The Malaysian Insider : Rare earth rage

Opinion

Hafidz Baharom is a social observer who has rankled more than a few feathers. He has written for a number of publications, and is always looking to stir up discussions on things which need to be said.

Rare earth rage

May 06, 2011

MAY 6 — I am of the opinion that the rare earth plant will not benefit Malaysia in the long term for a very simple reason. We don’t have the resources to spare. And by resources, I’m talking about the environmental effects that follow.

While some may argue that China seems to have no qualms about doing it, permit me to point out two things. Firstly, the People’s Republic of China is a nation that covers 9,671,018 km2. Malaysia is a nation that covers 329,847 km2, which is about 3/100th of China’s land mass. Should a radioactive leak occur or pollution becomes a factor, just where does the government expect the people of Gebeng to head to?

Secondly, China, to offset their pollution, spent US$54.4 billion in 2010 on clean energy expenditure, topping the list with Germany and the United States being second and third. How much does Malaysia spend on the same agenda? I can’t find a mention of it anywhere.

Now, to put matters in perspective, let’s start from the very beginning to see just how screwed up this project has been. A project of this magnitude requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report. You can get a copy of the report online, which was posted up in February 2008. The assessment was commissioned by Lynas and conducted by Environcorp.

The report itself has a letterhead that reads “Preliminary Environmental Impact and Quantitative Risk Assessment of the Proposed Advanced Materials Plant”, which is a misnomer. There is nothing quantitative at all about the report.

According to the report, this plant is to be developed on a 100 hectare plot and process 121,036 tonnes of raw lanthanide ore as well as 10,500 tonnes of lanthanide oxide to produce six separate products for exporting purposes. This report states that the raw material will be imported from Lynas’ Mount Weld mine in Western Australia. This material will be shipped to Kuantan port to the facility, but there is no mention how or which route will be used. And that, my dear readers, is all the quantitative data you will find in the report, other than the justification provided that there is a growing demand for rare earth metals.

To add insult to injury, here’s a line translated in the report’s explanation on the estimated air pollution caused by the plant.

Quoting the report:

“The level of sulfur dioxide over the allowed limits may occur if there is a disturbance in normal operating procedures, but there is a very small probability of this occurring.”

Does that sound “quantitative” enough for you?

Basically speaking, the EIA report by Environ Corp Malaysia is vague, misleading and biased towards looking more at profit over planet to the point that this report submitted and placed online by the Malaysian government looks as if a 15-year-old student taking basic science wrote it.

Now let’s look at it from a media perspective.

A statement in The Star by Lynas’ Corporate Communications Vice President entices Malaysians with the promise that this rare earth plant could get Malaysia RM8 billion by 2014.

In April, the Atomics Energy Licensing Board (AELB) came out stating that there has never been an application by Lynas Corp for a pre-operating license.

In the same piece published in The Star, Lynas Chairman Nicholas Curtis came out stating that there was no need to transport the waste to Australia since the “water” will be treated first. But what is questionable is the fact that the Aussies don’t want the “water” produced by Lynas either.

And yet, in another article, it is said that radioactive waste containing thorium produced as a by-product of the refinery will be stored in Kuantan itself. Even worse, if Kuantan is to be the area of storage for radioactive waste, why is our government giving Lynas Corporation a 12-year period tax exemption?!

Who is telling the truth? Is the waste radioactive? Will it be kept in Kuantan or shipped off somewhere to avoid it becoming a threat?

Let’s not talk politics. This isn’t a political issue. It’s one of general safety. We’re a tiny nation of 28 million people. We don’t have China or even Australia’s land mass. While we do have restraints in generating income through foreign investments, surely our federal government has better opportunities than this one. Why is Lynas Corp such an important client, and, vice-versa, why is Lynas Corp so interested in building their plant in Malaysia?

