Lynas' waste as harmless as table salt? Really?

A very well researched and written article by Mr Soo Jin Hou which was denied publication elsewhere....for what reason, I do not know.

In a highly publicized press conference on 3 April 2012, Lynas demonstrated that their WLP waste is lower in radioactivity than table salt [1] [2].  The implication of this experiment is very detrimental to the stop Lynas campaign.  One of the main rebuttal against the IAEA review is that its International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) model has underestimated the risk of internal emitters, which are radioactive particles that are ingested or inhaled.  If the common salt has higher radioactivity than Lynas' wastes, the entire argument on internal emitters will be void
.


Fortunately, Mr. Tan Sek Choong, feature writer from Merdekareview.com found out that Lynas has been misleading the public in their experiment [3].  He found out that the salt used is not the typical sodium chloride (NaCl) type used in Malaysian households, but a low-sodium substitute containing potassium chloride (KCl).  The brand of the substitute is Diet Rite Lite Salt and it is imported from Australia (see picture).  High sodium intake can lead to  hypertension, and the substitute is thought to be a healthier alternative, although KCl is toxic when consumed in excess [4].


The radioactive isotope potassium-40 (K-40) constitutes 0.012% of all potassium.  It  is the source of elevated radioactivity of the experimental salt.  By the omission of its real content, Lynas sought to create the false impression that typical Malaysians are already exposed to this source of radiation.

The table below compares the radioactivity of household salt, Diet Rite Lite Salt as well as the WLP waste:

Household Salt (NaCl)
Diet Rite Lite Salt (NaCl+KCl)
WLP Waste
Radioactive composition
Negligible
27.6% K [5] x 0.012% = 0.00331% K-40
0.1455% Th-232 (in 0.1655% ThO2),
0.0019% U-238 (in 0.00225% U3O8)
Decay rate per gram
Negligible
7.1x10-6 Ci/g [6] x 3.7x1010 Bq/Ci x 3.31x10-5 = 8.7 Bq/g
6.1 Bq/g
Radiation dosage measured during press conference
1.1 µSv/hour
0.7 µSv/hour
In theory, Diet Rite Lite Salt has higher decay rate than the WLP waste.  The radiation dosage taken during the press conference also shows higher reading.  Since the former is edible, does it mean that the WLP waste is safe?

K-40 is generally regarded as relatively safe within the medical community, despite its radioactivity [7].  The reasons are:

a) K-40 is distributed mostly in cancer resistant muscle tissue, whereas thorium (Th-232) is deposited mostly in leukemia prone bone tissue,

b) K-40 is easily excreted and it has a biological half-life of 30 days, compared to 22 years for Th-232 lodged in the bone,

c) Alpha radiation from Th-232 is 20 times more damaging than beta and gamma radiation from K-40.

d) The lifetime cancer mortality risk for the inhalation of Th-232 is 200 times greater than inhalation of K-40, and nearly 2000 times greater than ingestion of K-40 [6].

As a result, dosage for dosage, the Diet Rite Lite Salt poses much smaller threat compared to the WLP waste. 

Interestingly, not only does the medical community agrees that K-40 is relatively harmless, the IAEA and AELB also share similar opinion.  The clearance level for K-40 is 10 Bq/g for IAEA [8] and 100 Bq/g [9] for AELB, whereas for Th-232 it is 1 Bq/g.  This may be construed to mean that K-40 is 10 times and 100 times more harmless than Th-232 according to IAEA and AELB respectively.

The experiment is conducted by Lynas' radiological safety officer Prof. Dr. Ismail Bahari, an academician from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and a former board member of AELB.  With his qualification and position, it is impossible that he is ignorant of IAEA's and AELB's standards with regards to K-40.  As a matter of fact, according to both standards, the Diet Rite Lite Salt is regarded as non-radioactive as it is below the clearance levels of K-40, whereas the WLP waste is 6 times more radioactive than the clearance level of Th-232.  It is unethical of him to compare the WLP waste to the Diet Rite Lite Salt while withholding information on the vast differences in their respective safety thresholds.

It is appalling that Lynas, who claims to be a good corporate citizen, has finally resorted to deception to mislead the public on the safety of their wastes.  It is hypocritical of Lynas to gag stop Lynas campaigners with the threat of lawsuit while they themselves are allowed to spread such misinformation.
Soo Jin Hou
Stop Lynas Coalition
References:
[1] "Lynas Pamer Contoh Bahan", 3 April 2012, from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf4ZFngQQhg.
[2] "Lynas to brief PSC on its operation", 3 April 2012, The Sun Daily, from: http://www.thesundaily.my/news/338841.
[3] "以淡盐当海盐测试辐射,莱纳斯鱼目混珠失诚信", 13 April 2012, Tan Sek Choong, Merdeka Review, from http://www.merdekareview.com/news_v2.php?n=23984.
[4] "Potassium Chloride", from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_chloride.
[5] "Nutritional Facts - Diet Rite Lite Salt", from http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/diet-rite-lite-salt-6150172.
[6] "Radiological and Chemical Fact Sheets to Support Health Risk Analyses for Contaminated Areas", March 2007, Argonne National Laboratory Environmental Science Division.  From http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/ANL_ContaminantFactSheets_All_070418.pdf.
[7] "On thorium and Lynas - Chan Chee Khoon", 27 March 2012, Chan Chee Khoon, The Malaysian Insider, from http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/on-thorium-and-lynas-chan-chee-khoon/.
[8] "Applications of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance", Safety Guide No. RS-g-1.7, IAEA, from http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1202_web.pdf.
[9] "Atomic Energy Licensing (Exemption) (Low Activity Radioactive Material) Order 2002", Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984, P.U. (A) 182, AELB, from http://www.aelb.gov.my/aelb/engv/document/legislation/pu182.pdf


108 comments:

  1. Th-232 it is 1 Bq/g??

    c) Alpha radiation from Th-232 is 20 times more damaging than beta and gamma radiation from K-40.

    All bullshit....these statements are totally BS and false.

    I was supporting Lynas, but now a neutral. Dr Looi also pulled out from supporting Lynas from the scientific viewpoint after Bersih 428 .

    The archive is here,

    http://www.nkkhoo.com/category/green-environment-nature-fauna-flora/say-yes-to-lynas/

    I hope if you want to convince Malaysians with brain, go conduct a proper research on radioactivity.

    Send your worthless paper to any international journal to see which journal will accept your BS.

    nkkhoo.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who the fuck are you?

      Delete
    2. Do you dare to live next to Lynas factory or Lynas dumpsite? Why would Australia and South America refused to accept Lynas project if it is safe?

      Delete
    3. Anon #2 Show me any official rejection letters from Australia or any countries against Lynas project.

      If not, shut down your mouth for good sake.

      nkkhoo.com

      Delete
    4. Well, they should study more before make a conclusion.
      If Malaysian want to archive something then they must learn to accept the risk.
      Well, Long live Lynas. :)

      Delete
  2. Anon 10:17 PM
    May I point you to the blog of Lynas' Radiological Safety Officer Nick Tsurikov:
    http://calytrix.biz/random/

    Now, about different types of radiation. Let's compare gamma and alpha:
    Sure, alpha particles cannot penetrate skin and gamma goes through pretty much everything. However, as the alpha particle is relatively heavy - it could do much more damage inside the body, before 'stopping'. I don't know if that's the right comparison - but it's like being hit by a boy on his bike delivering newspapers, or by a big SUV. Of course, if you have something emitting alpha on your skin - you just wash it off - no worries; but the main issue is what happens when the stuff gets into your body - particularly into the lungs.
    There was a report published by European Committee on Radiation Risk (in 2003 I think) re-evaluating the risk from "internal exposures" (in comparison with "external" ones - that's gamma), and they have come up with a conclusion that these internal exposures may be even more dangerous than it was previously thought. Well... Some people agree with it but, to the best of my knowledge, majority doesn't.

    OK, why I said that alpha is 20 times more dangerous than gamma. The following has been in the literature for a long time and while factors for neutrons have changed, they remain the same for gamma and alpha. I'll just quote below from the latest (2007) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP Publication 103, paragraph 112, pages 63-64):

    [See picture in blog]

    That's why I said about "20 times more dangerous"...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cut the crap. The only question I want to ask is why Australia (among other countries) refuse to have anything to do with the waste generated by Lynas. That's all. I don't need no chemistry lesson to guess why we said YES when others said NO.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let the CEO, all the respective Managers and LYNAS - Lying Arse Share Holder, consume WLP as the replacement for their table salt. Prove that to the world that it is not harmful to human health and that must be monitored by professional individual, least cheating LYNAS will be abound. Don't believe these LYNAS - Lying Arse anymore

    ReplyDelete
  5. Since we are not ingesting or eating the rare earth elements, the alpha radiation from the rare earth elements should not be much of a concern. Some of the responses say that the low-level alpha radiation from an external source like the rare earth elements cannot penetrate the skin and can be easily washed off with a refreshing shower or bath, the factory is no better or no worse than a power generating plant emitting carbon dioxide. I can understand one would not want to live near a power generating plant and a rare earth processing plant.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Which is more radioactive, Potassium-40 or Thorium-232?

    Recently one professor and one radiation specialist claimed that potassium-40 is far LESS radioactive than Thorium-232 and they cited the EPA (environment protection agency of American) and the WHO UNSCEAR as proof of their statements!

    One of my friends who stated that K-40 is about 62 times more radioactive than Thorium-232 was rubbished by the radiation specialist!

    Well, that depends on what we are talking about.

    Quote " It was written somewhere above that potassium-40 is 62 times more radioactive than thorium. That is, I am sorry to note, a complete and utter rubbish:"
    Unquote.


    1. I think what my friend was thinking about is radioactivity in terms of Bq i.e. activity rather than biological effect (Sv) when he said potassium-40 is 62 times more radioactive than Thorium-232.

    Pure Potassium-40 = 254,000 Bq/gram
    Pure Thorium-232 = 4,080 Bq/gram

    Therefore potassium-40 has about 62X more Bq than Thorium-232


    Even in terms of biological effect, 1 gram of pure potassium-40 will still have a greater biological effect when compared with 1 gram of pure Thorium-232.


    ****************
    Pure Potassium-40 = 254,000 Bq/gram

    Quote from radiation specialist: 1 Becquerel per gram of K-40 in the soil (should actually be 1 Bq of K-40 per gram of soil) results in an increase in gamma-levels by ~0.042 microSieverts per hour (WHO UNSCEAR). Unquote

    Therefore 254,000 Bq = 10,668 microSieverts/hour
    (from 1 gram of pure potassium-40 i.e. not mixed with K-39 and K-41)



    ****************
    Pure Thorium-232 = 4,080 Bq/gram

    Quote from radiation specialist: Each becquerel per gram of Th-232 (should actually be 1 Bq of K-40 per gram of soil) increases this level by ~0.604 microSv/hour.


    Therefore 4,080 Bq = 2,464 microSieverts/hour

    *************************

    10,668 microSv/hr divided by 2,464 microSv/hr = 4.33

    or the biological effect of radiation from pure Potassium-40 is actually 4.33 times more than that of pure Thorium-232.


    2. If we are talking about 1 gram of naturally occurring Potassium which contains only 0.0118% of K-40, then it is perfectly correct to say that Thorium-232 is more radioactive biologically than Potassium as the naturally occurring potassium has only 32 Bq per gram as compared to K-40 which has 254,000 Bq per gram.

    So 32 Bq of K = 1.344 microSieverts/hr while 4080 Bq of Thorium-232 = 2,464 microSieverts/hr which is far more biologically radioactive than Potassium.


    3. If we compare radioactivity in terms of becquerel (number of atoms decaying per second), 1 Bq of course is equal to 1 Bq in terms of activity.

    But in terms of PER Bq (radioactivity from only one nuclear decay) the biological effect, according to UNSCEAR, Potassium-40 and natural potassium is less radioactive biologically than Thorium-232 (but remember that 1 gm potassium-40 has 254,000 atomic decay per sec while 1 gm of Thorium-232 has only 4.080 atomic decay per second ).

    SO, BEFORE YOU RUBBISH ANYONE FOR SAYING THAT POTASSIUM-4O IS MORE RADIOACTIVE THAN THORIUM-232 OR VICE VERSA, MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

    It all depends on whether you are comparing activity (Bq) or biological effect (Sv), whether you are taking about pure potassium-40 or natural potassium which is composed of only 0.0118% highly radioactive K-40 and whether you are comparing Bq per gram of potassium-40 or Bq per gram of soil.

    Moreover, we have to state that the Thorium-232 is not that of pure Thorium-232 as freshly isolated pure Thorium-232 do not produce any gamma rays and as such has practically no external biological effect (the 0.09 MeV of gamma rays in freshly isolated Thorium-232 actually comes from Radium-228).

    The same arguments apply to the comparison of the cancer coefficients of potassium-40 and Thorium-232.

    In fact the radiation specialist had to apologise to me and agree that it all depends on what we are trying to compare with.

    Dr Looi

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

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

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

    Intracellular Potassium = 139 to 140 mEq
    Extracellular Potassium = 4 mEq which is tiny compared with the Intracellular Potassium.
    Thorium-232 stays mainly in the extracellular space where it is not so harmful.

    2. The data quoted by the learned Hon. Prof Chan must be pretty old as it still use "Curie". This unit is now practically obsolete and used only occasionally in the USA. We now use Sievert.

    Anyway, curie is a measure of activity of the atoms and not the biological effects and as such CANNOT be used as a measure in a biological system as complex as the human body and on a subject that is even more complex as the causation of cancer.

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

    And it is not easy to find the heavier than lead Thorium-232 particles in the air for someone to inhale, even when near to a chemical plant like the Lynas Rare Earth Plant. You would be able to find the correct sized particles of about 1 to 2 microns in the Uranium or Thorium mines or Thorium refining plants or where there is combustion.

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

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

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

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

    The radiation of 6 Bq/gm from the weakly radioactive Thorium-232 in the Lynas waste is so low that even IAEA do not consider it significant and as such can be transported without any special permission.

    Moreover, 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.

    Kindly refer to my earlier comments on the comparison of K-40 with Th-232. We have to state what we are actually comparing otherwise the conclusion can turn out to be pretty SILLY.

    Dr Looi

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr Looi, I think you are missing the point.

      The point is that using sodium free salt to compare to the WLP waste is UNETHICAL and DECEITFUL because the threshold for K-40 and Th-232 are vastly different.

      We don't want LAMP, we don't want Lynas, and one of the reason is that Lynas is a bloody liar and cannot be trusted.

      Delete
    2. Dear Jin Hou,

      I am aware of the "missing point". I have deliberately avoided it because I have a phobia for politics. Politics is far too unpleasant for me to pursue.
      As a politician once said, "In politics, the only way you can find a friend is to have a dog!" I am only interested in commenting on the technical aspects.
      I am not pro or anti-Lynas but I am definitely anti-Ignorance.

      I have not seen or read anything from the press conference mentioned by you. However, if they claim that the salt they were showing is low sodium or sodium free salt and not the ordinary sodium chloride then that is a valid comparison because in the west this type of salt is very common and is used by a lot health conscious people (without of course realising that it is highly radioactive) to lower their daily intake of sodium chloride and as such hoping that they would avoid the danger of developing hypertension.

      Warmest regards,

      Dato' Dr Looi

      Delete
    3. Dato' Dr Looi,

      I respectfully disagree.

