then your objectivity is already impaired.

[Seiryu]

Says a group of education elitists at recom.

So what if the commoners' collective objectivity is impaired? What if, all they fear from the bottom of their heart, is a deformed alien baby in the next generation? The people are not as educated as you are, but what they fear due to their little education, is not something the expert can pacify: which goes to show that the issue is tangible, deserve to be feared. The people are not convinced that the refinery is safe, and frankly, I am not convinced too, (further frankly, I can see that many of us here aren't as well). The structure of the building and the process of refinery is just the basic aspect of the safety issues (and even within this most basic context, the issue is not fully addressed, i.e. waste management). Moving on to the future, logistics of the rare earth elements within the nation, continuous careful management of operation within and the surrounding parameters, all requires meticulous and careful considerations. And frankly speaking, we as the commoners are not convinced that the government has given enough thoughts to these issues!

So what if all they fear from the bottom of their heart, is a deformed alien baby in the next generation? At least they are doing something to get the government on their feet to probe into this issue even deeper. We all share the same concern for the coming generations. Whether we share it from the same objectivity or not at this point, it really doesn't matter.

So kindly don't put yourselves so high and denigrate others just because they don't have a holier objectivity. At the root of this issue, we all share the same, good, intention and concern, and that's what matters.

[henry_yew]

Originally Posted by Nicholas92

I have to type this a bit quickly, but just to comment on your Fukushima point - ugh why does everyone end up saying the same thing? 'Look at Fukushima, built so well also shit happened in the end'. Discounting for the moment that this is a nuclear plant we're talking about (different story) out of all the many, MANY nuclear plants in the world, how many meltdowns and breakdowns can you name? Probably, only Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. That's IT. Out of so, so many. You know how unfortunate it was what happened at Fukushima? It was so damn unlucky because, what are the odds? The fallout is potentially very bad, yes, but when you take into account the odds (and the fact that when you look at it now, Fukushima still did not inflict as much damage as say the Boxing Day Tsunami) to me it's nonsensical to hold it up as a reason why we shouldn't build nuclear plants, let alone rare earth plants.

Since the issue of Fukushima was brought up, I happen to know a bit more on this, from a civil engineer's point of view. I just want to write all this because not many people understand the science behind designing this kind of extremely dangerous facility.

Now, get this straight: there is no such thing as a 100% earthquake-proof, tsunami-proof, alien-attack-proof, whatever-proof building. This goes to say that when nuclear reactors, or any other facilities that may potentially harm other individuals or the environment, were built, the designers (i.e. the engineers) are PERFECTLY aware that there is still A RISK that disaster can happen (as in the case of Fukushima). If you need it, deal with it. 'Nuff said (*civil engineering coldness*).

The reason that we cannot build structures or facilities that can withstand an earthquake of 10.0 magnitude or greater on the Richter scale is for three simple reasons:

1. It is economically prohibitive (sometimes disastrous)
2. As a result of point (1), it becomes impossible to design structures or facilities to withstand that kind of earthquake
3. There is no point designing a structure that can withstand the earthquake if all the other infrastructure is destroyed in the catastrophe and many, many lives are lost, too.

But the above three reasons do not stop us from reducing the risk of a great catastrophe. We can find out from the country's history of the records of previous earthquakes and determine the mean recurrence interval of an earthquake of a certain magnitude by means of statistics (what with all the Fischer-Tippett Type I distribution, Weibull Distribution, etc.). This implies that given the mean recurrence interval of an earthquake, the magnitude associated to that mean recurrence interval can be determined.

The mean recurrence interval roughly tell us what is the frequency of the earthquake happening at an area. For example, if we say that the mean recurrence interval of an earthquake in Sendai of magnitude 8.0 is 100 years, that means we would expect this kind of earthquake to occur in Sendai once every 100 years. Now, from all that Fischer-Tippett nonsense (even I have some problems totally comprehending the mathematics behind this - but it works!), we find that as you increase the mean recurrence interval, the magnitude of the earthquake increases as well. But if you double the mean recurrence interval, the magnitude does NOT double. This means for a 200-year mean recurrence interval, the magnitude of the earthquake could be 8.3; it could be 8.5 for a 500-year mean recurrence interval and so on.