The actions of Lynas, our government agencies and even the Pahang state government are doing nothing more than confusing the public with their doublespeak and conflicting information that has created a climate of fear and paranoia among the rakyat. The government should be more transparent and address these issues first. Put the project to a halt and review everything, transparently, before we bear the brunt of being known in the future as a radioactive dumping ground.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

BERNAMA - Lynas' Plant: Between Facts, Politics And Emotion

General

April 22, 2011 21:00 PM

 

Lynas' Plant: Between Facts, Politics And Emotion By Mohd Shukri Ishak KUANTAN, April 22 (Bernama) -- "If it is safe, why it is not being built in Australia?" This is the most frequently asked question concerning the ongoing construction of Lynas Malaysian Sdn Bhd's rare earth oxides plant in Gebeng, Pahang. Many claim that the project, owned by an Australian company, Lynas Corp Ltd, will produce 20,000 tonnes of radioactive waste annually when fully operational. The amount is said to be 10 times higher than the Asian rare earth oxides plant in Bukit Merah, which was closed 20 years ago. Although the Pahang government has repeatedly explained that the project is safe, many are still dissatisfied, especially with opposition parties constantly harping on the issue. However, the decision made by the government today to set up an independent body to conduct a study on health and safety issues at the plant is hoped to put the minds of the people in Kuantan and those who are politicising the issue at ease. International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed said the study was expected to be completed within a month. Throughout the study and while waiting for the green light from the government, no pre-operation licence will be issued to Lynas, he said. Pahang Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Adnan Yaakob when explaining the issue in the State Assembly sitting recently, said the state government did not have the power to approve the construction of the plant. He said the project was approved by the International Trade and Industry Ministry after they were satisfied with the detailed study carried out by the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) on the level of radiation emitting from the factory. "I wonder why certain parties are staging protests and condemning the state government. We are not the ones who approved the project, so, what is the fuss in telling us to close it (factory)," said Adnan. Prior to this, Kuantan Member of Parliament from Parti Keadilan Rakyat Fuziah Salleh urged the menteri besar to seek the advice and opinions from an independent body on the impact of the project. "The menteri besar should seek advice from an independent body on the impact of the construction of the plant to public safety, health, social, economy and the environment for the people in Kuantan," she said. Kuantan MCA chairman Datuk Ti Lian Ker when contacted, said the opposition had purposely turned the project into a political issue and used "emotion and anger" to attract the public's attention. "Opposition leader in the State Assembly, Leong Ngah Ngah from DAP, when attending the briefings on the project for elected representatives in 2009, had also agreed to the construction of the project, and was reported by a Chinese daily as saying that the state government had managed to secure a huge investment from abroad," he said. Ti also said several briefing sessions conducted to explain the issue had also turned into a political battlefields. "The people in Kuantan were deluged with information that made people emotional and angry. Is this the opposition's political agenda? They seem to be smarter that the atomic energy experts and the AELB," he added. -- BERNAMA

Mkini : Bukit Merah survivor: Our tears have run dry

Bukit Merah survivor: Our tears have run dry

Joseph Sipalan & Lee Long Hui
May 4, 11
9:02am

10 friends can read this story for free

It has been nearly 30 years to the day that Lai Kwan first set foot on the grounds of the Asian Rare Earth (ARE) factory in Bukit Merah, Perak.

She had just found out that she was pregnant with her sixth and youngest child, but poverty left her little choice as she had to take up a job as a labourer with a local contractor, hired to build an additional structure at the facility.

Unknown to her, that decision to earn her family's daily bread would ultimately break her heart.

Several months after her stint at the ARE plant, her son, whom she asked only to be identified as Kok Leong, was born disabled.

The boy had severe problems with his eyes, eventually losing sight in his left eye when he was five. He also suffers from a hole in his heart.

But what pains Lai Kwan the most is that her precious son is mentally challenged.

Kok Leong (left) is now an adult of 29 years, but his mind is no more developed than a toddler's. He has little or no capacity for speech, and he has never been out of diapers.

To keep him from wandering out of the safety of their home, he is kept at the back of their modest unit - separated from the rest of the world by a makeshift wire mesh door that stands up to his chest.

And that is where Lai Kwan, now 69, has spent the past three decades, caring for her boy all these years in much the same way that she had from the first day she brought him home.

One of Lai Kwan's daughters had to quit school, even before she finished Remove class, to help support the family, since her husband had abandoned them and she could not leave her son's side.

“When you see me and my son, can you feel how I feel?” she said in Hakka, the only dialect she is fluent in due to her limited education.

No clue on radiation exposure

The ARE plant, run by Japanese company Mitsubishi Chemicals from the 1980s to the early 1990s, is blamed for spreading radiation poisoning in Bukit Merah due to what is claimed to be its poor management of radioactive waste generated from processing tin tailings to extract rare earth.

