Why Don't I trust Lynas?

I will be objective here. There have been accusation that emotions are running high, and what not. So, let me quote this article by one Melinda Mazhar. No clue who she is.

http://mynewshub.my/eng/2012/02/the-truth-about-lynas/

Melinda boldly names it "The TRUTH about Lynas". In her rebuttal of opposition for Lynas, she goes to state the following:

Malaysia’s law on radiological safety and health is AT PAR if not STRICTER THAN any of those used internationally. Lynas has never proposed the used of any China’s standard.

That's just an opinion. It's not a fact. The way to state fact is, to list our and compare, side by side, of the safety standards in Malaysia and those of Australia, for example.

Malaysia regulatory requirements IS EQUAL TO or STRICTER THAN that of Australia’s.

Again, any one can just say that. Please state the facts. A side by side comparison would be great.

ARE uses monazite as raw material and Lynas DO NOT use monazite. Lynas’s raw material radioactivity is 37 times LESS than ARE. Lynas residue is 60 time LESS radioactive than ARE.

More 'comparisons'. Why not state the exact radioactivity and how many times it's above natural occurring and acceptable limits. You want an atomic bomb 60 times LESS radioactive than Little Boy (the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima) to be detonated in Canberra? Get my point? Just saying it "less radioactive" is not the whole truth. It is a fact - but hey - that's only part of the picture.

An under liner leak detection system (ULLDS) monitors and detects any possible leak.

Oh sure. Bhopal had detectors too. The question is - who is really monitoring it? Yeah - do tell us the facts. Would the readings be made public, and done by a third party, accredited lab?

All process areas are built on BUNDED CONTAINMENT CONCRETE structure. Any acid spill will be contained in the bund and WILL NOT come into contact with the ground.

Oh sure. Melinda - you ever heard of the phrase "over-flow"? Now, why don't you present the facts of - the capacity of the containment bund; and the capacity of the tanks / process? Then, we can judge if it will overflow or not.

Statistic from Ministry of Health 2007 shows that cancer prevalence is 720 cases per million. BEFORE LYNAS the, estimated fatal cancer from background radiation at Lynas site is 35 cases per million. With Lynas in operation, based on the 0.002 mSv/y, the estimated fatal cancer is 0.1 case per million.

Errr. How can the operation of Lynas actually lower the cancer rate from 35 cases per million to 0.1 cases per year? Shouldn't then we building Lynas all over the world? It's only logical to say - at best - Lynas does not increase the cancer rate; or cancer rate remains the same. But to actually lower cancer rate? Sounds like snake oil to me.

Radon and Thoron are radioactive gases with VERY SHORT HALF LIVES AND WILL NOT TRAVEL FAR. Once formed, these radionuclides will immediately transform into solid and cannot travel at significant distances from its base

This is my favourite. Melinda, what exactly is 'very short half lives'? Compared to the age of the universe? Oh sure - radon has very short half live - 3.5 days. Radon is a gas - a fact you forgot to mention. If the wind blows - how far will radon travel in 3.5 days? I'm willing to bet, it can reach KL. Then the next statement - once 'these radionuclides' ... ah. The 'these' is in fact, not radon. Radon decays in 3.5 days. "These" refer to the decay products of radon. Radon, as I have stated, is a gas.

The part you say that "these" - referring to the decay products of radon but not radon itself -  radionuclides will transform into solids is true. Now, what is "significant distances"? 3km? To the moon and back? Ah. Moving on, let me now quote Wikipedia (not the best - but widely accepted as a good reference) "Radon daughters are solids and stick to surfaces such as dust particles in the air. If contaminated dust is inhaled, these particles can stick to the airways of the lung and increase the risk of developing lung cancer". 

Ah. Sure - they form particles and they cannot travel far - but you forgot to mention they stick to dust and once inhaled, can cause lung cancer.

At the end of the decay chain - it 'becomes' lead. It may not be radioactive, but why do you think we remove lead from petrol? Why are we using 'unleaded' petrol? That's because, lead is harmful to the environment and of course, harmful to us. More facts - left out by Melinda.

So, with all these 'facts' being presented - how on earth are we to trust that Lynas is safe?  Melinda - if you must put a spin to things, please remember two rules:

1. Do not assume your readers are all idiots.
2. Please bullshit professionally.

How to bullshit professionally:

1. Able to quote from other professionals' work
2. Make references 
3. Links to references / proper bibliography