Discussion: Lynas issue

[youngyew]

Originally Posted by Seiryu

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.

Radioactivity level associated with Lynas waste, even in the case of an actual accident, is not "deformed baby" level, that is a fact. I am just pointing out that it's misinformed to bring out the "deformed baby" photo (you can find plenty of examples of that in the anti-Lynas gatherings).

I am not calling all common protestors wrong, I am just pointing out some of the misconceptions.

I am not opposing the protestors. There are many valid points, but the extent of danger believed by many is exaggerated, that's what I am calling out.

You seem to believe that I am categorically opposing the anti-Lynas people, which obviously is not the case. You are misinformed. I don't strongly identify with a particular camp in this controversy, but if you were to ask me, I would call myself slightly inclined towards anti-Lynas, but not based on many of the misinformed and fear-mongering reasons.

That aside, I actually agree with your point with the distrust of the government in terms of regulation and maintenance. I am simply pointing out the misinformed fear, not denying the deep seated distrust.

Don't jump to conclusion the next time. It's never a good idea, especially in a forum where all you could infer from is a written post which may not capture the whole depth of one's thought and perception.

[Nicholas92]

Originally Posted by Seiryu

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.

I'm sorry, but I think characterising some of our objections with regards to the issue as 'elitist' or 'arrogant' is pretty unfair. In the first place, thinking that someone with different or opposing views to your own is in the 'wrong standpoint' and thinking your own views is the 'right standpoint' is what everyone naturally does - or else it wouldn't be called 'belief', would it? Is it arrogant if say I believe that the world is round, and that I am right? Would it be arrogant if I think that flat-earth proponents are wrong? I don't think so, because by definition if we believe in something, then obviously we take those beliefs as true, and then by extension we think we are right in that.

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?

I don't think anyone here is pro-Lynas in the sense that we are saying 'The Lynas project should go forward!'. In fact I think if anything, we're mostly wary of the project, for all the reasons you've very rightly pointed out (I agree with your points completely). At the very least, what I'm objecting against is the amount of misinformation used to lead people in objecting to Lynas. Should the people oppose the project? Yes, in my opinion - our government's track record speaks volumes as you've said. But does that mean it is alright that they be misinformed in order to do so? No, it is not, because it means that for any other issue, people can be misled as well. I don't think it is elitist or arrogant to suggest that the various parties involved in the issue (read: not the people themselves) should be more careful and more honest in disseminating information.

If I'm being honest, I doubt it's an issue of education - to me it's an issue of access. I'm not calling the opposition overblown because I studied radioactivity or rare earths or the Bukit Merah incident - I take my stand because I've got an Internet connection, and I thought of doing a little bit of research just to see what it's all about. Yes, education does certainly come into play, but for our society I think it goes beyond that. This is also pretty much the issue with our politics - it's not that the people in rural areas support the government more because they're less educated, it's because they've had less access to both sides of the issue.

Anyway, I'd like to bring up a quote to explain something:

"Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
Lord Hewart

In other words (in the context of this Lynas issue), it's not enough that something is in absolute terms good - it must be perceived as good too. Which means that just because we all say that rare earth plants can be safe and the whole project can be carried out with no incident, does not mean that we are proposing that the company bulldozes ahead with the project despite the objections of the locals, whether founded or unfounded. It is not enough for Lynas to be scientifically safe. The people must see it as safe too. So despite the fact that I'm against people making misinformed decisions on the matter, I would never ask that they go ahead with the project there if so many people are still against it.

(Reading many articles about the issue, it's pretty clear a lot of people are very nervous about the project, and worried about their own living - that's enough reason to not have it)

In fact the IAEA themselves advocated communicating with the people in their Lynas report - they've noted that for things like this it's important not just to meet physical standards of safety, but to make assurances that the place actually is safe for the sake for perception.

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.

Rather I think the problem some of us are trying to get at is that it would be a shame (and indeed it would) if an otherwise safe and potentially (only potentially, for now) beneficial project is scrapped because people are afraid. Of course, Lynas has still not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it is safe and will be safe, but I suppose that some of us fear that even if they did, the misinformation would still be enough to inspire some irrational opposition to the project. IF is the key word here. They have not so far, and so the problem does not yet arise.

The feeling I'm getting from what you're saying here, if I'm not misunderstanding it, is that you think we're making all the claims that the plant will be safe and that it's a non-issue, only to seemingly make all that meaningless by saying that oh, in the end it's not quite assuredly safe after all. That is not the case. We are not lumping all opponents of Lynas into one group, and we are saying that for those who oppose the plant based on exaggerated claims and wrong facts, they should be given the right information. In addition we also note that a lot of the opposition ALSO stems from distrust of government, to which we are saying YES, that is valid.