      You can find the press conference from the youtube link provided (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf4ZFngQQhg). You can also read about it here:
      http://www.nanyang.com/print/434435
      http://www.thesundaily.my/news/338841

      It is not a valid comparison because the safety thresholds are different. As per AELB standard, the KCl salt is classified as non-radioactive, whereas the Th-232 WLP waste is 6 times more radioactive than the threshold. Let's do some computation:

      So let's assume that AELB is correct, i.e. K-40 is 100 times more harmless than Th-232. The lite salt at 8.7 Bq/g is only at 0.087 of the safety threshold (100 Bq/g) and therefore the WLP waste is 69 times more hazardous than the lite salt (6/0.087)!!

      How can they claim that the the WLP waste is safe by comparing it to the lite salt? Isn't that deception?

      Delete
    4. To JinHou,

      Which professor teaches you a threshold limit is proportional to hazard doses.

      Don't be a simpleton to come to such silly conclusion.

      The right approach is to run a exposure tests on mouse or monkey with same amount of salt and WLP. You should press BN or UKM for joint experiment with you if you have no confidence on them.

      nkkhoo.com

      Delete
  8. Dr. Looi,

    Your insights on this issue are meticulous, organized and logical.

    Unfortunately, no matter how many facts you put forth, the anti-Lynas mob will never listen to you. They have already made up their minds. They are not looking to be educated or enlightened on the issue. They have no intention on learning about radioisotopes and radiation effects.

    For them, being anti-Lynas is already a commitment. It doesn't matter that their stance is not rooted in science and facts. They are anti-Lynas because the Lynas project is a BN initiative, and they wholeheartedly believe in the disinformation and FUD that is being irresponsibly spread by the anti-fact anti-science Opposition machinery.

    I had voted for the Opposition in the previous elections and the assemblywoman for my constituency is doing a fantastic job.

    However, I am totally disgusted by the way PR is spreading ignorance and falsehood when it comes to issues such as the Lynas plant and the planned nuclear energy program. Having a background in physics and engineering, I am totally fed-up with how irresponsible PR has been at obfuscating facts and outright lying about these issues just to use them as ammunition against BN.

    I will be casting a protest vote against PR in the upcoming GE. The liars and charlatans in PR are not the sort of leadership that I want, and they're far from being the lesser of two evils.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear WJS,

      Thank you for your comments. I agree fully with what you have said.

      Warmest regards,

      Dato' Dr Looi

      Delete
  9. JinHou,

    The use of potassium based salt is NOT deceitful. Look, the human body has natural quantities of carbon and potassium radioisotopes. Our endogenous radioisotopes has a decay rate of over 4000Bq.

    The reason why the thresholds are different is because thorium, once it gets into our body, is considered a heavy metal poison. You will die from heavy metal toxicity due to thorium exposure before you die from its radiation effects, but for that to happen, you'll have to be inhaling plenty of thorium dust all day long.

    Potassium-40 on the other hand is easily absorbed and utilized by our body, because it is chemically similar to regular potassium. Same goes for iodine radioisotopes - our thyroid glands will absorb them just as they would regular iodine.

    Therein lies the difference between the different effects of potassium-40 and thorium-232 in the human body. It's because of their chemical properties, and not because of their radiation output.

    But alas, I don't think any anti-Lynas person would want to hear facts like these. You guys are more happy believing in unscientific speculations by PR and anti-nuclear alarmists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not deceitful? Haha.

      So let's assume that AELB is correct, i.e. K-40 is 100 times more harmless than Th-232. The lite salt at 8.7 Bq/g is only at 0.087 of the safety threshold (100 Bq/g) and therefore the WLP waste is 69 times more hazardous than the lite salt (6/0.087)!!

      Please prove my calculations wrong.

      Delete
    2. You can say, for instance, that arsenic is very toxic and since arsenic can easily be absorbed after ingestion, it's valid to say that arsenic is far more toxic than say Potassium.

      However whatever is said is totally irrelevant if the Thorium-232 cannot get into your body and do damage internally.
      And externally it is not a threat.


      There are only 2 natural ways of getting any substance into your body:

      1. By Eating it (Ingestion) or

      2. By Breathing it (Inhalation)

      Thorium-232 in clay soil cannot get into you blood stream if you eat it because of it's strong adsorption to clay (stuck firmly to clay).

      As explained below, you need to eat far more than 17,000 Kilograms of Lynas waste before you can get cancer in about 30 years time in your old age.

      Likewise, you need to breathe in 3.4 Kilograms of Lynas waste (in order to get 5.58 gm of Thorium or 1 vial of Thorotrast) to get cancer in about 30 years time !

      As stated, Kuantan people are not MINERS and as such it is impossible to inhale 3.4 Kilograms even in a life-time !

      Thorium-232 is harmless when outside the body as it produces only alpha rays which cannot penetrate even a thin piece of paper.

      All you have to do is to wrap it up in a piece of newspaper and it will become virtually non-radioactive.

      So if Thoriun-232 cannot get into the body in significant amount by inhalation or ingestion and it poses no external threat,

      HOW and WHY on earth IS IT CONSIDERED TO BE SO DANGEROUS BY THE ANTI-LYNAS PEOPLE ?

      My Reply to Soo Jin Hou’s Letter in the Sun Daily

      “LET’S de-politicise the Lynas issue” (Letters, March 23) refers.
      The writer said 0.02% to 0.05% of ingested thorium is absorbed and gets into the blood stream. Absorption studies were done on animals for obvious reasons, and in the vast majority of these, the thorium was not mixed with clay, which binds very strongly to the clay particles i.e. adsorbed.

      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%.

      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 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.

      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!

      I do not think anybody in Kuantan will be able to swallow 17 tonnes of Lynas waste … and that is assuming that the thorium-232 is not strongly adsorbed to clay particles.

      With respect to the inhalation of thorium-232, all studies were conducted on workers in the uranium or thorium mining or refining industry and not on populations in towns like Kuantan, and therefore do not apply to the present issue.

      Datuk Dr Looi

      Delete
    3. Meaning, my calculations are correct and Lynas has indeed been deceiving the public by comparing with salt. Thank you very much.

      Delete
    4. To the Hon. Jin Hou,

      Dear Jin Hou,

      No, it does not mean that your calculation is right or wrong.

      What it means is that whether your calculation is right or wrong, it is totally irrelevant to the present situation as you cannot get the Thorium in significant amounts into the body.

      For instance you can do all the calculations to show that a 10 ton bomb is far more dangerous than a 1 ton bomb and if you have no means of delivering the 10 ton bomb to the enemy at the other end of the world, but you have the means to deliver only the 1 ton bomb to the enemy, as far as the enemy is concerned the 1 ton bomb is far more dangerous than the 10 ton bomb.

      So I feel that to continue our conversation is an exercise in absolute futility and it may be better for both of us to go and wait for the durians to drop!

      Warmest regard,

      Dato' Dr Looi

      Delete
    5. Dato' Dr Looi,

      I'm not questioning your reasoning sir. Your arguments are already very well presented in the alternative media. I'm not in the mood to cut and paste the debate between you and Prof Chan Chee Khoon. Or to go into long elaborations about the KiKK and Cerrie report. For interested readers just Google "On Thorium and Lynas I" and "On Thorium and Lynas II". My purpose to write the article to document questionable corporate behavior.

      My angle is: If Lynas is lying, are there other areas of dishonesty in their disclosures? How much of the RIA is factually correct? So please, no matter how good your arguments are, we are in no mood to have a compulsive liar running the world's largest rare earth refinery in our backyard.

      So, can we go back to the topic? Did or did Lynas not intentionally mislead the public during the salt experiment?

      Delete
  10. Whenever data on radiation is mentioned, please be mindful that these data r statistical in nature.

    What it means is that these readings can only be inferred statistically ‘correct’ under a large amount of samplings & for a long exposure duration. These readings become meaningless when the guiding parameters of large samplings & long duration exposure do not apply.

    Thus, terms like ‘(the 0.09 MeV of gamma rays in freshly isolated Thorium-232 actually comes from Radium-228) is quite meaningless, as radioactive decay is a randomly spontaneous reaction – zero or more alpha particle can be emitted any time during the decaying process. it’s only over a long period & large quantitative measurement that a radioactive half-life is been defined. For small quantitative amount, both in duration & weight, then the half-life measurement is ONLY indicative.

    Similarly, this statement –

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

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

    Ditto these;

    ‘As explained below, you need to eat far more than 17,000 Kilograms of Lynas waste before you can get cancer in about 30 years time in your old age.

    Likewise, you need to breathe in 3.4 Kilograms of Lynas waste (in order to get 5.58 gm of Thorium or 1 vial of Thorotrast) to get cancer in about 30 years time !’

    has to be interpreted carefully.

    That means we don’t know the actual consequences of low level/dosage radiation effect upon a person. On top of that, radiation effect is acutely accumulative & irreversible over time. The only safe bet is that of the physiology of the person facing the radiation.

    This explained why some workers of the nuclear disaster incidents faced cancerous diseases while others had minimum ill-effect, even though they all worked under the same radiation environment.

    Natural thorium decays very slowly compared to many other radioactive materials, and the alpha radiation emitted cannot penetrate human skin meaning owning and handling small amounts of thorium, such as a gas mantle, is considered safe. Exposure to an aerosol of thorium can lead to increased risk of cancers of the lung, pancreas, and blood, as lungs and other internal organs can be penetrated by alpha radiation. Exposure to thorium internally leads to increased risk of liver diseases.

    However, it’s precisely the random nature of the radioactive decaying process that causes a lot of uncertainty over what constitute a safety level/dosage.

    ck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you have said is precisely what I have been trying to say all along and that is, all these data, methodology and conclusions are statistical in nature.

      And for something as complex as the causation of cancers and involving something that is even more complex like the human body, all the data and conclusions are subject to many variables which may make these conclusions and data open to mistakes, misinterpretations, miscalculations and misuse.

      As a result, statements like:

      "a) Alpha radiation from Th-232 is 20 times more damaging than beta and gamma radiation from K-40.


      a) The lifetime cancer mortality risk for the inhalation of Th-232 is 200 times greater than inhalation of K-40, and nearly 2000 times greater than ingestion of K-40"

      are being made without any qualifications and made to exude an air of internationally sanctioned authority i.e. the statement has become a gospel truth and nobody must challenge it .

      If we realise the way in which all these cancer mortality risk coefficients etc. are calculated and we realise the limitations of these data and conclusions, then we will be able to think more critically and apply these conclusions correctly and under the right circumstances.

      We should not accept with absolute conviction and without any reference to that part of our brain which computes logical thoughts, on what we were told, especially by a Professor or a Nuclear Scientist. No matter how "big" they are or how famous they are, we should always think critically and if we feel that it is not logical or it does not make any sense we should reject them until proved otherwise.

      I feel that if I can make Malaysians think more critically, then my job is done.

      Warmest regards,

      Dato' Dr Looi

      Delete
  11. It is so easy to confuse the laymen with apologises ladden with abstract technical aspect. One just have to look at the 30 years suffering of that dear old lady from Bukit Merah, wonder why Lynas is given 12 years pioneer status instead of the standard 5 or privilleged 10.

    Yes Dr, politics scares you but politics affect everyone.

    It is wrong for good men to do nothing when evil is upon us. I rather toil for the cause under the sun and rain, than to sit in an air cond room writing pretty essays and staying far away.

    All the technical write up can go to the bin the moment a deformed baby is born or someone died from exposure. No point to re-examine root cause for technical analysis.

    There are safer and more ethical ways to earn a living. Social cost is a factor not to be disregarded

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Lee Wee Tak,

      I do understand your concerns about the sufferings of those in Bukit Merah.

      Do not presume that I sit in an air-con. room all the time.
      All my life I have been working and every cent that I have is earned through hard work, sweat and tears. I do all housework myself plus cutting the grass and repairing the house and never had a servant all my life.

      So please do not talk about air-con comfort and not knowing the pains and suffering of others.

      I am not anti-Lynas or pro-Lynas. I am just anti-ignorance. As far as I am concerned, I am not bothered whether the Lynas plant is being flushed down the toilet or flushed directly into the South China Sea.

      The only reason why I wrote all those articles about Thorium-232 and its perceived dangers is that I have a good knowledge of the subject since I started to have a special interest in nuclear medicine about 45 years ago when I was in the Medical School in the University of Manchester and was later posted to the Christie Radiotherapy Hospital.

      And I was rather distressed to see so many people being given the wrong information with regards the perceived dangers of radiation.

      In Bukit Merah, the radiation comes from Thorium and Uranium which are our own and has been in Malaysia for billions of years.

      Although the radiation level is well over 37 times that of the Lynas waste, there is no definite well controlled scientific proof that the cases of leukaemia and birth defects are caused by radiation from the waste.

      I have seen lots of cases of leukaemia and other types of cancer as well as birth defects over the last 45 years or so in Malaysia and unfortunately we do not have Lynas around at that time to use as a scapegoat.

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

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

      In the south of the state of Kerala in India the soil contains as much as 4,000 ppm (parts of Thorium per million). Studies have shown that there is little or no accumulation of Thorium-232 in the inhabitants.

      The Lynas waste contains only 1,650 ppm.

      It has been estimated that in the worst case scenario, the radiation risk from the Lynas plant is only 0.002 mSv/yr.

      In Ramsar, Iran, the naturally occurring radiation
      is extremely high at 260 mSv/yr.
      This is 13,000,000% higher than the expected worse case scenario in Kuantan.

      And the people in Ramsar, Iran has been found to be healthier and live longer than the rest of the Iranians! There is also no increase in the number of cancer cases.

      Remember the Tin slag from the Eastern Smelting and Straits Trading in Penang ? These, which contain the tantalum and monazite ore, and the monazite ore can be more than 3,700 % more radioactive than the Lynas waste.

      And these radioactive tin slag were used to fill up the old Penang Stadium and the roads in Penang. A lot of these has already been stolen and sold off at a huge profit, but a lot still remains in the roads in Butterworth and Penang island.

      The people in Penang have not developed Cancer so far as a result of these slag!

      con't

      Delete
    2. Even ordinary Sand (crystalline silica, SiO2) is classified as a group 1 Carcinogen (a confirmed cancer causing agent), but as you know, we do not expect a huge number of people in living in the deserts or along the seashores to die from silica induced lung cancer.

      The lung cancer risk occurs only when fine sand (silica) is inhaled by miners for a prolonged period in the quarries and mines i.e. silica is not a carcinogen when ingested and of course not when injected for nobody would allow you to inject sand into their veins.

      Thorium-232 is a very weakly radioactive substance and produces only alpha particles which cannot even penetrate a thin piece of paper.
      All you have to do is to wrap it up in a piece of newspaper and it is for all intents an purposes, is non-radioactive !

      " Thorium-232 is considered to be a carcinogen only IF ADMINISTERED INTRAVENOUSLY AS A COLLOIDAL DISPERSION OF THORIUM-232 DIOXIDE."
      It is not considered to be a cancer causing substance if taken orally or inhaled according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC, just like silica (sand) which is not carcinogenic if ingested.

      To survive in this world we should not fear without knowing what we are fearing i.e. do not fear fear itself.

      Warmest regards.

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

      Delete
    3. ‘In the south of the state of Kerala in India the soil contains as much as 4,000 ppm (parts of Thorium per million). Studies have shown that there is little or no accumulation of Thorium-232 in the inhabitants.
      ……..

      In Ramsar, Iran, the naturally occurring radiation is extremely high at 260 mSv/yr.
      This is 13,000,000% higher than the expected worse case scenario in Kuantan.

      And the people in Ramsar, Iran has been found to be healthier and live longer than the rest of the Iranians! There is also no increase in the number of cancer cases.’

      The above r oft quoted cases used by pro-radiation factions to counter the ill-effects of low level radiation (how low is low????). These r NOT fair comments, but some twisted facts using superficial logic!

      In using the above examples, the writer has forgotten the glaring fact that those inhabitants in these locations have gone through generations of adaptations. No doubt, many of these physiological adaptations were painful & cruel to the earlier generations.