The aftermath of the factory's operations has been one of the largest radioactive waste clean-ups in Asia, with a permanent site set up at the foot of nearby Kledang hill.

Ghosts of the health hazards leaking out of the ARE episode resurfaced recently when plans by Australian mining firm Lynas to build another rare earth processing facility, this time in Gebeng, Pahang, were made public.

Recounting her time working on the ARE premises, Lai Kwan said it was a bit odd that all staff members were required to wear a thermometer-like pin over their chests whenever they were on site, which she found out later was used to measure exposure to radioactivity.

“Every time at work, I would smell something really awful. It made me thirsty but otherwise I didn't feel anything strange.

“I only found out (about radioactive waste) when the residents of Kg Papan started protesting against the factory over plans to bury the wastes in the village. The villagers told me about it,” she said.

Another senior citizen, whose family was also afflicted by radiation poisoning from the ARE plant, said it has been hard for her youngest daughter, having been constantly going in and out of the hospital since she was a baby.

Panchavarnam Shanmugam, 55, was working as a labourer clearing forest cover on a plot of land right next to the ARE factory in 1987 when she noticed a lot of water being flushed out from the factory.

“Our work took us about seven months to finish. Many times, there would be a lot of water coming from the factory and it would rise to almost as high as our knees. The water was very smelly,” she said at her home.

'My child suffers'

A year later, Panchavarnam's youngest child, Kasturi, was born and almost immediately the complications arose.

She recounted how as a baby, Kasturi suddenly suffered inflammation all over her body to the point that she had to be treated in a sterile environment at the hospital.

Her daughter also had constant, splitting headaches, which came with heavy nose bleeds and on some occasions, fainting.

It was only when Kasturi was around 10 or 11 years old that doctors discovered that she was suffering from leukaemia. Neither of her two elder siblings has the disease, nor could Panchavarnam recall anyone in her family having the condition.

“She could not run like her friends, and she just found it hard to concentrate on anything. She can speak English, but it's difficult for her to focus... she could not finish her Form Five,” Panchavarnam (right) said of her daughter.

Kasturi, now 23, is now working in a nearby textile store, but Panchavarnam noted that her daughter still goes in and out of the hospital regularly.

“It has been hard for her,” said the doting mother.

And, as described by Lai Kwan's daughter, who asked not to be named, it is hard not only on those made sick by the radiation but also on their families, who are helpless to change the fortunes of their loved ones.

“I had a hard time in school before I stopped, because my classmates would make fun of my brother because of how he is. My mother couldn't go for wedding dinners, or celebrate Mother's Day because there wouldn't be anyone to take care of my brother.

“We have cried so much that our tears have run dry,” she said.

Mkini : IAEA panel to advise gov't on rare earth plant

IAEA panel to advise gov't on rare earth plant

May 4, 11 12:08pm

10 friends can read this story for free

The UN nuclear agency will organise an expert panel to advise the government of Malaysia on the potential radiation risks of a rare earth facility planned by Australian miner Lynas, the agency said.

The move comes after Malaysia asked the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for assistance in addressing public concerns about the project by forming an panel to review radiation heath and safety factors.

It reflects growing public pressure to scrap the plant as environmental activists say it could make Malaysia a dumping 
ground for radioactive by-products from the refining process, creating health risks.

"Through the IAEA Technical Cooperation Programme, the agency will support the international expert mission to review the Lynas project's compliance with relevant international safety standards and good practices and to provide an independent expert opinion on the radiological safety aspects of the Lynas Project," the IAEA said in a statement on Tuesday.

"This mission is scheduled to depart by May 29, 2011."

Lynas last month said a one-month Malaysian review of its rare earths processor for radioactive pollution risks would not pose a delay for the project's completion.

National news agency Bernama had reported International Trade and Industry Minister Mustapa Mohamed as saying at the time that an independent panel would be set up to review the health and safety aspects of the Lynas plant in the central state of Pahang, potentially delaying output outside of top producer China.

Lynas's Malaysia plant was supposed to process rare earth concentrate shipped in from the firm's Mount Weld site in 
western Australia.

Rare earth is crucial to production of high-tech goods from fibre optic cables to smartphones and electric cars.