Now, for all of you who think that so little safety is put into the design of reactors, some engineers are known to use a 5000-year mean recurrence interval; some may even use a 10000-year mean recurrence interval. Recently, there were talks that they might want to increase it to a 50000-year mean recurrence interval.

So, what does this all mean? This means that if we design a facility to withstand an earthquake with a mean recurrence interval of 50000 years, well, practically speaking, the risk of that kind of earthquake happening in our lifetime is absurdly low, right? We might not even see that kind of earthquake at all! But how would we know that that 50000-year earthquake has already happened in the near past? What if this year is the 49999th year that the earthquake of that magnitude hasn't occurred? That means we would expect that kind of earthquake to hit next year! Then again, probability and statistics are imperfect. It might be the 50000th year now, and that kind of earthquake may not happen as well. So, are we going to start panicking, and stop building reactors, offshore platforms, high-rise buildings, etc.?

So, what has this got to do with Lynas? Nothing. Merely just want to tell you that Fukushima (or Chernobyl for that matter) is an entirely different issue. Yes, both Fukushima and Lynas have something in common: radioactivity. But in the case of Fukushima, nothing could have been done to prevent catastrophe. Lynas, on the other hand, has the ability to do the right thing so that disasters don't happen.

But to bring up Fukushima and Bukit Merah in the protests against Lynas is not really doing Lynas any justice. Yes, we certainly understand that the people are concerned about having children with birth defects, or increasing number of people suffering from leukemia, but that alone will not stop Lynas from being approved for construction and operation (similarly, that alone does not stop Japan or other countries from building nuclear reactors), especially if time and again many other parties concur that Lynas "is safe". As much as the people refuse to believe it, well, it reflects one thing - that we have lack of trust. And why do we not trust Lynas despite their assurances? The whole deal seems fishy and not transparent enough.

But is that Lynas' problem? Or is it the government's problem?

The fact that contradicting statements (one said that the wastes would be transported back to Australia, another said they would be disposed somewhere far far away from residential areas, etc.) come from different people in power would easily cast a shadow of doubt on the whole issue, and because of this the people would go out and protest. But they have been barking at the wrong tree.

We are not putting up an elite or high-up attitude here to denigrate others when we smack down some hard facts against some exaggerated reasons. We want to correct perspectives. As I said, yes, we can be worried about birth defects, leukemia, etc. but bringing in Bukit Merah, Fukushima and Chernobyl does not strengthen the argument. (And we could extend to say that it is up to us to tell people the hard facts, but it is entirely up to them whether to believe or not. Knowing Malaysians, chances are that they will dismiss whatever that is factual, just because "you are not with us - go away".)

P/S: On a side note, if a 50000-year mean recurrence interval earthquake does hit the region, most of the population would probably be dead before the reactor collapses.

[youngyew]

Originally Posted by Seiryu

Whether we share it from the same objectivity or not at this point, it really doesn't matter.

So kindly don't put yourselves so high and denigrate others just because they don't have a holier objectivity. At the root of this issue, we all share the same, good, intention and concern, and that's what matters.

It matters when you are objecting against something from the wrong standpoint. I am not against activism, I am against misinformation.

I fail to see what I wrote that deserved your insinuating about my "arrogance". All I did was to implore for some objectivity which is often lost in the midst of anger. Your suggestion about my character is frankly bordering on slander. In what way was I denigrating others?

Anyway when I meant people would have been nonobjective if they have the mental image of deformed baby, I was referring to the fact that with the level of radioactivity that would be released in case of actual accident of the storage facility, it would at most cause mildly increased incidence of leukaemia, thyroid cancer etc in the nearby population, as supposed to badly deformed babies which are more commonly associated with very high dose of radiation and chemical pollution. (Examples of which are Chernobyl accident due to radiation, Minamata disease due to mercury, or phocomelia, arm defect due to thalidomide, a medication which was unfortunately taken for morning sickness before its adverse effect was discovered).

So if your are actually led to believe that Lynas will cause lots of deformed baby throughout the country in case of accident, you are being misled, and my debunking myths has nothing to do with bearing any sort of elitism or arrogance against everyone involved in the anti-Lynas activisim.

[Seiryu]

Originally Posted by youngyew

It matters when you are objecting against something from the wrong standpoint. I am not against activism, I am against misinformation.