I hope none of us are 'insinuating the air of arrogance anymore'. Thanks.

[adele123]

@cactus
i understand and agree with what you say, maybe i'm not the best at making formal arguments, especially not when i don't really know a lot about this in the 1st place. What you were refering to, i wasn't really refering to the lynas issue (i said digress) though it can be applied here.

what i mean is that don't simply say no because one fear the worse happening, rather fear that one is not doing their best in preventing the worse from happening or fear for the reasons you said (ie cost vs benefit, etc). i guess objectivity being the point here.

PS: i don't understand why i get branded as actuarial student, it's what i study, what i plan to work as, but totally does not define who i am. don't let me know what you study then i'll brand you as ______ student

[plawks]

Do note that wtihout this bunch of misinformed people participating rallies protesting for the wrong reason (albeit noble cause), this lynas issue wouldn't have garnered publicity of such magnitude, eg: reported by nytimes.

Though so, to a certain extent I support the construction of LAMP if full transparency is achieved in the waste management aspect. But I dare not further elaborate and substantiate my point because I know if I do so I'll be sucked into this endless vortex of debate. I admit that I can't really handle argumentation well.

[frankchong]

We have a problem of trust, risk and reward management, there are many examples of the developers/project owners and politicians getting hugh direct benefit, leaving the diastrous consequences to the people affected. One party gets most of the benefit, whereas the other parties are left with mostly the problems. I am not against politicians earning reasonable living while serving the country, but some of them have enriched themselves to literally billions of dollars is just NOT right.
It is true that rare earth processing is not as dangerous as a nuclear reactor and the intensity of radioactive waste is no where compare to the spent nuclear ful, but it is the waste disposal and containment over time that concerns me, in most big or development projects, those problem we know we can mitigate, it is the unknown problems that surface over time that are not predictable. Besides talking about the benefits, is there a trust fund set up for those unexpected issues that affect the residents around the plant? Are there penalty for people who benefit from the projects to pay for the unintended consequences?
The whole rare earth issue arises because of developed countries require the miners/processor to take responsibility of the environmental impact in their own country and hence production shifted to China where environmental control was not so strict. China saw the consequences and limited their rare earth export/mining and try to limit rare earth mining/processing to a few large companies where things could be better controlled. Now companies are looking for other places to mine and process the rare earth minerals, is Malaysia learning from the experiences of the developed countries and China so that we don't repeat their history? I the developed countries and China, the miners/processors are the local companies, so if things go really wrong, the companies could be shut down.
"Experts" are a dime a dozen, unless we can tie their rewards to the actual long term outcome of the project, you can not be sure they just tell us what is politically correct or what would give them the most benefit at the time.
We are in this bind because Malaysia was preoccupied in the the last fifty years on a lots of things that made Malaysia less competitive, instead of being able to be at the top end of the food chain, it can oly compete on things that depend on natural resource extraction/processing and on cost.

I am not against development, but I want responsible development. The government's history of privatising profitable GLC and use public fund to bail out the losses is just wrong and does not build trust. If it makes money, it belong to the few well connected, but the losses are covered by the public, a game of head I win and tail you lost! The public is just voicing their opinion that they just don't want to play this game any more.
So, fellow Malaysias, I don't think we are against each other, we just want to be fair.

Best regards,
Frank

[yanno_yamster]

Shuwenteo, do you know the picture you have posted is considered indecent? And also, rather than just posting pictures can you at least give some reasonable explanation as to why you're against Lynas?

[Nicholas92]

Yeah I think a mod is probably gonna remove it soon...it's not like it bothers me personally, but I don't think it has a place in a civilised forum. That plus I don't even know if those girls are really doing it to protest Lynas, it looks a lot more like typical students playing round at school.

[ayjiahui]

you know the first thing i thought of when i saw the surge of indecent pictures? spam bot.

[henry_yew]

Mod note: Please refrain from posting any form of media (be it in the form of text, animation or graphics) that contain profanity or indecency. While we do promote the freedom of speech here at ReCom, please do not cross the line beyond decency.

Shuwenteo, I am firm with the stand that you are free to post anything, even though they always lack elaboration from your part. However, please at least have the courtesy of conforming to social norms and the rules and regulations of ReCom. Please consider this your final warning.

Offensive material was removed.

Think before you post. Don't just post and not think.

[deragoku]

This is a rare-earth general plant impact on the environment? Or the outstanding issues of waste management? Or should this particular plant safety level?