      Some researches must be done to trace the medical records of those earlier settlers before the conclusion of ‘healthy’ current residents COULD be drawn.

      Similarly, there were/are just NO proper medical recordings about the physiological health of the earlier Malayan tin miners. So to say that the radiation effect on the tine miners & the people living around those areas, with amang landfills, is minimal is short of rigorous medical research backings.

      In lieu of the shortages in PROPER & RIGOROUS scientific findings & coupled with the fact that low level radiation effects r statistical in nature & more so an infant science, any wonder people, for that matter ordinary people, would like to stay safe, with a BIG margin of safety considerations?

      BTW, is there any confirmation that the thorium radionuclide in Lynas‘ WLP, where the highest concentration of radioactivity is recorded, is bonded with the clay particles? The effect of thorium radionuclides, leaching into the ground water has very limited studies so far, as almost all the REO plants r located at remote arid locations. The only exception is Lake Thor at Northwest Territories of Canada. But then, this lake is frozen more than 6-month a year!

      ‘I feel that if I can make Malaysians think more critically, then my job is done’

      Fine, but u r fighting at the wrong end! We can ONLY think critically IFF correct infos r been disseminated & easily obtained. & these data MUST be able to stand up to rigorous counter-attacks.

      So, for that matter, how much infos can one read into Lynas’ RWMP, where the data r quoted as lab simulation & with controlled publication? & why Lynas is so secretive about releasing the entire reports on her web site. In fact, how much other infos can one read from Lynas web pages, besides positive propagandas? Compare, with Molycorp. With Arufura Resources. Ditto Avalon rare metals.

      On top of that we must be able to exercise our CHOICE.

      Choice means comparison at the lowest denominator. Thus, why should M’sia NOT using the same industrial guidelines, concerning with Lynas’ LAMP as with the Western Oz govt? Are M’sian lifes worth less than the Ozzies?

      Irrational fear or not, WE should have our own choosing based on transparency. Not forced down to us, just bcoz someone say so!


      ck

      Delete
    4. Looi, I have just a short reply

      "A responsible government should not gamble with citizens' health especially the decision makers are miles away counting money only."

      Delete
    5. Dear CK,

      Just saw you comment that "the writer has forgotten the glaring fact that those inhabitants in these locations have gone through generations of adaptations ".

      This I feel is a gross simplification of the situation. As you should know for a useful mutation to take place under a selective pressure like radiation we need the presence of millions upon millions of reproductive events.

      Those individuals without this useful mutation must be selectively eliminated through death or inability to reproduce.

      Deaths and infertility have not been a known side effect of the type of levels of radiation seen in Ramsar i.e. 10 to 260 mSv/year.

      Humans are not like bacteria or viruses where millions or even billions of individual organisms are involved and where there is a generation change within about 20 minutes or so.

      In Ramsar, for instance the population in 2006 is only 31,000.

      In terms of useful mutation that can be transmitted to the whole population to materialise, the chance of such a mutation must be incredibly small for such a genetically tiny non-isolated population. Those 31,000 people over the years must have moved freely to and from other parts of Iran.

      For a tiny population and where the reproductive cycle is in terms of 20 years or so the number of generations must run into thousands or even more.

      Moreover, Ramsar is not an isolated island, but rather part of an easily accessible area of Iran where there are frequent movement of people and genetic material.

      As such, for that one incredible rare mutation providing resistance to radiation to be transmitted to whole non-static population is near impossible, especially when that one mutant needs to impregnate and transmit this useful gene to a whole non-static population. He must be a real SUPERMAN!

      Warmest regards,

      Dr Looi

      Delete
    6. Just a simple example;

      How to u account for the fact that some of the 'liquidators' of the Chernobyl disaster r still living healthily while many more has died?

      Ditto, the recent Fukushime Daiichi nuclear accident, though the fatality rate is still been evaluated.

      These r small numerical sampling & yet the result is so telling!

      It's simply bcoz human is a complex organism that the effect of radiation, whether high (how high?) or low (how low?), can be so statistically challenging.

      So those 'liquidators' of the Chernobyl disaster r real SUPERMAN!

      No! They r just simple human being, like u & me, BUT with better genetic adaptation to radiation! They DON"T have superpower, tough luck!

      BTW, do a epistemology of radiation protection on Ramsar 1st, to check on this claim;

      'Deaths and infertility have not been a known side effect of the type of levels of radiation seen in Ramsar i.e. 10 to 260 mSv/year.'

      ck

      Please!!!!!

      Delete
    7. Dear CK,

      The example of radiation accident at Chernobyl where 30 people lost their lives as a result of acute radiation syndrome is a rather poor example to explain the development of genetically transmitted radiation tolerance.

      The exposure was very acute and at a very high dose, at levels of about 100 mSv over a very short time. These are highly lethal doses and as such should obviously cause a certain number of deaths, just like any other toxin or chemical where not all that are exposed will die and as such we have such a statistical value called LD50.

      According to UNSEAR apart from increased thyroid cancers, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident.

      Although I must admit that the genetic makeup has a big influence on the severity of the damage, there are many other factors that needs to be considered like the actual dose of radiation, how acute was the dose delivered, the organs involved, the amount of various types of existing chemicals (like iodine) present in the body, the size of the person, the existing health condition etc.

      It is tantamount to saying that if a certain number of people are given 150 tablets of panadol at 30 tablets per day for five days a certain number of them will die from liver failure. The genetically tolerant patients will be "selected" by this selection pressure to pass the genes to the now panadol resistant population. This may be a fair argument.

      However, if a similar group of people were given 150 tablets of panadol at only 5 tablets per day in divided doses, this is no longer a form of selection pressure as the dosage though high is well below the danger threshold and will not cause any death from liver failure.

      The average dose of radiation received by people in Ramsar is about 10 milisievert/year, though in some cases can reach a level in excess of 260 milisievert/year.

      This radiation level of 10 mSv/year is like taking 150 tablets of panadol at 5 tablets per day in divided doses. At this low level it is not a significant evolutional selection pressure as it is way below a level which can cause rapid evolutional changes.

      To be frank, I feel that further conversation between us will be an exercise of futility and as such I suggest that we call it a truce and both of us should go out and sit peacefully under the coconut tree to wait for the coconut to fall.

      If you so desire you may calculate statistically which coconut and on which head the coconut will fall !

      Warmest regards

      Dr Looi.

      Delete
    8. U r right, this is getting futile! Duck & chick talks!

      'The example of radiation accident at Chernobyl where 30 people lost their lives as a result of acute radiation syndrome is a rather poor example to explain the development of genetically transmitted radiation tolerance.'

      Obviously, u don't know who r the 'liquidators' of the Chernobyl disaster!

      Statistically, panadol can more likely to kill u than a falling coconut.

      The only saving grace is that hard coconut can kill instantly at the right spot over the head, while a painfully slow death, as induced by the panadol overdosed, is a forgone conclusion! LOL

      ck

      Delete
    9. Dr Looi,

      "According to UNSEAR apart from increased thyroid cancers, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident."

      Perhaps if you look deeper, you will find active suppression of evidence by the nuclear lobby that suggests that the actual casualties from Chernobyl is MUCH higher than what establishment acknowledges?

      Consider these:
      IAEA = 9k deaths (revised upwards from 5k)
      TORCH report = 30k - 60k excess cancer deaths
      Greenpeace = 270k cancer cases, 93k fatal
      New York Academy of Sciences = 985k deaths

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects

      The CERRIE minority report also documented active suppression of evidence.

      For example: "Two Russian Academicians who attended CERRIE’s three-day workshop in Oxford in July 2003 said that there were thousands of studies in Russian which were relevant to the Committee’s work and that it would be advisable to translate at least the abstracts. This issue has been ignored by the Committee but LLRC has given some resources to synopsising those Russian studies which are available in English and these synopses are incorporated in the Minority Report."

      Or perhaps: "The Minority Report also contains a brief account of an international conference on Chernobyl effects in Kiev in 2001 at which Swiss TV reporters filmed the progress of a cover-up of resolutions passed by the conference. "

      http://www.llrc.org/wobblyscience/subtopic/cerriegag.htm

      Your argument on Ramsar centers on background external radiation. We are more concerned about internal emitters. Yes I know that you said that due to the material properties of thorium, contamination to the surrounding areas is unlikely. I'm not convinced, see my article in:

      http://wangsamajuformalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/05/claims-of-safety-for-lynas-plant-is.html

      Delete
    10. Dear Soo Jin Hou

      I have just returned after a long rest under the durian tree and did not find any durian but a lot of radiation.

      I am aware of the claims that thousands upon thousands of the liquidators (clean up workers) have died but you must remember that there was a total of well over 700,000 liquidators.

      The life expectancy in Russia in 1999 is only 58 years. The accident happened in 1986 i.e. 26 years ago and so all those who were above 32 years old at that time (58 minus 26 years) have already exceeded their normal life expectancy. The average age of the early liquidators were between 20 and 45 years.

      So out of the 700,000 people probably a few hundred thousand must have exceeded their life expectancy by now and it is not unexpected to find thousands of these people have died by now from causes other than radiation.

      Quote from IAEA: "Emergency workers or “liquidators” were drafted into the area and helped to clean up the plant premises and the surrounding area. These workers, generally men aged 20 to 45, were mostly plant employees, Ukrainian fire-fighters plus many soldiers and miners from Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and other parts of the then Soviet Union.
      Within the first three months, the group known as the “Early Liquidators”, those first on the scene including plant workers, construction workers and local fire-fighters, lost 28 members to Acute Radiation Sickness. Another 106 persons were treated for the same disease and survived. Nineteen additional patients died over the eight years following the accident, although these were not necessarily associated with radiation exposure
      Some 350,000 people involved in the initial clean-up of the plant in 1986-87 received average total body radiation doses of the order of 100 millisieverts (mSv) - a millisievert is a unit of radiation dose equivalent to about 10 general chest x-rays. This dose is about five times the maximum annual dose limit currently permitted for workers in nuclear facilities (20 mSv per year). Average worldwide natural “background” radiation is about 2.4 mSv annually." Unquote

      What I am trying to say is that it is NOT VALID to use the results of the ACUTE HIGH INTENSITY radiation (100 mSv over a very short period) of Chernobyl to justify evolutionary changes in the chronic low intensity (about 10 mSv/year) radiation found in places like Ramsay. Such low intensity radiation (of 10 mSv/year which is half that allowed for an industrial worker) do not kill and has not been scientifically and conclusively proven to reduce fertility and as such cannot act as an evolutionary selection factor.

      Warmest regards,

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

      Delete
    11. Quote:Nick Tsurikov Dear Soo JIn,
      Nice to see you here...
      Unfortunately, whatever 'minority' is disagreeing with the vast majority of radiation protection people does not matter much: no matter - both those who say that "it is all deadly" and those who are saying that "radiation is good for you". Sure, some doubts here and there remain - but the law of the land is the linear no-threshold hypothesis, not the 'fringe views' from either side.
      Basically,
      1. Those can be debated at scientific conferences - but there is insufficient proof of both so far, just unproven estimates (though there is a little bit more proof from the 'radiation is good for you' side...).
      2. But neither official assessments, nor regulations or guidelines can be based on unproven theories.
      ---
      Seriously, if you do really look into CERRIE and ECRR and assume that their coefficients are correct:
      a) The population of Ukraine and Belarus should be about only 40-50% of what it was (if not less), since majority of people are dead from cancer;
      b) The chance of a worker getting the cancer after being exposed to 25% of the limit (5 mSv/year) for 5-6 years are in order of 150-200%. Seriously - have a look...
      Which means that each and every worker in amang industry in Malaysia was supposed to be dead within two-three years after starting the job. The same goes for every worker at dozens of other mines and plants around the world, including uranium, niobium, phosphate, rare earths, mineral sands, etc.
      The (b) is why I do not believe that the 'deadly radiation' argument is correct... Sure, we may be underestimating some internal exposures - but definitely not by 100 or 100 times: as there is a very clear proof that it is not so... Cannot possibly be, as no one has ever heard I think about the amang workers all dying from radiation poisoning after 2-3 years of showeling the sand containing monazite...
      ---
      And... relevant to LAMP... Who says that there will be any 'internal exposures', how they can happen, even in theory - if it appears that neither external nor internal exposure levels will be above the general background outside the boundary of the plant...?
      I did post my seven questions earlier and still awaiting some kind of an intelligent answer...
      As I wrote about five-six times before: I will keep repeating those until either someone contradicts me with anything other than personal abuse or until it will finally becomes abundantly clear to anyone and everyone that 'radiation issues' associated with LAMP are all simply a myth, without any proof or justification whatsoever...
      ---
      The following has been confirmed way too many times and has NEVER EVER been proven to be false by anyone:
      1. Radiation from the plant will be undetectable outside the boundaries;
      2. None of the materials have to be signposted as 'radioactive' for transport - as per international regulations, since 1996;
      3. In accordance with international guidelines, the plant can be allowed to operate pretty much anywhere in the world with minimal regulation;
      4. Vast majority of tailings will have only half of thorium that is in normal Malaysian soil;
      5. Thorium in other waste is insoluble and cannot 'poison' any plants, animals or the environment - even in theory;
      6. Blending of tailings follows the basic safety principle of World Health Organisation, International Labour Organisation and seven more UN and other reputable international organisation - with guidelines on this existing in many countries;
      7. 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.
      ---
      cheers, nick
      Unquote

      Delete
    12. Dr Looi,

      ‘So out of the 700,000 people (liquidators) probably a few hundred thousand must have exceeded their life expectancy by now and it is not unexpected to find thousands of these people have died by now from causes other than radiation.’

      Now, this is contextual argument! I would appreciate some solid references?

      Please, think deeper & correlate about yr used of datum reference on numbers. On one hand u simply reject the Ramsar conjecture (remember – ‘genetically tiny non-isolated population’) & now u again reject another fact from a selected group of people, the liquidators, from diversed background, as insignificant.

      ‘it is NOT VALID to use the results of the ACUTE HIGH INTENSITY radiation (100 mSv over a very short period) of Chernobyl to justify evolutionary changes in the chronic low intensity (about 10 mSv/year) radiation found in places like Ramsay.’

      U obviously forget that radiation effect is accumulative.

      Long exposure on low dosage can be axiomically tied up short duration on high dosage. Isn’t this the most often used technique on any clinical studies?

      BTW, based on what u‘d just written on the fatality rate of the liquidator along, vis-à-vis IAEA’s revised toll rate for Chernobyl accident of 9k+, can’t u read some cat-&mouse story there? Still want to quote IAEA’s ‘expert’ views?

      Moreover, as a trained professional, u should have a graft on reversed interpretation. Meaning, on the case of the liquidators, why look at the fatality rate among the total? Why don’t u check the survival rate, instead? That’s would tell u more about the question through indirect reasoning.

      Statistics is not a one way investigation on positive direct data, often time the negative indirect data tells more, iff one care to look harder.

      ck

      Delete
    13. To CK

      No matter who you are, your comments are rather infantile, immature, childish, illogical, irrational, nonsensical and lacks any decent intellectual content and is completely non-physical and as such do not merit any further response from me.

      Dato' Dr Looi Hoong Wah

      Delete
    14. Dr Looi,

      Ouch, there goes your Ramsar argument. As much as you can pull evidence that residents from Ramsar to be healthy despite elevated radiation level, so can the evidence on the contrary be found.

      "In contrast to what the PSC has been told by the local so-called experts, the health impacts of radiation are not benign. In a comparative study by V. T. Padmanabhan et al of inhabitants of regions of normal and high background radiation in Kerala from 1988 - 1994, the researchers showed that thorium health damage from monazite sands was evident (International Journal of Health Services Vol. 34 No. 3 pp483-515, 2004).