Big buyers such as Japan, the United States and Europe rely on these metals and have been looking to cut their reliance on China, which accounts for around 95 percent of global output.

The strategy would make Lynas a key global supplier after top rare earth producer China last year imposed export quotas to retain resources.

Company officials have said annual output from the Malaysian plant would hit 22,000 tonnes, meeting roughly a third of total global demand outside China by 2013.

- Reuters

ABC15.com : Is nuclear energy a safe source of power for Arizona's future?

Is nuclear energy a safe source of power for Arizona's future?

ABC15.com (KNXV-TV)

Sunday, April 24, 2011
There is no safe level of exposure to radiation and even small exposures to radioactive agents released during a nuclear accident are capable of causing thyroid cancer and leukemia.

PHOENIX - The push for cleaner, alternative forms of energy is well underway.
But in light of last month’s earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and the subsequent nuclear crisis there, the debate over the role of nuclear power in our country and our state intensifies.
Each Sunday, ABC15.com debuts an Arizona issue - along with two opposing sides on the topic.
Don’t worry, you always have the opportunity to make comments at the bottom of the page. Yeah, your opinion matters, too.
This week we're tackling the debate on whether or not nuclear power should be a part of Arizona’s energy future.
Arizona Public Interest Research Group Executive Director Diane Brown is critical of the idea. She says nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. She sites studies by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission documenting potentially dangerous situation at 17 US nuclear stations.
President And CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute Marvin Fertel disagrees. He says nuclear power is safe. He goes on to say that nuclear energy can bring prosperity to developed and merging economies worldwide.
So, is nuclear energy a safe source of power for our energy future?

Click “next page” to read the first of two positions, “Nuclear energy is a lousy investment and inherently dangerous”.

“Nuclear energy is a lousy investment and inherently dangerous”: By Diane Brown, executive director of the Arizona Public Interest Research Group

Is nuclear power safe and should it be a major part of our energy policy going forward?
No and no. Here are three reasons why:
1. Risk. The Arizona PIRG Education Fund recently released a report documenting a history of safety problems at nuclear reactors in the U.S. Since 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rated 17 instances at domestic nuclear power plants as a “significant precursor” of core damage, meaning a dramatic increase in the risk of a serious accident. American nuclear power plants are not immune to the types of natural disasters, mechanical failures, human errors, and losses of critical electric power supplies that have characterized Fukushima and other major nuclear accidents. Unforeseen events could occur at any plant outside the scope of their emergency planning.
In addition, there is no permanent solution for storing nuclear waste, which is radioactive for tens of thousands of years at any plant, old or new. There is no safe level of exposure to radiation and even small exposures to radioactive agents released during a nuclear accident are capable of causing thyroid cancer and leukemia. Even without an accident, spent nuclear fuel must be stored safely for an indefinite period of time. Any lapses could result in radioactive contamination of our drinking water or other critical resources.
2. Cost. Nuclear power is among the most costly approaches to meeting our energy needs. Over the last fifty years, American taxpayers have subsidized nuclear power to the tune of $145 billion. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the value of government support has exceeded the value of electricity the technology produced.
On top of that, the nuclear industry reaps all of the rewards and none of the burden. U.S. policy has essentially given the nuclear power companies a preemptive bailout - if a nuclear power plant has an accident, taxpayers are on the hook for up to 98% of the liability – which could run into the hundreds of billions.
Even Wall Street investors will not touch nuclear energy because the technology is too risky and too expensive.
3. Better Options Exist. Nuclear power currently generates about 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply. While it would be difficult to immediately shut down existing nuclear reactors, they do not need to continue to operate beyond the 40 years for which they were originally designed nor do new reactors need to be built.
There are safer and less expensive energy resources that can keep the lights on without the potential to explode, spill, or contaminate food supplies. For example, energy efficiency is the quickest, cheapest and cleanest way to meet our energy needs. Energy efficiency also provides five times as much power per dollar of investment as nuclear energy. Building 100 new nuclear reactors would cost approximately $300 billion. If that money went to energy efficiency instead, energy savings in 2030 would be equivalent to the output of more than 80 nuclear reactors and consumers could save more than $600 billion.
In short, nuclear power is a lousy investment, inherently dangerous, and there are better options to meet our energy needs.
Do you agree with this opinion? Add a comment below to sound off.
Click “next page” to read the second position, “U.S. Nuclear power plants verifying defense-in-depth protective measures”