I fail to see what I wrote that deserved your insinuating about my "arrogance". All I did was to implore for some objectivity which is often lost in the midst of anger. Your suggestion about my character is frankly bordering on slander. In what way was I denigrating others?

The suggestion I made earlier was not supposed to be targeted at you individually.

Nonetheless, you having thought that the common protestors are at the wrong standpoint, while this group is at the right standpoint, is insinuating the air of arrogance.

Everyone protesting LYNAS is on the right standpoint. The most important, fundamental standpoint is people agree that the refinery has not reached the political and operational assurance that it is safe for our future generation. If fundamentally the otherwise were true - this group is confident to champion that the refinery is safe -then yes, the standpoints differ, and proving why the others' standpoints are wrong is justified.
But the fact is, no matter how much you try to pedantically disprove the common protestors' evidences, play the game of shooting down the parallels, you come back to the same stance as the common protesters i.e. this issues need to be discussed further, with caveat that the protestors are "misinformed" and are "protesting for the wrong reason". Why flog a dead horse?

As a matter of fact, are we really so sure that the parallels drawn by the common protestors should be neglected? Engineers may tell us that LYNAS have differences that are worlds apart from the well known accidents, or how safe and careful these facilities can be built to avert a large scale catastrophe. Medicine can assure us that given the little exposure to radioactivity, the impact is confined. However, in real life above engineering and medicine, what governs are politics and management. Malaysian government is one with the history of doing things under the table, building apartments on loose footings and designing sewage system that causes floods. How can we be so sure that, despite flawless engineering (not exactly, we still have not dealt with the waste management issues) and the limited medical impact (how sure are we on this?), political mismanagement may not change the parameters? How then, can we flag the commoners' causes as "impaired objectivity", or that they are "misinformed", if they come from the basis of mistrusting the government?

To be perfectly honest, the level of affected assurance made by the group on an issue that is not really "assurable", further insinuates the air of arrogance.

[henry_yew]

Originally Posted by Seiryu

As a matter of fact, are we really so sure that the parallels drawn by the common protestors should be neglected? Engineers may tell us that LYNAS have differences that are worlds apart from the well known accidents, or how safe and careful these facilities can be built to avert a large scale catastrophe. Medicine can assure us that given the little exposure to radioactivity, the impact is confined. However, in real life above engineering and medicine, what governs are politics and management. Malaysian government is one with the history of doing things under the table, building apartments on loose footings and designing sewage system that causes floods. How can we be so sure that, despite flawless engineering (not exactly, we still have not dealt with the waste management issues) and the limited medical impact (how sure are we on this?), political mismanagement may not change the parameters? How then, can we flag the commoners' causes as "impaired objectivity", or that they are "misinformed", if they come from the basis of mistrusting the government?

Precisely. However, pointing the finger completely at Lynas doesn't really help solve the issue either. If it is the government that the people do not trust, then the protests ought to be directed towards the government ([sarcasm] hold a rally at the Parliament [/sarcasm]) for all those statements from different people that just don't connect. In the end, who is telling the truth about the waste management process? Or worse, is there nobody in the corridors of power who is telling the truth?

Lynas is just another investor in the country. It has to comply to the standards pertaining to waste management as drawn out by the DOE or other agencies (government or non-government). These people aren't likely to take the extra mile beyond what is stipulated by law (e.g. wastewater treatment plants don't need to disinfect treated wastewater before it is allowed to flow out into the rivers/lakes because there is no DOE requirement that wastewater has to be disinfected before it is allowed to be discharged, but civil engineers would maintain that wastewater MUST be disinfected for safety purposes).

The thing that we have been fed with is that our local laws are on par with international standards and things ought to be safe for us. The bigger issue is whether the country will really implement those policies, whether the government is clean enough not to allow Lynas to take shortcuts that can put our lives in jeopardy. We know for one thing that we have quite a lot of laws, but poor enforcement plagues the nation.

So, while it's true that all this hoo-ha wouldn't have started if Lynas never came to Malaysia in the first place, to put the blame entirely on Lynas would be unfair. Although the whole issue could have been politically motivated, Lynas shouldn't be dragged down into Malaysian politics where the element of mistrust has been there even before the whole Lynas fracas began.