      The study revealed that there was a high incidence of heritable anomalies in the high background region (HBRR). There was a statistically significant increase of Down syndrome, autosomal dominant anomalies and multifactorial diseases and an insignificant increase of autosomal recessive and X-linked recessive anomalies in the HBRR."

      http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/200572

      Delete
    15. *
      LOW DOSE RADIATION DO NOT CAUSE CONGENITAL DEFECTS

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      There IS a safe level and that is,

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

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

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

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

      Excerpts of Article in Forbes:

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

      Dato’ Dr Looi

      Delete
    16. International Journal of Health Services, Volume 34, Number 3, Pages 483–

      515, 2004. © 2004, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. 483. Page 2.

      In the single largest prospective study of 150,000 children born in Hiroshima-

      Nagasaki during 1948–1964, no statistically significant increase of any

      untoward pregnancy outcome was found for children born to parents exposed

      to ionizing radiation from the bombs (2). In short, no reliable evidence is

      available based on sufficient human data about either spontaneous or

      radiation-induced morbidity load attributable to genes.

      Delete
  12. http://enenews.com/head-of-tokyo-area-medical-clinic-risk-from-internal-exposure-is-200-600-times-greater-than-risk-from-external-exposure-video

    ReplyDelete
  13. BTW, just to clarify that I'm not Prof Dr Chan Chee Khoon, ScD.

    I happened to share the same initial with the good Prof. Nuclear science & statistical mathematics r my fields of interest. I've closed collaboration with CERN on LHC.

    Any misinterpretations wrt Prof Dr Chan, based on my writings should direct to me.

    ck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you, the will of the people must prevail, irregardless of whether the LAMP is safe or not!

      Delete
    2. @ Jinhou

      "irregardless of whether the LAMP is safe or not!"

      wow, such pigheadedness - i feel for shame for anyone launching such a pathetic childish argument...

      Delete
    3. Yeah man. Ain't democracy a bitch?

      Delete
    4. only to the commies and anti Bersih brigade

      Delete
    5. CERRIE Minority Report and European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR)

      The anti-lynas group (including the good Hon. Professor) has often used the CERRIE Minority Report to claim that "There is strong evidence that current models of hazard from radioactivity inside the human body underestimate risks by at least 100 and possibly up to 1,000 times."

      What happened at CERRIE (Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters) is well known (see http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/24/4/E02/pdf/jr44e1.pdf , http://www.cerrie.org/ and

      http://www.comare.org.uk which advises the UK government) and is due to two members, one of whom is Christopher Busby who, it seems, sells radiation protection kits to Fukushima survivors

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

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/nov/22/christopher-busby-nuclear-green-party ). Busby is very political and even ran for office.

      They also cited that the self-styled European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) which is an informal committee formed in 1997 following a meeting by the European Green Party which claimed that the risk from radioactive internal emitters are at least 100 to 200 times more hazardous than currently believed.

      Quote: Nick Tsurikov "The point that I would like to make is to illustrate clearly that ECRR "100-200 times" factors cannot possibly be correct - have a look:

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

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

      Which means that if ECRR is correct - every third worker should be dead from cancer by now...

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

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

      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


      http://kickdefella.net/2012/04/16/rare-earth-a-richer-malaysia-and-a-greener-world/#comment-76493

      Delete
    6. Dear CK,

      Re: The Schrodinger's Cat Paradox.

      Just saw your comment on Mr Ng Ai Soo's inverse square law statement.

      The Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment is not really a paradox but rather just an analogy and it will work only if the cat is the size of a sub-atomic particle.

      For instance, if you have a real cat and put it in a box, it will scratch and scream like hell and you will know that it is alive !

      And if the box is air-tight, after 3 or 4 days, you will know that it is DEAD without even opening the box.

      If you have an observer A just looking at the box, and another group of 1,000 observers using an X-ray scanner, the 2nd group will KNOW with absolute certainty if the cat is dead or alive even without opening the box.

      An if the 2nd group tells me that the cat is DEAD, the cat is DEAD !

      To observer A, the cat is both dead and alive, not because of any high level physics, but because he is IGNORANT of the fact that the cat is DEAD !

      As Stephen Hawking said " When I hear about Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun".....

      So please keep Schrodinger's cat safe to yourself, otherwise it will be shot by Stephen Hawking !

      With regards to Mr Ng Ai Soo's comment, what he really means is that you just cannot use the Newtonian concept Inverse Square law on a single particle.


      The rest energy of a particle is E = mc²

      The relativistic energy E of a single particle moving at a speed of v is

      E = mc² {(1-v² /c²)}^(-1/2) and with Taylor's expansion =

      mc² + ½mv² + 3/8 mv^4/c² + 5/16 mv^6/c^4.........

      The invariant mass m stays the same whether the particle is moving or not.

      For a single atomic or subatomic particle which is not at rest and moving in a vacuum, the energy remains the same no matter how far it has moved and is given by this equation:

      E = mc² + ½mv² + 3/8 mv^4/c² + 5/16 mv^6/c^4.........

      where ½mv² is the Newtonian kinetic energy.

      You can use the Green function to assess the characteristics of the virtual particles that are generated as the above "one" particle interacts with the electromagnetic fields or other fields of other particles during it journey to it's target.

      Warmest regards,

      Dr Looi.


      Delete
  14. What the Foreigners are saying about the Lynas Controversy:

    AS EXPECTED THEY ARE BLAMING POOR CHINA AS THE CULPRIT BEHIND ALL THIS!

    Please read the comments at this blog:

    http://www.raremetalblog.com/2012/05/cloak-and-dagger-mystery-the-lynas-saga.html#comment-6a0120a6002285970c0163055c2d32970d

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But consider this:

      http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/194845

      The Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) has refused comment on whether the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (Lamp) in Gebeng will adversely impact an industrial park proposed nearby.

      "I can't comment on that, but (rest assured) if it involved radioactivity or radiation we will be the first one there," its director-general Raja Abdul Aziz Raja Adnan said at a briefing today.

      He was asked to comment on reports that stakeholders of a planned
      China-Malaysia joint-venture industrial park in Gebeng, near the Lynas
      facility, had asked the government to consider shutting down the Lamp as it may adversely affect their operations.
      ______________________________________________________

      So, who is telling the truth? The government official who said that Lynas will not have negative impact on MCKIP, or the reporters who said that stakeholders of MCKIP had asked the gomen to shut down Lynas?

      Delete
  15. How absurd to see this from someone with such qualification and experience! Either he is so ignorance (or idiotic) or simply being unethical.

    You know what Professor, you should have done this experiment by comparing the Lynas' waste (at 6 Bg/g) with BANANA, which emits radioactivity at 31 Bg/g (5 times more than that from your Lynas' waste)!!! So, I'm afraid your little bottle of Australian-made Lite Salt (at 8.7 Bq/g activity) is not radiating high enough to convince us to buy your brilliant idea!!

    So If you get a bunch of banana, and place it by your Geiger's counter, surely the reading would scare the S**T out of many!!!

    I bet you won't tho, don't forget we are exporting BANANA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have u don't any banana radioactivity counting b4 u shot?

      Or u just read & regurgitate, without letting what u took in to be filtered first by that lumpy mass between yr ears?

      More likely given u a Geiger counter, u don't even know which end to point!

      So, banana radioactivity101 - there u many types of banana (r u one?), whose quality depends on the soil conditions. The banana, u mentioned, probably comes from the surrounding of Fukushima Taiichi plant. LOL..

      ck

      Delete
  16. Quote: "Thorium-232 do not produce any gamma rays, but it's daughter radionuclides do produce the dangerous penetrating gamma rays" Unquote

    Pure freshly separated Thorium-232 has only a slight alpha activity. There is no beta radiation and only a slight amount of gamma radiation (from the 0.09-MeV gamma rays which emanate from Th-228 decay).

    However, the activity from the Th-228 side of the chain is quickly re-established. A first equilibrium state is reached in about 36 days (10 half-lives of Ra-224).

    Activity then declines, as Th-228 decays faster than it is replenished by decaying Ac-228. About 3 years after separation, the activity is lower than at any other time except just after isolation.

    Activity then increases until the second equilibrium state is reached in about 60 years or so.

    Thorium-232 with all its daughter radionuclides

    Total alpha energy = 36.2 MeV per nuclear decay
    Total Gamma energy = 3.40 MeV per nuclear decay
    Total Beta energy = 5.95 MeV per nuclear decay

    Since the Lynas waste has 6 Bq/gm of activity, 1 KILOGRAM would have 6,000 Bq and that will produce 20,400 MeV of gamma ray energy from all the daughter radionuclides at equilibrium.

    20,400 MeV from 1 kg of Lynas waste = 0.0000000007808 calories or 0.000000003268 joules.

    This amount of gamma ray energy from 1 KILOGRAM of Lynas waste is not enough to tickle the backside of even a tiny little newborn caterpillar!

    The total alpha energy is much larger i.e. 36.2 MeV but since alpha radiation does not pose an external threat and Thorium in clay soil is not absorbed, and since inhalation only affects miners, it is not a problem either for the Kuantan folks. But it may be a problem for those poor Australian miners in Mount Weld in Western Australia.

    So, the Australians are the ones getting the wrong side of the deal!
    Dust particles can get deep into the lungs only if they are very small i.e. much less than 10 micron. The particles that are less than 5 microns are the ones which can get deep into the alveoli of the lungs. Larger ones are trapped by the mucus in the nose and upper respiratory tract and are coughed out or sneezed out.

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

    Since alpha radiation cannot go far (the 4.0 MeV alpha particle from Thorium-232 decay can travel only 27.8 microns in water), even if you have a huge pile of Lynas waste, the external radiation would not increase by much because only the tiny percentage of thorium-232 atoms directly on the surface of the pile will be able to radiate out their alpha particles.

    Those just below the surface will remain inside the pile and be converted to simple helium gas and those on the surface will travel only 2.54 cm into the air, picks up 2 electrons and become the harmless Helium for you to fill up your balloon.

    The beta particles which are electrons (electricity = flow of electrons) do not pose an external threat either. There are lots more high voltage electrons on your clothing as static electricity when you stay in a dry air-condition room than from the waste.

    Only gamma rays from your mountain of Lynas waste from less than 45 cm deep (depending on the type of soil and the water content) are able to see the light of day, as those deeper than that will be blocked by the layer of soil from getting out. And as shown above the amount of gamma rays are insignificant.

    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.

    For instance, I did a quick calculation and found that 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 (I stand to be corrected).

    SO WHAT'S THE BIG RADIATION PROBLEM?


    Dr HW Looi

    ReplyDelete
  17. Quote Big Fat Anti-Lynas Chief
    "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.

    So, it cannot be leached out by water and pollute the rivers. Even if the clay soil is washed into the rivers and sea it will not do any harm as the thorium will still be strongly attached (adsorbed) to the clay and will not dissolve into the water." - Lynas' snake-oil salesman

    Salesman forgot to tell you that the WLP waste will be roasted in concentrated acid. And in that form, thorium is highly soluble. Lynas will try to reduce the solubility of the waste by neutralizing it to about pH5. But I don't think anybody is interested to find out how does 64,000 tons/annum of acidic thorium will behave in a swampy, wet and leaky condition. Unquote

    ( LYNAS SNAKE -OIL SALESMAN = DR LOOI ! )


    Comment by Big Fat Anti-Lynas Chief in one of the Blogs:


    Quote: "Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you, the will of the people must prevail, IRREGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE LAMP IS SAFE OR NOT1" Unquote

    What the above statement means in simple non-Australian English is that :

    THE WHOLE ISSUE IS 100% POLITICS AND THERE IS REALLY NOTHING WRONG WITH THE LYNAS PROJECT except that it is a fantastic political tool for certain politicians to gain POWER.

    ONCE THE GENERAL ELECTION IS OVER, LYNAS WILL BECOME A HIGHLY BENEFICIAL PROJECT especially if they win!

    THERE ARE NO DANGEROUS RADIATION, NO TOXIC WASTE PROBLEM BUT A LOT OF TOXIC, RADIOACTIVE POLITICIANS with a lot of innocent naive brainwashed followers (probably including the big fat chief).


    By Dato' Dr Looi, the snake oil salesman who also happen to be one of those rare endangered species of brainwashing resistant people in Kuantan.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Quote
    "Lu Cheng Long
    Everyone claims that their view represent the majority. So the majority really reject Lynas? I don't know, but anti Lynas people sure make a lot noise. But we know well informed people support Lynas.

    ANOTHER THING IS DURING BERSIH 3, I SAW LOTS AND LOTS OF YELLOW, ONLY A HANDFUL OF PITIFUL GREEN. IT MUST BE A VERY HARD FEELING FOR ANTI LYNAS PEOPLE THINKING THAT THE NATION IS WITH THEM' Unquote

    Helicopter pictures of the main section of the crowd with subsequent computer analysis of "Bersih 3" published in the Sin Chew Newspaper (yes, the Sin Chew Newspaper which is very sympathetic to the anti lynas people ) showed that the total number of people attending the demonstration in the main section was less than 5,000 people and not 250,000 people as claimed by some.

    And only a tiny miserable proportion of these people are the "GREENIES".

    This type of gross exaggeration is very typical of the anti lynas crowd.

    Now you know how a simple chemical plant can be magically and conveniently transformed into a Nuclear Plant!


    Quote: Soo Jin Hou " Only a moron will believe the numbers given by mainstream newspaper." Unquote

    Please ask the Sin Chew Newspaper about the figures given. Do not ask me.

    As you said, only a moron will believe numbers given by a mainstream newspaper, so according to your logic it must be a MENTALLY RETARDED SUPER MORONIC NINCOMPOOP who will believe in the estimate given by just one person even if it comes from a person called Ambiga.

    And according to your logic, all the information given at the press conferences by the anti lynas people and reported in the 3 mainstream Chinese newspapers are all RUBBISH!

    This is the only item which I agree with you fully and with great enthusiasm.


    Quote Soo Jin Hou " the will of the people must prevail, IRREGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE LAMP IS SAFE OR NOT". Unquote

    THE WILL OF THE ETHNIC CLEANSING PEOPLE WHO MURDERED THOUSANDS AND PROBABLY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE are also "people's will". But we must remember, these are corrupted, brainwashed wills.

    Moreover, if we take into account of all the "other" people in the state of Pahang, Malaysia, the so-called PEOPLE'S WILL ACTUALLY REPRESENT THE MINORITY WILL OF AN INTENSELY BRAINWASED ETHNIC GROUP OF PEOPLE.

    SO DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE SO-CALLED PEOPLE'S WILL when it is actually a CORRUPTED BRAINWASED PEOPLE'S WILL.

    THIS MAY LEAD TO DANGEROUS AND UNPLEASANT CONSEQUENCES.

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

    • Note: I AM NOT PRO OR ANTI LYNAS.
    I AM JUST ANTI-IGNORANCE.
    AND I STARTED TO WRITE ALL THESE COMMENTS AFTER SEEING HOW certain devious, unscrupulous and irresponsible people are trying to surreptitiously inseminate ALL THOSE SENSELESS, ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL MISPERCEPTIONS into the naive, innocent minds of the unsuspecting Kuantan people and how the whole population of Kuantan have been brainwashed into believing the absolutely ridiculous and unbelievable lies.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dr Looi,

    I don't expect u to reply since u'd already considered me with yr labeling of;

    '....infantile, immature, childish, illogical, irrational, nonsensical and lacks any decent intellectual content and is completely non-physical...'