“U.S. Nuclear power plants verifying defense-in-depth protective measures”: By Marvin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute

By a narrow margin, Arizona voters passed an initiative last November legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana, putting into motion a measure that will have profound effects on Arizona’s workplaces, communities and neighborhoods.
The new law leads the state down a “hazy” path for our local communities and family neighborhoods.
Arizonans will now face workplaces where workers could be under the influence of a drug that the federal government classifies as a banned Schedule 1 controlled substance. As a result, employers who have undertaken strict measures to ensure a “drug free” workplace must now permit employees to use the drug. Meanwhile, workers will be working alongside co-workers who could be under the influence of the drug.
The potential effects on workplace safety and productivity are immense. That is why I sponsored House Bill 2541, which establishes a clear definition for the concept of “impairment,” something the ballot initiative failed to do. While the ballot initiative allows employers to take disciplinary action against employees who are impaired, employers deserve clear guidelines on how they can deal with employees under the influence of marijuana or other prescribed drugs in the workplace.
My bill also permits employers to reassign to a different position those employees who might be under the influence of a prescribed drug, including marijuana, which could negatively affect their ability to perform in a “safety sensitive” position. This is common sense. If an employee is under the influence of a drug, then employers should have the ability to protect themselves and their business from liability.
The new law could also have broader economic impacts. Consider the case of a large manufacturer located in my north Phoenix legislative district. The company is considering investing millions to renovate its facility. But the company is taking great pause to make this investment because the neighborhood in which it is located is the site of a new marijuana dispensary.
Companies consider where they invest based on a host of factors, including the quality of the neighborhood in which they are located. If companies are concerned that marijuana dispensaries will attract a customer base they find undesirable, then local communities could lose out on the opportunity to attract and retain good jobs. From the Fortune 500 corporation to the local mom and pop shop, companies might think twice before doing business nearby a marijuana dispensary—and in this economy, we can’t afford further job loss.
City councils and their planning and zoning commissions should encourage public input when determining where to locate dispensaries. Local residents have an important voice in keeping the integrity of our neighborhoods, where our families live and our children go to school.
Medical marijuana is now the law of the land, but we should do all we can to implement the law in a way that respects the concerns of employers, encourages workplace safety, and reflects the character of our local communities and neighborhoods.

F.A.R.E. : No SAFE Dosage of Radiation

Local News: No SAFE Dosage of Radiation

Published on Apr 22, 2011 - 01:04 PM
Footnote: Written by: F.A.R.E, Families Against Radioactive Exposure