    & I DON"T have to prove to u what's those alphabetic soups listed behind my name. BTW, there r people with zilch alphabetic titles & yet still quietly contribute significantly to the knowledge of humanity.

    I DON"T intend to go any further with u, as it's clear that how yr mind is been set (in stone), as far as the Lynas Gebeng issue goes.

    But then, I can't help to forward u this;

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/

    This is the on-going viral article among a small group of us, who r trying to play cat-&-mouse with the god-particle.

    Believe me, it's VERY insightful!

    Chew over it!!!!!

    ck

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Hon Prof. Chan Chee Khoon:

    Quote from the Hon. Professor "...childhood leukaemias observed among the children of Bukit Merah? (Recall also the inverse square law — the intensity of radiation from a radioactive particle a metre away from a human body increases a trillion-fold when that same particle sits at micron-level distances on the body’s cells and tissues.)

    Reply by Mr Ng Ai Soo

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

    The Hon. Prof. Chan Chee Khoon

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

    Comment by Me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. U people r really something!

      '"The inverse square law applies to trillions and trillions of particles, not just the one particle. That one particle IS the radiation only "dilutes" in a quantum sense... it otherwise remains one particle no matter how far it is from the source...'

      The above statement is liken to give a definite answer of death to the Schrodinger's cat in a sealed enclosure, the moment the poison gas is released. That's WITHOUT looking into the closed enclosure!

      Do look up this classic thought experiment on QM, for yr enlightenment.

      U r TRYING to interpret YOUR understanding of Quantum Mechanic phenomenon!

      Sadly, yr interpretation is deadly wrong.

      Suffice to say, in quantum level, finite definition of any particle/wave(s) is meaningless. Only the probability of its eigenfunction matters, where the duality of the particle/wave is a total grey area.

      So, in the minute level of QM, a single particle/wavelet can do MAJOR harm, if the eigenfunction is high enough. & please don't ask why a high eigenfunction can happen in such case. Our science has not reached that level yet.

      Keep out of QM, iff u still wanted to claim yr 5 sec of fame!


      ck
      LOL.

      Delete
    2. Dear CK,

      Re: The Schrodinger's Cat Paradox.

      Just saw your comment on Mr Ng Ai Soo's inverse square law statement.

      The Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment is not really a paradox but rather just an analogy and it will work only if the cat is the size of a sub-atomic particle.

      For instance, if you have a real cat and put it in a box, it will scratch and scream like hell and you will know that it is alive !

      And if the box is air-tight, after 3 or 4 days, you will know that it is DEAD without even opening the box.

      If you have an observer A just looking at the box, and another group of 1,000 observers using an X-ray scanner, the 2nd group will KNOW with absolute certainty if the cat is dead or alive even without opening the box.

      An if the 2nd group tells me that the cat is DEAD, the cat is DEAD !

      To observer A, the cat is both dead and alive, not because of any high level physics, but because he is IGNORANT of the fact that the cat is DEAD !

      As Stephen Hawking said " When I hear about Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun".....

      So please keep Schrodinger's cat safe to yourself, otherwise it will be shot by Stephen Hawking !

      With regards to Mr Ng Ai Soo's comment, what he really means is that you just cannot use the Newtonian concept Inverse Square law on a single particle.


      The rest energy of a particle is E = mc²

      The relativistic energy E of a single particle moving at a speed of v is

      E = mc² {(1-v² /c²)}^(-1/2) and with Taylor's expansion =

      mc² + ½mv² + 3/8 mv^4/c² + 5/16 mv^6/c^4.........

      The invariant mass m stays the same whether the particle is moving or not.

      For a single atomic or subatomic particle which is not at rest and moving in a vacuum, the energy remains the same no matter how far it has moved and is given by this equation:

      E = mc² + ½mv² + 3/8 mv^4/c² + 5/16 mv^6/c^4.........

      where ½mv² is the Newtonian kinetic energy.

      You can use the Green function to assess the characteristics of the virtual particles that are generated as the above "one" particle interacts with the electromagnetic fields or other fields of other particles during it journey to it's target.

      Warmest regards,

      Dato' Dr Looi.


      Delete
  21. Members of the anti-lynas crowd have been asking some very childish and ridiculous questions (repeatedly parroted more as a means of cyber harassment than for any form of intellectual benefit).

    Some of the best examples are:

    1. If you think it is so safe why don't you eat it?

    Answer: Since my cooked SH*T IS ALSO SAFE, would YOU like to eat it?

    (What I mean is that if something is safe or not radioactive, it does not necessarily mean that you have to eat it!)

    This chain question probably started when one of the young, inexperienced politicians asked another to drink drain water and since then this question has been brainlessly parroted by some of his followers.

    2. If you think it is so safe, why don't you put it in your fridge?

    Answer: Since my cooked SH*T IS ALSO SAFE, why don't YOU put it in YOUR fridge?

    3. If you think there is no radioactivity why don't you live next to the Lynas plant?

    Answer (Short answer. If you want a longer answer, please refer to my posts in other blogs):

    A pigs farm or even a huge oil palm factory also do not have any significant radioactivity, so why don't you live next to it?

    4. Can you guarantee me that the Lynas plant is 100% safe

    Answer: AND AS FAR AS THE 100% BUSINESS IS CONCERNED, THE ONLY THING IN LIFE WHICH WE CAN BE A 100% SURE OF IS THE CEMETERY AND THE LAVATORY. IF WE HAVE TO GO, WE HAVE TO GO 100%.

    5. THE MOTHER OF ALL SILLY QUESTIONS, asked by an accountant in Anti-Lynas crowd.

    Do you know the difference between

    1 sodium metal in the lab and sodium ion in sea water?
    2 iron metal power, iron oxide powder, iron salt ions?
    3 lead metal , lead oxide , lead ions of the heavy metal ?
    4 thorium metal powder, thorium hydroxide and rare earth waste thorium ions as heavy metallic ions ?

    ANSWER:

    IF YOU CAN ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS,
    I THINK I MIGHT TAKE SOME LSD AND PROCEED TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED ABOVE.

    Do you know the difference between

    1 black hair on your head and brown hair in my the toilet?
    2 telekom power, purple coffee powder, blue curry powder?
    3 coconut husk, coconut roots, coconut leaves of tall Angsana trees?
    4 arsenic tetrahydrococonut, arsenic monodurian, and arsenic as rare earth waste thorium non-ionic as heavy metallic non-submersible non-iron ironic nano-ions nonsense?

    The list of infantile unintelligent questions goes on and on and on.

    All these continuously repeated and parroted non-physical questions and statements will not serve the anti-lynas objective but only characterise the anti-lynas folk as childish, non-thinking ill-informed people with IQs which I would rather not mention!

    Dato' Dr Looi Hoong Wah

    ReplyDelete
  22. ADSORPTION AND SOLUBILITY


    "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.

    So, it cannot be leached out by water and pollute the rivers. Even if the clay soil is washed into the rivers and sea it will not do any harm as the thorium will still be strongly attached (adsorbed) to the clay and will not dissolve into the water."

    Quote Anti-Lynas:
    "Lynas' snake-oil salesman forgot to tell you that the WLP waste will be roasted in concentrated acid. And in that form, thorium is highly soluble. Unquote

    The SOLUBILITY of a substance in a solute like water and ADSORPTION of the substance are 2 separate properties and not the same.

    In nature Thorium-232 is found in the form of Monazite (Ce,La,Nd,Th)PO4 i.e. the phosphate of Thorium-232. This is completely insoluble in water.

    The next most common ore is Thorite (ThSiO4) which has a gram molecular weight of 324.12 gm. This is also completely insoluble in water.

    Practically most of the other thorium compounds are artificially created in the laboratory. The most famous is Thorium dioxide (ThO2) which was used as a radiological contrast media and because it is also insoluble, it is administered intravenously as a colloidal dispersion of thorium-232 dioxide (Thorotrast)

    Huge doses of 25cc to 50 cc of a 25%solution of Thorium dioxide (Thorotrast) was injected into the vein or artery in the contrast radiological studies.

    The other Thorium salts like the fluorides, chlorides, Iodides, sulfides, selenides, tellurides, nitrides, nitrates, sulphates and other complexes are all artificially synthesized.

    All of these have varying degrees of solubility in water. The most soluble will be the nitrates, chlorides and to a lesser degree sulphates. As mentioned above, the oxides, silicates and phosphates are insoluble.

    Metallic Thorium-232 is of course totally insoluble in water.

    However, whether Thorium-232 is in the SOLUBLE OR INSOLUBLE FORM, IT IS STILL STRONGLY ADSORPED BY CLAY AND CANNOT BE LEACHED OUT BY WATER.

    The extremely dangerous herbicide Paraquat is a liquid and is extremely soluble in water. Although it is extremely soluble and dangerous, IT IS NOT LEACHED OUT OF THE SOIL and pollute the rivers because it is STRONGLY ADSORPED BY CLAY SOIL JUST LIKE THORIUM-232.

    So Lynas can continue their acid roasting of the ore and with the usual procedures taken, it should not be a problem.

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

    ReplyDelete
  23. And of course Dr Looi conveniently ignored the fact that surface runoff is a concern. Kuantan receive close to 3000 mm annual rainfall per year, the bulk of it over the monsoon months. Gebeng is a low-lying area built on reclaimed swamp land. On top of structural instability which is manifested by cracks on the road leading up to the LAMP, and also structural cracks observed by visitors to the plant and reported by New York Times, the exterior of the plant was flooded as well as the primary drain during last year's monsoon season. Only a fool would think that the toxic waste will stay put in the retention ponds under these conditions. And what how did Lynas intends to shield the waste from rain? According to the RIA, the waste will only be covered using an unspecified method. Haha... in Australia, the retention ponds are progressively buried as they become full. In contrast, Lynas wants to keep the waste in open retention ponds for 14 years on-site before they figure out where to ship it to. No way!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Jin Hou,

      The retention ponds are built above ground with a thick outer wall of more than 3 meters high strengthened 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.

      Note: Malaysian soil 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.

      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 significant amount of Thorium in places with high Thorium in soil.

      The amount of Th-232 in the normal 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.

      Warmest regards,

      Dr Looi

      Delete
  24. What is the "safe" level of radiation?


    Public dose limits for exposure from uranium mining or nuclear plants are usually set at 1 mSv per year above background.

    The figures below are given by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) and its international counterpart, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Both of these organizations offer recommendations for the maximum permissible dose (MPD) of radiation.

    General Public annual MPD by both NCRP and ICRP is 1 mSv.

    For Radiation Workers, the annual MPD is 50 mSv (NCRP) and 20 mSv (ICRP), with a cumulative MPD of 10 mSv x Age.

    MPD during pregnancy is 5 mSv (NCRP) and 2 mSv (ICRP).

    This is over and above background exposure, and excludes medical exposure.

    However, experts including Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University argue that the dose limit can safely be raised to 100 millisieverts, based on current health statistics.

    Compare this with the dose of 0.002 millisieverts/year of exposure for people living within 1 km of the Lynas plant in the worst case scenario (estimated by Lynas).

    This level of 0.002 mSv/yr is actually grossly overestimated because the low energy gamma rays from the Thorium-232 decay chain is able to travel less than 300 metres in air.

    Note, the average energy of most abundant emission is only 0.059 MeV, though the gamma ray from Thallium-208 decay to stable Lead-208 has a higher energy of 2.62 MeV.

    The radon-220 has a very short half life of only 55 seconds and as such cannot travel far and do not accumulate in confined spaces like the radon-222 from the Uranium decay series.

    So the actual radiation dose at a distance greater than 300 metres from the plant is approaching 0 mSv/year !

    Comparative Dosages in Biological Effect in mSv.

    Dose from natural radiation in the human body: 0.40 mSv per year

    Sleeping next to someone for 8 hours 0.02 mSv/yr (10x Lynas worst case)

    Sleeping in wooden house = 0.20 mSv/yr (100x Lynas worst case)

    Smoking a pack of cigarettes daily 0.20 mSv/yr (100x Lynas worst case)

    Slag brick and granite house = up to 2.0 mSv/yr (1,000x Lynas worst case)

    Chest X-ray = 0.10 mSv

    Medical or dental X-ray 0.39 mSv

    CT Scan (Chest) = 10 mSv

    CT Fluoroscopy of abdomen and pelvis 6 to 90 mSv (median=31 mSv)

    Average individual background radiation dose: 2 mSv per year (1.5 mSv per

    year for Australians and 3.0 mSv per year for Americans)

    Dose from atmospheric sources (mostly radon): 2 mSv per year

    Total average radiation dose for Americans: 6.2 mSv per year

    Current average dose limit for nuclear workers: 20 mSv per year

    Dose from background radiation in parts of Iran, India and Europe: 50 mSv per year

    (Source: UNSCEAR and EPA and IAEA)

    All the potassium that we eat everyday in our food contains potassium-40 and the normal dietary potassium would give a total of about 80 Bq per day.
    Compare this with the Lynas waste which produces only 6 Bq/gm

    Even your wife or husband is radioactive, with a radioactivity of 4,000 Bq from Potassium-40 and another 3,000 Bq from Carbon-14 giving a total of about 7,000 Bq!

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

    Since all living cells contain potassium, all types of meat, flesh, fruits, nuts and vegetables are radioactive because of the potassium-40 content.

    The so-called sodium free salt recommended by health experts to combat high blood pressure is nothing more than just highly radioactive potassium salt! Even a lot of doctors, specialists and professors do not know this!

    The message here is that more radioactive substances are freely sold in the shops and used as a fertilizer or eaten by us than you would otherwise thought.

    Dr Looi

    ReplyDelete
  25. Quote: AELB (Atomic Energy Licensing Board, Malaysia):

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

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

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

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

    Dato' Dr Looi

    ReplyDelete
  26. Quote the good old learned Hon. Prof. Chan:

    " The “safe thresholds” of 1 mSv/yr (public) and 20 mSv/yr (occupational) that Dr Looi, Dr Che Rosli Che Mat (MP, Hulu Langat), Lynas, AELB, and IAEA repeatedly invoke are derived from ICRP risk models which are currently under critical scrutiny and challenge, in the wake of excess childhood leukaemia near nuclear power plants that can’t be explained by radiation exposures which are much below the “safe thresholds”. A UK expert panel for instance (2004, www.cerrie.org) could not arrive at a consensus regarding the health risks of low-level exposure to internal emitters (inhaled or ingested radioactive particles). Opinions among the UK panel members ranged from negligible adverse effects to an underestimation of risk by at least a 100-fold. Unquote.

    However, experts including Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University argue that the dose limit can safely be raised to 100 millisieverts, based on current health statistics.

    CERRIE Minority Report and European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR)

    The anti-lynas group (including the good Hon. Professor C.) has often used the CERRIE Minority Report to claim that "There is strong evidence that current models of hazard from radioactivity inside the human body underestimate risks by at least 100 and possibly up to 1,000 times."

    What happened at CERRIE (Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters) is well known (see http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/24/4/E02/pdf/jr44e1.pdf , http://www.cerrie.org/ and

    http://www.comare.org.uk/ which advises the UK government) and is due to two members, one of whom is Christopher Busby who, it seems, sells radiation protection kits to Fukushima survivors

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

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/nov/22/christopher-busby-nuclear-green-party ). Busby is very political and even ran for office.

    They also cited that the self-styled European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) which is an informal committee formed in 1997 following a meeting by the European Green Party which claimed that the risk from radioactive internal emitters are at least 100 to 200 times more hazardous than currently believed.

    Quote: Nick Tsurikov "The point that I would like to make is to illustrate clearly that ECRR "100-200 times" factors cannot possibly be correct - have a look:

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

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

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

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

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

    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

    http://kickdefella.net/2012/04/16/rare-earth-a-richer-malaysia-and-a-greener-world/#comment-76493

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thorium dioxide in Thorotrast is insoluble and in a colloidal form i.e. in the form of particles. All insoluble particles are taken up by the macrophages and other cells of the reticulo-endothelial (RE) system and deposited into the tissues of the RE system i.e. the liver, spleen, lymph nodes, bone marrow and parts of the small intestines and not just the bones.


    In humans, where will the soluble and not particulate form of Thorium salts be deposited and what is the renal clearance and hence their biological half life ? Nobody really knows because, for obvious reasons, all studies done on Thorium are conducted on animals. The results are only applicable to rats, rabbits, cats and dogs !
    cont.
    In places like Kerala, a coastal belt in India, the concentration of Thorium-232 in the soil average about 4,000 ppm.
    The radiation at Karunagapally, Kerala has been assessed at 5 to 8 milisievert/year. In certain location on the coast, it is as high as 70 milisievert/year.

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

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

    The epidemiological data from these studies show that the primary health effects of high doses of injected Thorotrast are blood disorders and liver tumours. However, these tumours and blood disorders could have been caused by the massive doses of X-rays from the rather antique X-ray machines used at that time.

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

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

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

    Inhalation of Thorium-232 by the general population like those living in the cities is practically impossible for the particles that can get into the lungs need to be between 1 to 5 microns. These tiny particles can only be found in the thorium or uranium mines or unsophisticated refineries.

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

    ReplyDelete
  28. .
    QUOTE ANTI-LYNAS FOOT SOLDIER: "DURING THE RECENT "INTERNATIONAL" DEMONSTRATION AGAINST LYNAS, A VOTE WAS TAKEN AND NEARLY ALL THE VOTERS ARE AGAINST LYNAS".


    Misusing, Misrepresenting and Misinterpreting legitimate scientific methodology and statistical analysis in order to distort the truth and further enhance the misinformation they have engraved into the innocent minds of their naive and innocent brainwashed followers, is the classical hallmark of the Anti-Lynas clique.

    They assume that all Malaysians have IQs that would make even a chimpanzee laugh !

    If you are to hold a "DEMONcratic" vote among Anti-Lynas people who are fanatical enough to take the trouble to go to a demonstration in order to massage the ego of their egoistic master brainwasher, it will not take even the intelligence of a 1 year old child to know what the outcome would be.

    IT IS TANTAMOUNT TO TAKING A VOTE AT AN INTERNATIONAL PURE VEGETARIAN CONVENTION TO ASSESS HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD ARE AGAINST EATING MEAT.

    And...... out comes... the answer :..."99.9999% OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD ARE AGAINST EATING MEAT ! (not 100% only because a couple of people accidentally drop the slip into the wrong box like what they did in Kuantan !)

    This type of statistics is best confined to the garbage bin. Come to think about it even the garbage bin is too clean for such crab ! Even the garbage bin might object !

    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

    ReplyDelete
  29. http://zorro-zorro-unmasked.blogspot.com/2011/12/stick-to-your-grapes-will-you.html

    STICK TO YOUR GRAPES WILL YOU?
    Datuk Dr Looi Hoong Wah, 65, who worked for 14 years with the government and another 14 years with a specialist hospital has successfully grown two types of grapes in his Jalan Kuantan-Sungai Lembing orchard. HERE.


    JUST STICK TO YOUR GRAPES WILL YOU?

    And don’t try to be too clever with your Google research HERE. Being a Fellow (School of Physicians) of the Academy of Medicine of Malaysia, we appreciate you past services to the nation. However we realize that you have picked on a controversial subject that you plucked and pasted from Google. We congratulate you on your break-through in grape cultivation. That’s great, stick to your grapes lah, and leave it to the experts to enlighten us. No sour grapes on our part I assure you, yah?



    Just be aware there is a term called “unprofessional conduct” and “missed diagnosis”!

    Surely you cannot be like the GP doctor who diagnosed my nephew’s son of cold when finally on further consultation, the child was diagnosed with the contagious Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease, after three days of consulting three specialists who concurred. You see, they were EXPERTS in that FIELD!

    Admittedly, you are also not the physician who makes his patient feel like you are the only person on the planet that was going to make your patient better and perhaps save him or her!

    Additionally, you are not the type to dispense medication/diagnosis/advice we didn’t need for diseases we didn’t have.

    ENJOY YOUR GRAPES BUT JUST DON’T FORGET THE GEBENG GRAPES OF WRATH TAKING ROOT IN OUR LAND!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. QUOTE"Surely you cannot be like the GP doctor"

      YOU ARE SURELY NOT A NINCOMPOOP TO MISTAKE ME FOR A GP !

      I AM A CONSULTANT PHYSICIAN AND OF COURSE NOT JUST A GP doctor !!!!

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

      Delete
    2. INFORMATION THAT APPLY TO ALL HUMANS including YOU + ME

      1. Bananas have more than 50% of the human genes

      2. Monkeys (Chimpanzees) have 98% of the human genes

      3. Bacteria and other microbes constitute about 90% of the living cells in the human body.

      4. If we make a scale model of an atom, and the proton or neutron which form the dense more solid part of the atom is 1 cm in diameter,
      then the atom has a diameter of 2 miles! i.e.
      an atom is 99.999999999999 % empty space !!!!!

      Since our brains are made of atoms, 99.999999999999 % of our brains are made of empty space!!

      And that is not even factoring in the spaces between the atoms!

      Now you know that the people of Malaysia are 50% bananas, 90% bacteria, 98% monkeys and the brains are made of 99.999999999 % empty space!

      You now know why some Malaysians are so childish, immature, infantile, irrational, illogical, irresponsible and emotional and are so easily brainwashed!

      So if someone were to tell you that your brain is so small that it can fit into the skull of a mosquito and still have plenty of room to spare, do not get insulted,
      for he is just telling the truth!

      May the Lord bless Malaysia and save us from all those unscrupulous people who are trying so hard to brainwash us into believing the unbelievable for their own evil reasons!

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

      Delete
    3. behold the monkey whose cage was rocked

      hahaha...narcissist who can rant to himself in this blog. look at the Lynas polling result and he can shiok sendiri all he wants here

      go suck on your own grape

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Quote "look at the Lynas polling result and he can shiok sendiri all he wants here" Unquote.



      QUOTE ANTI-LYNAS FOOT SOLDIER: "DURING THE RECENT "INTERNATIONAL" DEMONSTRATION AGAINST LYNAS, A VOTE WAS TAKEN AND NEARLY ALL THE VOTERS ARE AGAINST LYNAS".

      Misusing, Misrepresenting, Misleading and Misinterpreting legitimate scientific methodology and statistical analysis in order to distort the truth and further enhance the misinformation they have engraved into the innocent minds of their naive and innocent brainwashed followers, is the classical hallmark of the Anti-Lynas clique.

      They assume that all Malaysians have IQs that would make even a chimpanzee laugh !

      If you are to hold a "DEMONcratic" vote among Anti-Lynas people who are fanatical enough to take the trouble to go to a DEMONstration in order to massage the ego of their egoistic master brainwasher, it will not take even the intelligence of a 1 year old child to know what the outcome would be.

      IT IS TANTAMOUNT TO TAKING A VOTE AT AN INTERNATIONAL PURE VEGETARIAN CONVENTION TO ASSESS HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD ARE AGAINST EATING MEAT.

      And...... out comes... the answer :..."99.9999% OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD ARE AGAINST EATING MEAT ! (not 100% only because a couple of people accidentally drop the slip into the wrong box like what they did in Kuantan !)

      This type of statistics is best confined to the garbage bin.

      Come to think about it even the garbage bin is too clean for such crab !

      Even the garbage bin might object !

      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

      Delete
  30. REMEMBER THE "WHITE GAS BULBS" OR RATHER KEROSENE GAS MANTLES MADE IN GERMANY?

    THESE WERE USED IN THOSE LANTERNS WHICH GIVE OFF A VERY BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT AND WERE UNIVERSALLY USED BY ALL STREET HAWKERS IN THE WHOLE OF MALAYSIA IN THE 60s AND 70s?

    THESE GAS MANTLES ARE MADE OF FABRIC SOAKED IN THORIUM-232 MIXED WITH A LITTLE CERIUM. AND AFTER THE INITIAL "FIRING" IT BECOMES ALMOST PURE THORIUM DIOXIDE.

    IN THE BURNING KEROSENE VAPOUR, THE TEMPERATURE CAN REACH OVER 1,000 DEGREES CENTIGRADE.

    MILLIONS OF MALAYSIANS IN THE PAST HAD HELD THESE "DANGEROUS, RADIOACTIVE" THORIUM GAS MANTLES IN THEIR HANDS.

    THESE ARE STILL BEING SOLD FREELY AND WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL LICENSE FROM AELB.

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

    WHY ARE FOLKS FROM THE ANTI-LYNAS CAMP SO FRIGHTEN OF 6 Bq/g FROM LYNAS WASTE WHILE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE 3,585 Bq/g OF RADIATION FROM THEIR KEROSENE LAMP ?


    Dr Looi
    *

    ReplyDelete
  31. Quote:

    "Odysess Sin Ner >>...........I am interested to know how does 64,000 tons/annum of acidic thorium will behave in a swampy, wet and leaky condition. Please do not divert the topic and talk about politics that thorium is not soluble. This is truly a coward act and deceiving saying. People is talking about fact but you are mentioning about politics. Oh ya... it is pricking your bone isn't it? Step up like a man and quench my keen to know as my statement says." Unquote

    Answer:

    The figure of 64,000 tons per year of Thorium alleged to be produced by the Lynas plant is too ridiculous to be true.

    Let's see...

    The Lynas ore from Mount Weld contains less than 1,600 ppm (parts per million of Thorium) so:

    1,600 tons of Thorium = 1,000,000 tons of Ore.

    64,000 tons of Thorium = 64,000 x 1 million divided by 1,600
    = 40,000,000 tons of Ore !!

    WHERE ON EARTH IS LYNAS GOING TO FIND THE SHIPS TO CARRY 40,000,000 TONS OF ORE PER YEAR FROM AUSTRALIA TO KUANTAN !!

    IF A GIANT LORRY COULD CARRY 4 TONS, WE NEED 10,000,000 LORRY LOADS TO CARRY THE ORE FROM THE PORT TO THE PLANT !

    THIS IS THE TYPE OF GROSS EXAGGERATION THAT IS VERY TYPICAL OF THE ANTI-LYNAS FOLK.


    Actually, Lynas is expected to produce about 820,000 tons of WLP in the 1st 10 years of operation or 82,000 tons of WLP per year.

    The WLP (Water Leached Purification) contains less than 1,600 ppm or 0.16 % of Thorium-232.

    As such we would expect to get only 0.0016 x 82,000 tons of Thorium per year i.e.131 tons of Thorium per year AND NOT 64,000 TONS OF THORIUM PER YEAR !

    This magical transformation of 131 tons of Thorium into 64,000 tons of Thorium reminds me of this joke:

    "For normal people 1 + 1 = 2 but for those people in the Share Market 1 + 1 = 11,"

    AND OF COURSE, FOR THE ANTI-LYNAS FOLK, 131 = 64,000 !


    Dato' Dr Looi.
    *

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

    ReplyDelete
  32. If you really want ABSOLUTELY NO POLLUTION,

    Close Down All Our Factories, Industrial Plants, Power Plants, Oil Rigs etc, and Become a 4th World Country and

    Send Our Daughters and Granddaughters To Myanmar and Kampuchea to Work as Domestic Servants!

    I have always maintained that the main problem is not radiation but the normal chemical toxic wastes from a normal chemical plant.

    I agree that there is also a fear that the waste will be dumped all over the place. Unfortunately, this risk also apply to all our factories and plants.

    Should we demand that all our factories and plants to be closed down so that we can go back to the good old days of tapping rubber and plucking oconuts?

    And why is it that we only target Lynas and not the rest of all our factories and industrial plants which produce far more toxic wastes especially our own oil palm mills and tin mining and smelting industries?

    Using the same logic we should ask all these plants to send all their wastes back to Germany, England, US etc. I bet with you nobody would want to invest in Malaysia.

    Quote Ng Ai Soo

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

    For example, a 1,000MW coal plant after just 1 year of operation produces 6,000,000 tons of CO2, 44,000 tons of SO2, 22,000 tons of NO2, 320,000 tons of ash containing 400 tons of heavy metals (arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead etc.) and, here’s the kicker, including 5 tons of Uranium and 12 tons of Thorium from which the radon gas of both decay chains are out the chimney and into our air...

    And we are building TWO of these now to add to those we already have on the peninsula." Unquote.


    (Quote from Scientific American)

    "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."

    Dato' Dr Looi.
    *

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

    ReplyDelete
  33. CK, let put your real name like Dr Looi and me if you a true professional.

    Don't hide like a mouse.

    ReplyDelete
  34. *
    *
    Quote Jin Yung Wong 09.01.13: " So the French and Japanese aren't so intelligent after all, these fella are building special facility to dispose very low level radioactive waste (VLLW), which according to looi, they can easily dilute it to <1 Bq/g and do whatever they want with it. Now we beat the French and Japanese, Malaysian are more intelligent, proven by looi..". Unquote.

    COMMENT:

    Mr Jin should give more details about the special facility which the French and the Japanese are building and where do the radioactive materials come from. Are they from the Nuclear Power Plants or the NORMs from the soil or rocks? Otherwise whatever he says is totally non-physical and illogical.

    Both the French and the Japanese do not have much of a mining industry especially those mines which involve the need to handle the NORMS (naturally occurring radioactive materials).

    Nearly all their radioactive wastes comes from the Nuclear Power Plants and radioactive wastes from these plants are different from the NORMS and should be managed in a slightly different way.

    NORMS, LIKE THE THORIUM-232 FROM THE LYNAS ORE, ARE NATURAL USUALLY WEAKLY RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES WHICH MAKE UP THE LAND ON WHICH WE ARE STANDING ON AND HAVE BEEN WITH US FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS.

    HUMANS AND ALL OTHER LIFE FORMS ON THIS PLANET EVOLVE WITH THESE NORMS AND AS SUCH IS PART AND PARCEL OF OUR MAKEUP.

    The Australians are the ones with the best expertise in the management of radioactive "wastes" from their mines.

    ANASTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) is the centre of nuclear expertise, and provides information and advice to their government on matters related to the use of nuclear technology.


    QUOTE ANASTO:

    "VERY LOW LEVEL WASTE (VLLW) DOES NOT NEED A HIGH LEVEL OF CONTAINMENT AND ISOLATION AND THEREFORE IS SUITABLE FOR DISPOSAL IN NEAR-SURFACE LANDFILL-TYPE FACILITIES WITH LIMITED REGULATORY CONTROL." UNQUOTE.

    LYNAS MOST "RADIOACTIVE" RESIDUE i.e. the WLF at 6 Bq/g is at the borderline between VLLW and EW (exempt waste) and as such can easily be diluted to be in the EW category, a category which can qualify as a material which can be used as any other ordinary material.

    The Thorium-232 and the rare earth elements are concentrated at Mount Weld in Australia when part of the soil was removed.

    SO IN MALAYSIA, IF LYNAS WERE TO DILUTE THE RESIDUE (WLP) WITH SOIL AND THE THORIUM-232 ONCE AGAIN BECOMES PART OF THE SOIL, IT WILL BECOME JUST LIKE ITS NATURAL STATE IN AUSTRALIA !

    YOU REMOVE THE PART OF THE SOIL, IT BECOMES MORE RADIOACTIVE, YOU JUST PUT BACK THE SOIL AND IT BECOME WHAT WAS BEFORE FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS.

    SO WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?