From: F.A.R.E, Families Against Radioactive Exposure
 Port Hope Ontario, Canada
www.ph-fare.cainfo@ph-fare.ca
Subject: No Safe Dose of Radiation
The CNSC stated two years ago that no dose of radioactivity of less than "hundreds of milliSieverts" could be dangerous, but the truth is that doses many times less than that, down to thousands of times less than that, have been shown to increase the risk of cancer. FARE has repeatedly brought this to CNSC's attention, and attempted to explain that there is no safe dose of radiation; but for two years CNSC has denied the facts and misled the public. Again, at the recent Darlington hearings, regarding the possible additions of more nuclear power generators, the CNSC continued to convey the same information. The public needs to know that they have been misled by the CNSC.
The following is FARE’s response to this continuing line of misinformation and error.
“About two years ago, in April 2009, at a hearing in Ottawa to present their so-called "Synthesis Report" on radioactive risk in the Port Hope area, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) assured the public that our community in Port Hope was not at any risk from the activities of the nuclear industry in the past, present or future.
 FARE (Families Against Radiation Exposure) brought to the attention of CNSC and the public that the CNSC's report and its oral presentations at the hearing were replete with inaccuracies, omissions, misunderstandings and downright misinformation. Central amongst these was a statement by CNSC's designated spokesperson, Dr. Patsy Thompson, the CNSC’s Director-General of Environmental and Radiation Protection and Assessment, to the effect that there was no evidence in the scientific literature that low-level radiation was harmful.
 She stated that when the scientific literature refers to low doses of radiation, the doses they are referring to "are in the hundreds of millisieverts". (This citation is taken from the official transcript of the hearing; the emphasis is added by us).
FARE pointed out at that time that it has been known since the 1950s that a single X-ray given to a pregnant woman (a dose of about 10-30 milliSieverts in those days) can cause leukemia in the baby that was exposed as a fetus in the womb (Stewart et al., Lancet 268, 447 (1956); Stewart et al., Brit. Med. J. 1, 1495-1508 (1958)). Since then techniques have become much more sensitive, and many other data have confirmed the causation of leukemia and cancer at much lower doses than "hundreds of mSV". For example just this past month, on 8 March 2010, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published work by Dr Louise Pilote and co-workers from McGill University that showed increased risks from doses of 10 mSv or less from low-level radiation in cardiac imaging. Work from Germany has shown that leukemia occurs in increased frequency in children living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, where radiation doses are much less that 1 mSv per year and are estimated to be as low as only thousandths of a mSv above the natural background radiation (for example Kaatssch et al., Int. J. Cancer 1220, 721-726 (2008)). Thus CNSC's estimate of "hundreds of mSv" may be hundreds of thousands or even a million fold incorrect. Science has known for nearly a century that there is no safe dose of radiation. Canada's "Nuclear Safety" Commission has failed to grasp this.
FARE has repeatedly pointed out that CNSC's statements are erroneous and misleading, and that CNSC is not staffed by medical scientific experts who understand the dangers of radiation to health. CNSC has repeatedly responded by re-stating their erroneous misinformation. As recently as at last week's Darlington hearings CNSC spokesperson Patsy Thompson repeated her now notorious statements about the safety of low level radiation, and in so doing totally ignored the above mentioned data and scientific references that had been presented at the hearings by FARE's spokesperson Holly Blefgen. Dr. Thompson is on record as stating that the fact that children living near nuclear plants develop leukemia at increased frequency, compared to those living elsewhere, is not proof that the nuclear radiation is the cause of the leukemia. This is analogous to stating that the fact that people who are exposed to asbestos get the debilitating lung disease asbestosis, and unexposed people do not get the disease, in no way proves that asbestos causes asbestosis. Such a statement might have been made by an asbestos-industry spokesperson in the past, and it would have elicited ridicule in the medical world. The comparable statement by the CNSC's "Director-General of Radiation Protection" makes clear that her CNSC position is as a spokesperson for the nuclear industry.

 In contrast, for anyone with appropriate medical expertise and insight who was speaking on behalf of the medical safety interests of the public, the data on leukemia in children living near nuclear plants would demand an unequivocal stance on the side of caution. That would be genuine Radiation Protection. The CNSC not only does not understand the medical science of radiation, it also misunderstands the term "Radiation Protection" - it apparently believes that it means "Protection of the Radiation Industry".
It is necessary for the public to understand that for two years the CNSC has indoctrinated the public into believing that there is no danger from radioactivity, and all this time it has been shamelessly misleading the public.

merdeka review : 稀土厂独立委员会为转移视线 永续发展网络要政府公开一切 | Independent Commission for the rare earth plant to divert attention Sustainable Development Network to the Government to disclose all