    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

    Dato' Dr Looi Hoong Wah
    FAMM, MB., ChB(Manchester), MRCS(England), MRCP(UK), MRCP(London)
    *
    http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/kb-council-won-t-let-hair-down-on-enforcement-1.178328


    ReplyDelete


  35. :-)
    UNSCEAR ADMITS THAT THEY WERE WRONG TO IMPLY THAT THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION ! :-) :-) :-)

    There IS a safe level and that is,

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

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

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

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

    Excerpts of Article in Forbes:

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

    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."


    Dato' Dr Looi Hoong Wah



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

    ReplyDelete
  36. *
    *
    Quote Ariel: "However much scientific data cannot erase the painful memories of the Bukit Merah incident." Unquote

    COMMENT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There IS a safe level and that is,

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

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

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

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

    Excerpts of Article in Forbes:

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

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

    *

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

    ReplyDelete
  37. Deal all,
    All these smart talk are very impressive yet totally useless when it comes to lay people like me who are not scientifically grounded....my sudden intrusion into these SMART discussions might be a little jarring but IMHO 1 SIMPLE BUT IMPORTANT fact has been glaringly left out.

    IT IS OUR RIGHT AS RESIDENTS TO REJECT WHAT WE DEEM AS UNDESIRABLE IRRESPECTIVELY OF WHETHER IT IS SAFE OR NOT. IF WE ARE IGNORANT THEN, THEN SO BE IT. IT IS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT OF OURS TO VOTE FOR A PERSON IN OFFICE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT RIGHT. NOT A BULLDOG OR SAMSENG

    ReplyDelete
  38. A CHUNK OF THORIUM IS NO MORE HARMFUL THAN A BAR OF SOAP

    1. 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


    CONT.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 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)


    #####

    cont.

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

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

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

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

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

    #####

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

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

    #####

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

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

    CONT.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 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. 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).

    ####

    23. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 24. 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.

    ####

    25. 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)

    ####

    26. The average Malaysian soil ~ 20 parts per million of thorium

    So the top metre of soil (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 !


    ####

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

    Pure Thorium-232 = 4,080 Bq/gm

    Pure Potassium-40 = 254,000 Bq/gm

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

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

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

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

    Lynas Rare Earth Waste = 6 Bq/gm

    ####

    28. 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 this 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.”



    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

    ReplyDelete
  42. COMPARISON OF RADIOACTIVITY IN Bq (number of atoms decaying in 1second)

    Pure Thorium-232 = 4,080 Bq/gm

    Pure Potassium-40 = 254,000 Bq/gm

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

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

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

    1. Monazite Ore from Amang or Tin Tailings in Malaysia = 284 Bq/gm

    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 ! ! !

    ReplyDelete
  43. *
    1. Richard Martin, famous journalist with extensive experience in Thorium

    "A CHUNK OF THORIUM IS NO MORE HARMFUL THAN A BAR OF SOAP

    *

    2. United States Government Rare Earth Adviser and Expert Jack Lifton:

    "LYNAS PLANT IS LARGEST AND SAFEST IN THE WORLD."

    *

    3. Christoph Wilhelm, in charge of decommissioning Germany’s nuclear plants from Karlsruhr Institute of Technology:

    “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."

    *

    4. Scientists at John Hopkins University

    " LOW DOSE RADIATION CANNOT CAUSE CONGENITAL DEFECTS"

    *

    5. Nick Tsurikov, Renown International Radiation Safety Expert:

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

    *

    6. Professor WADE ALLISON OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY:

    "THE DOSE LIMIT CAN SAFELY BE RAISED TO 100 mSv, based on current health statistics."

    *

    7. Nick Tsurikov, Renown International Radiation Safety Expert:

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

    *

    8. 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" !

    *

    9. Wong Tack = WRONG TRACK?


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

    ReplyDelete
  44. Quote KL Fow: " If Lynas is really safe, why they are not allowed to build the plant in Australia?

    Before you give answers like low operating cost in Malaysia blah blah blah, please read my question carefully.

    I am asking why Lynas is NOT ALLOWED to build the plant in Australia." Unquote.

    Comment:

    It is a blatant lie to say that Lynas is not allowed to build the plant in Australia. Lynas has a licence to build the plant in Australia as well as in China.

    The China option was out because of export restrictions and Lynas decided to build the plant in Malaysia purely on economic grounds.

    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 !

    Lynas built in Malaysia because of economic reasons.

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


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

    ___________________ Australia = RM 40,000 per month

    2. Water..................... : Malaysia = RM 0.84 per cubic metre

    ___________________Australia = RM 6.00 per cubic metre

    3. Electricity............... : Malaysia = RM 0.23 /Kilowatt hr

    ___________________Australia = RM 0.96 /Kilowatt hr

    4. Caustic Soda .........: Malaysia = RM 500 per tonne

    ___________________Australia = RM 1,500 per tonne


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



    New Rare Earth Plants and Mines

    1. Arafura in Whayalla Australia
    2. Great Western Minerals in Steenkampskraal South Africa
    3. Avalon Rare Metal in Thor Lake Canada
    4. Alkane in Dubbo New South Wales Australia
    5. Molycorp Inc. in Mountain Pass, California, USA
    6. Tasman in Sweden
    7. Greenland Minerals and Energy in Greenland
    8. Canada Rare Earth in Canada
    9. 50 yr Old La Roche Plant in France


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

    Australians building Giant Rare Earth Plant in Australia:

    It should also be noted that Australians are delighted that a company called Arafura is building a huge Rare Earth Processing Plant costing over A$1 Billion in Whyalla in South Australia.

    This plant is expected to produce over 1,000 high paying jobs for the Australians.

    Arafura must be hoping that we are stupid enough to stop Lynas and stop competing with them.

    In the past the rare earth plants in America were closed for the same reason why any mine or company close down...it had become uneconomical i.e. losing money!

    This was because at that time China was selling rare earth elements at a ridiculously low price and nobody could compete with them.

    FOREIGNERS MUST HAVE A RATHER UNFLATTERING OPINION OF THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE ANTI-LYNAS CLIQUE..... TRYING SO HARD TO CHASE AWAY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF REE INVESTMENTS WHEN THE REST OF THE WORLD ARE BEGGING THESE COMPANIES TO COME TO THEIR COUNTRY AND ADD BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THEIR ECONOMY AND TO CREATE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF HIGH PAYING GOOD QUALITY JOBS FOR THEIR CITIZENS !


    Dr Looi


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEdL10u-4GA

    ReplyDelete
  45. *
    ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;)

    IT IS RATHER ODD THAT ANY MATERIAL THAT HAS A RADIOACTIVITY OF BELOW 1.20 Bq/g IN THE USA OR EU CAN EVEN BE EATEN, WHEREAS IN MALAYSIA YOU NEED A SPECIAL LICENSE FROM AELB TO TRANSPORT THESE SAME MATERIAL iF IT'S RADIOACTIVITY IS MORE THAN 1 Bq/g !

    Regulatory Limits On Radioactivity In Foods (in Bq/kg)*

    USA FOODSTUFF = 1.20 Bq/g (1,200 Bq/kg)

    E.U. FOODSTUFF = 1.25 Bq/g (1,250 Bq/kg)

    Accepted global limits on radioactivity levels in foods is 1000 Bq/kg (1,200 Bq/kg in the U.S. and 1,250 Bq/g in the EU).
    Dominated by cesium-137 and Sr-90, these levels were set by organizations like the IAEA and UNSCEAR after decades of study.

    IN MALAYSIA, ANY MATERIAL THAT HAS A RADIOACTIVITY OF OVER 1 Bq/g WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE RADIOACTIVE AND NEEDS AELB PERMISSION TO BE TRANSPORTED ! ! !
    IN THE EU AND USA, BELOW 1.2 Bq/g IS CONSIDERED
    to be non-radioactive for transport purpose AND IF IT IS EDIBLE IS ALSO FIT TO BE EATEN ! ! !

    In the vast majority of the countries, any material which has an activity of 10 Bq/g or less may be transported internationally as an ordinary non-hazardous material from a radiation safety point of view.

    Because the 1989 Malaysian Transport Regulations are closely based on the out-of-date 1985 IAEA Transport Regulations, any material that contains Uranium and Thorium with a combined activity of just 1 Bq/g needs to be regulated by AELB.

    BECAUSE OF THIS, WE HAVE THE RATHER COMICAL SITUATION OF THE LYNAS ORE CONCENTRATE BEING TRANSPORTED AS A NON-RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL FROM AUSTRALIA TO SINGAPORE AND MAGICALLY BECOMES "RADIOACTIVE" WHEN IT ENTERS MALAYSIAN WATERS ! ! !

    Dato' Dr Looi

    ReplyDelete
  46. *
    10.06.13 Quote Kevin Ee: "..1 tonne of radioactive waste spread all over Malaysia will just produce the so-called background radiation but 1 tonne when concentrated in a small area will certainly produce harmful radiation.." Unquote.

    COMMENT:

    THE WLP WHICH IS THE ONLY SO-CALLED "RADIOACTIVE" LYNAS RESIDUE HAS ONLY 6 Bq/g which is considered to be non-radioactive for transport purpose by the IAEA and by most of the advanced countries in the world.

    Any material which has an activity of 10 Bq/g or less may be transported internationally as an ordinary non-hazardous material from a radiation safety point of view.

    Because the 1989 Malaysian Transport Regulations are closely based on the out of date 1985 IAEA Transport Regulations, any material that contains Uranium and Thorium with a combined activity of just 1 Bq/g needs to be regulated by AELB.

    BECAUSE OF THIS, WE HAVE THE RATHER COMICAL SITUATION OF THE LYNAS ORE CONCENTRATE BEING TRANSPORTED AS A NON-RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL FROM AUSTRALIA TO SINGAPORE AND BECOMES "RADIOACTIVE" ONLY WHEN IT ENTERS MALAYSIAN WATERS ! ! !

    The 6 Bq/g of Thorium and Uranium in the Lynas WLP is an incredibly low level of radioactivity. The risk is equally small. As a comparison,


    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 ?


    REMEMBER THE "WHITE GAS BULBS" OR RATHER KEROSENE GAS MANTLES MADE IN GERMANY?

    THESE WERE USED IN THOSE LANTERNS WHICH GIVE OFF A VERY BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT AND WERE UNIVERSALLY USED BY ALL STREET HAWKERS IN THE WHOLE OF MALAYSIA IN THE 60s AND 70s?

    THESE GAS MANTLES ARE MADE OF FABRIC SOAKED IN THORIUM-232 MIXED WITH A LITTLE CERIUM. AND AFTER THE INITIAL "FIRING" IT BECOMES ALMOST PURE THORIUM DIOXIDE.

    IN THE BURNING KEROSENE VAPOUR, THE TEMPERATURE CAN REACH OVER 1,000 DEGREES CENTIGRADE.

    MILLIONS OF MALAYSIANS IN THE PAST HAD HELD THESE "DANGEROUS, RADIOACTIVE" THORIUM GAS MANTLES IN THEIR HANDS.

    THESE ARE STILL BEING SOLD FREELY AND WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL LICENSE FROM AELB.

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

    WHY ARE FOLKS FROM THE ANTI-LYNAS CAMP SO FRIGHTEN OF 6 Bq/g FROM LYNAS WASTE WHILE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE 3,585 Bq/g OF RADIATION FROM THEIR KEROSENE LAMP ?


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

    Pure Thorium-232 = 4,080 Bq/gm

    Pure Potassium-40 = 254,000 Bq/gm

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

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

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

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

    Lynas Rare Earth Waste = 6 Bq/gm

    Dato' Dr Looi

    ReplyDelete
  47. *
    ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;)

    BACKGROUND RADIATION HAS FALLEN IN GEBENG SINCE LYNAS ACTIVATED THE PLANT ! ! !

    FROM AELB, BACKGROUND RADIATION IN GEBENG:

    MAY 2012 = 0.325 microSv/hr

    JUNE 2012 = 0.330 microSv/hr

    JULY 2012 = 0.319 microSv/hr

    ♥ Lynas Ore Concentrate arrive in Gebeng = 22.11.12

    JAN 2013 = 0.216 microSv/hr

    FEB 2013 = 0.217 microSv/hr

    MAC 2013 = 0.226 microSv/hr

    APRIL 2013 = 0.220 microSv/hr

    Dato' Dr Looi Hoong Wah

    ReplyDelete
  48. *
    ♥ ♥

    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.

    IT CONCLUDED WHAT NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN SAYING

    FOR DECADES i.e.

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

    The linear no-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) does not apply to doses less than 100 mSv per year.

    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.

    Note: 100 mSv/yr = 5,000,000 % Lynas worst case scenario ! ! !


    ReplyDelete
  49. WHAT'S ALL THE BIG FUSS ABOUT THE SO-CALLED "WASTE" FROM THE LYNAS PLANT?

    Why waste Malaysian Taxpayers' money debating this non-issue in the Parliament when there are much more important problems that these MPs have been paid to solve?

    ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS TO MIX ALL THE RESIDUES TOGETHER AND THEN ADD AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF MALAYSIAN SOIL AND THE MIXTURE WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE NON-RADIOACTIVE EVEN IN THE USA AND IN THE EU !

    Kindly note: Blending is a legitimate way of decreasing the impact of a NORM (Naturally Occuring Radioactive Material) on the environment and follows the basic safety principle of World Health Organisation, International Labour Organisation and seven more UN and other reputable international organisations - with guidelines on this existing in many countries.

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

    consisting of

    1. WLP = 64,000 tonnes/yr >>>> ~ 6 Bq/g

    2. FGD = 55,800 tonnes/yr >>>> ~ 0.049 Bq/g

    3. NUF = 170,600 tonnes/yr >>>> ~ 0.029 Bq/g

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

    If we are to mix the WLP, FGD and NUF together, we will end up with a mixture of "waste" with a radioactivity of only 1.349 Bq/g and

    IF WE ADD AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF MALAYSIAN SOIL TO THE MIXTURE WE WILL END UP WITH A VALUABLE MIXTURE OF SOIL ENRICHED WITH MAGNESIUM, CALCIUM AND PHOSPHATE..

    WITH A RADIOACTIVITY OF ONLY 0.715 Bq/g,

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

    Regulatory Limits On Radioactivity In Foods (Source: IAEA)

    USA FOODSTUFF = 1.20 Bq/g (1,200 Bq/kg)

    E.U. FOODSTUFF = 1.25 Bq/g (1,250 Bq/kg)

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

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

    IN MALAYSIA, ANY MATERIAL THAT HAS A RADIOACTIVITY OF OVER 1 Bq/g WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE RADIOACTIVE AND NEEDS AELB PERMISSION TO BE TRANSPORTED ! ! !

    In the EU and USA, below 1.2 Bq/g is considered to be non-radioactive
    AND IF IT IS EDIBLE, IS ALSO FIT TO BE EATEN ! ! !

    Please note that:

    THE 40 YEAR OLD RARE EARTH PLANT IN LA ROCHELLE, FRANCE HAD IN THE PAST USED PART OF THEIR WASTE TO FILL UP THE LOW-LYING AREAS OF THEIR PLANT AND THIS HAS NOT CAUSED ANY PROBLEM !

    IN FACT, PRIOR TO THE END OF 1974, THIS PLANT RELEASED ALL RADIOACTIVE LIQUIDS AND SOLIDS DIRECTLY INTO THE SEA (WHERE LOCALS AS WELL AS TOURISTS ARE SWIMMING) WITHOUT CAUSING ANY PROBLEM

    Warmest regards

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


    ps:

    85% OF LYNAS "WASTE" IS OF MALAYSIAN ORIGIN


    Annual import of Ore Concentrate = 65,000 tonnes

    Annual production of REE = 22,500 tonnes

    Therefore actual 'Waste" of Australian origin

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

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

    consisting of

    1. WLP = 64,000 tonnes/yr

    2. FGD = 55,800 tonnes/yr

    3. NUF = 170,600 tonnes/yr

    THEREFORE AUSTRALIA CONTRIBUTES TO ONLY 14.5 % (42,000 divided by 290,400x100 %) of the so-called "waste" tonnage

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


    #############


    BACKGROUND RADIATION HAS FALLEN IN GEBENG SINCE LYNAS ACTIVATED THE PLANT ! ! !

    FROM AELB, BACKGROUND RADIATION IN GEBENG:

    MAY 2012 = 0.325 microSv/hr

    JUNE 2012 = 0.330 microSv/hr

    JULY 2012 = 0.319 microSv/hr

    ♥ Lynas Ore Concentrate arrive in Gebeng = 22.11.12

    JAN 2013 = 0.216 microSv/hr

    FEB 2013 = 0.217 microSv/hr

    MAC 2013 = 0.226 microSv/hr

    APRIL 2013 = 0.220 microSv/hr


    ReplyDelete
  50. *
    ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;)

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

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

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

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

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

    SO WHAT'S SO DANGEROUS ABOUT THE LYNAS WASTE ?

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

    Kindly note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Regulatory limits on radioactivity in foods (source: IAEA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Note:

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

    a .... > 74 Bq/g in USA

    b .... > 10 Bq/g in Australia and

    c .... > 1 Bq/g in Malaysia ! ! !

    Why?

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

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

    IT'S TIME FOR MALAYSIA TO "DOWNGRADE" IT'S STANDARDS TO THAT OF THE STANDARDS OF THE MORE ADVANCED COUNTRIES ! ! !

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

    ReplyDelete
  51. c) Alpha radiation from Th-232 is 20 times more damaging than beta and gamma radiation from K-40.

    I couldn't stop laughing when I saw this sentence. Every real scientist worth his salt knows that Alpha is the least damaging, followed by Beta and finally Gamma being the most damaging. Alpha can be blocked by a paper tissue. Gamma needed thick sheet of lead to block. This writer must be a fake scientist to write that sentence.


    ReplyDelete
  52. *
    UNSCEAR: > > LOW DOSE RADIATION (<100 mSv) IS SAFE AND WE CAN'T USE THE LNT HYPOTHESIS TO PREDICT CANCER FROM LOW DOSES OF RADIATION.

    UNSCEAR HAS NOW ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE WRONG TO IMPLY THAT THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION ! :-) :-) :-)

    There IS a safe level and that is,

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

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

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

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

    Excerpts of Article in Forbes:

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

    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."


    Dato' Dr Looi Hoong Wah

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

    ReplyDelete
  53. *
    Quote Anti-Lynas: " According to AELB (Atomic Energy Licensing Board's standard), the radioactive threshold for K-40 is 100 Bq/g whereas it is 1 Bq/g for thorium-232. This implies that K-40 is 100 times less hazardous than Th-232." Unquote.

    Answer:

    Please have a look at this link by Dr Kramer who has a bone to pick with IAEA with regards to the radioactivity threshold in Potassium.

    http://www.icrp.org/consultation_viewitem.asp?guid=%7B6D8775CC-1B19-49FE-A137-A56C7567F082%7D

    Even Dr. Gary H. Kramer, who is the Head of the National Internal Radiation Assessment Section at Health Canada and a world authority in radioactivity in Potassium salts, has a bone to pick with IAEA and ICRP with the above statement and is perplexed by the reason for downgrading the biological effect of K-40.

    Since the average absorbed Beta energy of K-40 decay is 499 keV and the average absorbed Gamma energy is 156 keV, it can be easily calculated that the constant INTERNAL DOSAGE FROM K-40 IS IN THE RANGE OF 0.17 to 0.24 mSv/yr WHICH IS HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT AND IS ABOUT 120 TIMES THAT OF LYNAS WORST CASE SCENARIO OF 0.002 mSv/yr.

    Note: The total internal dose from the NORMs in the body is about 0.42 mSv/yr with K-40 (4,400 Bq) contributing about 0.17 to 0.24 mSv/yr and the rest by C-14 (3,000 Bq) and other trace radionuclides.

    If anybody wants to know more about this, they could read Dr Kramer's letter to the IAEA with regards to this problem.

    Quote Dr Kramer: "40K: Potassium is the 7th most abundant element on the earth's surface and plays an integral part in life.

    Reference Man (ICRP 1975) contains 140 g of potassium of which 0.0117% is the radioactive 40K, which means there is about 17 mg of 40K.

    The activity of 17 mg 40K is approximately 4.4 kBq (or 0.06 Bq g-1) WHICH GIVES AN ANNUAL DOSE OF ~ 0.2 mSv.

    Comparing these values with Table S2 one sees that the 40K in humans is well below the proposed exclusion level of 10 Bq g-1 but is 20 times larger than the IAEA's 10 microSv exclusion dose.

    If one assumes that the exclusion dose is harmless, then is a dose that is 20 times larger still harmless? It appears so as we live with this normally.

    Potassium chloride can be found in large quantities in stores selling materials for water treatment. The potassium content is about 500 g kg-1.

    Typically, the material is sold in 20 kg bags so each bag contains ~600 kBq of 40K giving a concentration of 30 Bq g-1.

    This is well above the exclusion level yet the material is handled as non-radioactive. The external dose rate in close proximity to a typical display in these types of shops would be about 150 microSv hr-1.

    A worker would only need to be near the pile for about 7 hours to exceed the public dose limit of 1 mSv.

    Contrast 40K with the other exclusion level for Beta/Gamma emitters (i.e., 0.1 Bq g-1).

    When one considers that foods like bananas and potatoes exceed this level (~0.16 Bq g-1) it becomes clearer why the ICRP had to make a special case for 40K (the IAEA exempted 40K within the human body from consideration).

    The question remains why the emissions of 40K (Beta decay: 1.31 MeV max and 0.51 MeV ave; Gamma Rays: 1.46 MeV) can be considered to be less harmful than other beta emitters by a factor of a 100?"

    Unquote.


    Dr Looi

    http://www.icrp.org/consultation_viewitem.asp?guid=%7B6D8775CC-1B19-49FE-A137-A56C7567F082%7D

    ReplyDelete
  54. *
    *
    ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;) ♥ :) ;)

    Quote Anti-Lynas: " The clearance level for K-40 is 10 Bq/g for IAEA [8] and 100 Bq/g [9] for AELB, whereas for Th-232 it is 1 Bq/g. This may be construed to mean that K-40 is 10 times and 100 times more harmless than Th-232 according to IAEA and AELB respectively. " Unquote.

    COMMENT:

    Using the above illogical logic, since

    1).... K-40 clearance (discharge) level by IAEA = 10 Bq/g

    2).... K-40 clearance (discharge) level by AELB = 100 Bq/g

    THIS MEANS THAT THE MALAYSIAN (aelb) K-40 IS 10

    TIMES MORE HARMLESS THAN THE

    INTERNATIONAL (iaea) K-40 according to the above

    Anti-Lynas logic ! ! !

    We cannot use the Clearance or Discharge level of a radionuclide from different agencies to determine how dangerous a radionuclide is.

    I DO NOT KNOW THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A MALAYSIAN POTASSIUM-40 AND AN INTERNATIONAL POTASSIUM-40 !

    SUCH LOGIC CAN OBVIOUSLY LEAD TO SILLY CONCLUSIONS ! ! !

    &&&

    K-40 = Potassium-40

    Clearance or Discharge Level = Level of Radioactivity below which the radionuclide can be cleared or discharged from any form of regulation from a radiation point of view.

    Dato' Dr Looi

    :) ;) :) ;) :) ;) :) ;)

    ReplyDelete

  55. Quote Anti-Lynas: "...Lynas has not been honest and is not transparent...."

    Comment:

    THE MAIN CAUSE OF THIS ANTI-LYNAS DEBACLE IS THAT LYNAS HAS BEEN FAR TOO HONEST AND FAR TOO TRANSPARENT ! ! !

    If Lynas has not been too honest and too transparent about their operations, they would have made the following more diplomatic but equally honest statement from the word go, and would have avoided all the irrational fears in the easily brainwashed population:

    "The concentrated ore from Mount Weld is only very slightly radioactive with a tiny radioactivity of 6 Bq/g from naturally occurring elements..

    Compare this with the

    WASTE FROM MALAYSIAN AMANG INDUSTRY > 100Bq/g and

    WASTE "SCALE AND SLUDGE" IN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

    ....................................LIKE IN PETRONAS = 1,000 Bq/g


    For transportation purposes,

    A RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IS DEFINED AS ANY MATERIAL WHICH HAS A SPECIFIC ACTIVITY GREATER THAN

    a .... > 74 Bq/g in USA (U.S.NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission)

    b .... > 10 Bq/g (Thorium-232) in Australia and

    c .... > 1 Bq/g in Malaysia ! ! !

    As such, the Lynas ore can be considered as non-radioactive and is allowed to be transported freely to any country in the world (except Malaysia).

    The average radioactivity of the 3 so-called "waste" products is only 1.35 Bq/g .
    This is only marginally above the "safe to eat" level in the EU and the USA of 1.25 Bq/g and 1.2 Bq/g respectively.

    The "waste" in it's moist form, with about 50% moisture, would have a specific activity of only 0.90 Bq/g !

    A RADIOACTIVITY OF 0.90 Bq/g IS FIT TO BE EATEN (IF EDIBLE) UNDER US AND EU REGULATIONS ! ! !

    Regulatory limits on radioactivity in foods (source: IAEA)

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

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

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

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

    Dato' Dr Looi

    ReplyDelete
  56. *
    ♥ Nick Tsurikov, Renown International Radiation Safety Expert:

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

    ♥ Richard Martin, famous journalist with extensive experience in Thorium

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

    ♥ United States Government Rare Earth Adviser and Expert Jack Lifton:

    “LYNAS PLANT IS LARGEST AND SAFEST IN THE WORLD.”

    ♥ Scientists at John Hopkins University

    ” LOW DOSE RADIATION CANNOT CAUSE CONGENITAL DEFECTS”

    ♥ Professor WADE ALLISON OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY:

    “THE DOSE LIMIT CAN SAFELY BE RAISED TO 100 mSv, based on current health statistics.”

    ♥ Nick Tsurikov, Renown International Radiation Safety Expert:

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

    ♥ 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” !

    ♥ UNSCEAR (The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation):

    "RADIATION DOSES LESS THAN ABOUT 10 rem ( 0.1 Sv ) ARE SAFE."

    (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)

    ♥ PROFESSOR DAVID BRADLEY, University of Surrey UK, with three-decade experience in the radiation protection and radiation physics field and have conducted more than 200 researches and publications in radiation protection and medical physics said:

    " THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE LYNAS ADVANCED MATERIALS PLANT WOULD CAUSE AN ENVIRONMENTAL OR HEALTH CONCERN."

    ♥ Christoph Wilhelm, in charge of decommissioning Germany’s nuclear plants from Karlsruhr Institute of Technology:

    “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.”

    Dr Looi

    ReplyDelete
  57. *


    CANCER AND LOW DOSE RADIATION of < 100 mSv.

    After decades of intensive studies, UNSCEAR ( United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) now

    ADMITS THAT THEY WERE WRONG TO IMPLY THAT THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION with regards to cancer !

    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 link:

    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 (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) HAS FINALLY ADMITTED THAT WE CAN'T USE THE LNT (Linear No Threshold) HYPOTHESIS TO PREDICT CANCER FROM LOW DOSES OF RADIATION."

    What this mean is that the probability of a small dose of radiation causing cancer is non-existent.

    It also means the calculation of actual risk of cancer from radiation is a lot more complicated, since it becomes more than just multiplying.
    The dose distribution is also important (whether it is all at once or over a prolonged period of time the dose occurs).

    Since the LNT hypothesis does not apply to low radiation doses, it is not supported by single event dosages of less than 100 mSv or by chronic annual dose levels of 200 mSv.

    Above such dose rates there do appear to be small increases in cancer, but the relationship is not linear until much higher doses occurs.

    At levels of more than 500 mSv per event the relationship appears to be more or less linear.

    It can be concluded that acute one time exposure to 100 mSv does not result in an increase in the probability of cancer and that acute one time doses of more than 100 mSv but less than 250 mSv may or may not result in a minuscule increase in lifetime cancer risk, depending on the circumstances, and as such can be reasonably ignored.

    OTHER ADVERSE EFFECTS OF RADIATION

    ♥ Congenital Defects:

    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.

    Some studies however, suggest that an acute single event dose of > 250 mSv can result in a small increase in birth defects, although it is more likely to result in abortions than term births of individuals with major birth defects.

    ♥ Cataracts:

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

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

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

    ♥ Infertility

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

    ♥ Hair Loss:

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

    ♥ Chronic effects on the glands:

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


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


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

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dear CK,

    Re: The Schrodinger's Cat Paradox.

    Just saw your comment on Mr Ng Ai Soo's inverse square law statement.

    The Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment is not really a paradox but rather just an analogy and it will work only if the cat is the size of a sub-atomic particle.

    For instance, if you have a real cat and put it in a box, it will scratch and scream like hell and you will know that it is alive !

    And if the box is air-tight, after 3 or 4 days, you will know that it is DEAD without even opening the box.

    If you have an observer A just looking at the box, and another group of 1,000 observers using an X-ray scanner, the 2nd group will KNOW with absolute certainty if the cat is dead or alive even without opening the box.

    An if the 2nd group tells me that the cat is DEAD, the cat is DEAD !

    To observer A, the cat is both dead and alive, not because of any high level physics, but because he is IGNORANT of the fact that the cat is DEAD !

    As Stephen Hawking said " When I hear about Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun".....

    So please keep Schrodinger's cat safe to yourself, otherwise it will be shot by Stephen Hawking !

    With regards to Mr Ng Ai Soo's comment, what he really means is that you just cannot use the Newtonian concept Inverse Square law on a single particle.


    The rest energy of a particle is E = mc²

    The relativistic energy E of a single particle moving at a speed of v is

    E = mc² {(1-v² /c²)}^(-1/2) and with Taylor's expansion =

    mc² + ½mv² + 3/8 mv^4/c² + 5/16 mv^6/c^4.........

    The invariant mass m stays the same whether the particle is moving or not.

    For a single atomic or subatomic particle which is not at rest and moving in a vacuum, the energy remains the same no matter how far it has moved and is given by this equation:

    E = mc² + ½mv² + 3/8 mv^4/c² + 5/16 mv^6/c^4.........

    where ½mv² is the Newtonian kinetic energy.

    You can use the Green function to assess the characteristics of the virtual particles that are generated as the above "one" particle interacts with the electromagnetic fields or other fields of other particles during it journey to it's target.

    Warmest regards,

    Dr HW Looi.


    ReplyDelete
  59. We have to remove waste as harmless thing from our environment. The main culprit responsible for medical waste is definitely the waste producer, which are the health-care providers. They should be given extensive training on proper waste disposal management. The change should start from them because they are the root of the problem. Biohazard Waste Disposal Virginia Beach Va

    ReplyDelete
  60. People are at risk of somethings that could be prevented. Is not only communities that dump stuff around but big organizations that should be protecting our lives they destroy them. There must be a legal place were everyone can dump such things. Biohazard Waste Disposal Chesapeake Va

    ReplyDelete
  61. Functional and integrative medicine are current methods of care used today by medical professionals. To understand how they work, what role they play, and their differences, it's important to first learn how and why they're used in the chain of modern medicine. Medical Waste Disposal Chesapeake Va

    ReplyDelete