稀土厂独立委员会为转移视线
永续发展网络要政府公开一切

作者／本刊记者 Apr 30, 2011 09:53:46 pm

【本刊记者撰述】马来西亚永续发展网络（SUSDEN）关注政府以独立委员会应对人民反对在关丹格宾建稀土提炼厂的建议。他们认为，这项为期一个月的研究，只是转移人民的视线，并以此使人民疲累下来，并回避人民的抗议。 永续发展网络主席莫哈末沙尼（Muhammad Sha'ani Abdullah）今天发文告关注，在人民发起抗议运动后，才表示要进行独立研究报告，之后才会发出营运执照。 “令人产生的疑问是，这类投资和建设申请是在缺乏严谨审查的过程中批准。事实上，环境评估报告如何进行，并没有促使执法单位进一步调查此事。更甚的是，尽管霹雳州红泥山发生类似事件，许多人民也因此受苦，政府依然态度冷漠。” 他说，更令人不安的是，尽管发生了许多国际核事故，政府仍旧宣布将继续建造核电厂的意愿。如今已证明了核电厂不符合经济效益，而且高投资。他们质疑我国的电力需求是否高到无法应付的情况。此外，我国也不是没有其他可以替代的能源，如太阳能和风能。 4月22日，国际贸易与工业部部长慕斯达法（Mustapa Mohamed）宣布，政府将在短期内成立国际专家领导的独立评估委员会研究澳洲稀土（Rare Earth）企业Lynas在彭亨设立稀土提炼厂一事，检视整体计划的健康和安全性质后，在一个月内呈交报告，届时彭亨州与联邦政府将作最后决定。【点击：国际专家评委会评估稀土厂 贸工部暂不发前期营运执照】 政府须注意五事项 虽然如此，为了不要模糊稀土厂课题的重要性，永续发展网路吁请： （一）政府开始负责和透明，并完整地揭露红泥山和Lynas公司的课题，以便人民掌握资讯。 （二）完全公开Lynas公司的活动对环境的影响。 （三）独立委员会必须涵盖多个利益团体。 （四）公开独立委员会的报告，并在国民听证会中提呈。 （五）政府融合不同的部门，设立检讨批准方针、监督标准、安全标准，并透明地公开。 赞扬人民自发抗议运动 更重要的是，该网络赞扬和支持人民的自发反对Lynas稀土厂的运动，因为长远来看，这将影响我们的健康、环境和未来。 他们认为，政府忽视红泥山的情况，并要求政府更有社会责任、公信力和透明度。 “我们谴责政府漠视环境和国民的福利。国家已准备以更永续的方式迈向发展，并需要一个可以促成这些启发的政府。我们的经济和发展是建立在我们最大的天然资源财富和我国人民。这项失败将导致无法继续永续发展的道路。” Independent Commission for the rare earth plant to divert attention Sustainable Development Network to the Government to disclose all Author / reporter Apr 30, 2011 09:53:46 pm Compilation】 【correspondents Sustainable Development Network Malaysia (SUSDEN) concern about the Government response to the Independent Commission against the people of earth in the construction of refineries off Dange Bin recommendations. They believe that the one-month study, but to shift people's attention, and thus make the people tired down and avoid the people's protest. Sustainable Development Network President Mohd Sani (Muhammad Sha'ani Abdullah) statement issued today, concerned about the people protest movement only after that to conduct independent research report will be issued after the operating license. "Give rise to doubt that such investment and construction applications are reviewed in the absence of rigorous approval process. In fact, how the environmental assessment report and did not encourage law enforcement agencies to investigate the matter further. What is more, despite the Perak similar incidents in the state RM Hill, and many people suffer and therefore, the Government remains indifferent attitude. " He said even more disturbing is that despite the many international nuclear incidents, the Government announced that it will still continue to build nuclear power plants will. Nuclear power plant has now proved not cost-effective, and high investment. They question whether China's demand for electricity can not cope with the high to the situation. In addition, China is not without other alternative energy such as solar and wind energy. April 22, International Trade and Industry Minister Mustapa (Mustapa Mohamed) announced that the Government will soon establish an independent assessment of international experts led by the Australian Council of Rare Earth (Rare Earth) Enterprises set up Lynas RE refinery in Pahang the issue, view the overall program of health and safety nature, submit a report within one month, when the Pahang state and federal government will make the final decision.【Hits: assessment of the international expert jury of Trade and Industry temporarily rare earth plant operating license issued prior】 Government must pay attention to five issues Nevertheless, in order not to subject the importance of fuzzy rare earth plant, and sustainable development network calls: (A) The Government became responsible and transparent, and completely expose the RM Mountain and the Lynas's issues to the people to hold information. (B) full disclosure of Lynas's impact on the environment. (C) the Independent Commission must include several interest groups. (D) the Independent Commission's report public, and in the national hearing meeting. (E) The integration of different departments, approved the establishment of review guidelines, monitoring standards, safety standards, and transparent public. Commended the people of the spontaneous protests More importantly, the network of spontaneous praise and support the people's movement against the Lynas rare earth plant, because the long term, this will affect our health, the environment and the future. In their view, the government ignoring the red mud mountain, and to ask the Government to be more social responsibility, credibility and transparency. "We condemn the Government's disregard of the environment and people's welfare. Countries have prepared the way towards a more sustainable development and need a government can contribute to the inspired. Our economic and development is built on our greatest natural resource wealth and China people. This failure will lead to the path of sustainable development can not continue. "