Uploaded by pengukircahaya on 24 Sep 2011

A coalition has been setup by 18 NGO’s and political parties to team up effort in stoping Lynas plant’s operation in Gebeng, Kuantan. The Lynas plant will be producing rare-earth product when completed is believed to produce hazardous radioactive waste by-product.

This STOP LYNAS COALITION, comprising of expertise in various field i.e. lawyers, medical doctors, engineers, scientist and logistic experts, are converging their skills in an effort to stop Lynas Plant, with extended networks locally and internationally.

Spear headed by PKR MP (Kuantan), Fuziah Salleh, Stop Lynas Coalition will give full support on this coming 9th October Earth Charter Day.

Press Conference of “Stop Lynas Coalition” conducted by Kuantan MP YB Fuziah Salleh on 24th September 2011

The Press Conference was held on 24th September 2011, started at 6:30pm, at 2nd Floor, GC Curry House Seminar Hall, Jalan Air Putih, Kuantan, Pahang. The Press Conference started 30 minutes after the Strategic Planning Workshop on Stop Lynas Campaign completed. The workshop was organized by Kuantan Concern Citizen (KCC) by inviting Kuantan MP YB Fuziah Salleh as the workshop facilitator. The purpose of the workshop is to strengthen the efforts of various interest groups in ensuring that Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP) is prevented from operating in Malaysia.


The workshop resolution is forming the “Stop Lynas Coalition” supports by NGOs, NGIs, Malaysia Medical Association (MMA), Pahang Bar Council and various interest groups.


List of the NGOs, professional bodies, interest groups, and political parties participated in the Strategic Planning Workshop on Stop Lynas Campaign on 24th September 2011:

  1. Badan Bertindak Anti Rare Earth Refinery (BADAR)
  2. Kuantan Concern Citizen (KCC)
  3. Gelombang Hijau
  4. Malaysian Medical Association (MMA)
  5. Pahang Bar Council
  6. The People’s Green Coalition
  7. Consumer Association Penang (CAP)
  8. Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM)
  9. Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM)
  10. Kuantan Baptist Church Kuantan
  11. Kean Tao Baptist Church Kuantan
  12. Pastor English Team Kuantan
  13. Kuantan Environmental Watch Group
  14. Cyber Research Team of Kuantan MP
  15. Penang Residents’ Welfare and Education Association (PRWEA)
  16. PKR Kuantan Division
  17. PKR Indera Mahkota Division
  18. PAS Indera Mahkota Division
  19. Save Malaysia! Stop Lynas

Kuantan MP YB Fuziah Salleh’s Reply to Lynas “Radiation Safety Officer” Nick Tsurikov

Kuantan MP YB Fuziah Salleh vs Lynas "Radiation Safety Officer" Nick Tsurikov

Kuantan MP YB Fuziah Salleh vs Lynas "Radiation Safety Officer" Nick Tsurikov

13th Sept 2011


Dear Mr Nick Tsurikov


Your letter dated 29th August 2011 and comments on my interview with TV PAS titled Perceptions – Why we must Stop Lynas is referred to. I am sorry for the late reply. It’s due to the busy schedule in Ramadhan as well as the long Eid Holidays plus the fact that some of the experts in our team being overseas. Anyway, here is the reply.


Much as I appreciate your interest in my interview, and with all due respect, I find that your comments to my interview are grossly out of order and based on many wrong perceptions of my actual response in the interview. You have misinterpreted and misunderstood many of my statements, (either intentionally or unintentionally) and in some instance, even accuse me of saying things which I didn’t.


Considering that you’ve been advising Lynas Corporation on issues of radiation, I cannot dismiss the possibility that you may have been instructed by Lynas Corporation to write to me. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt by accepting your sincerity to discuss the issues openly with my team of experts as well as with myself.


Please refer back to the video of the interview on you tube “Perceptions -Why We Must Stop Lynas” in answer to all your issues below.


1. It was very clear in the video clip that I was referring to “No Benchmark” and “No Best Practise Guidelines” to a rare earth refinery. I was not referring to radiation alone. Furthermore I didn’t even mention the word radiation. I mentioned that there’s no rare earth refinery in operations outside China at the moment thus we do not have a benchmark neither do we have a best practise in rare earth refinery, unlike other chemical plants…


2. The China Standards: Attachment 1 – Please refer to the proposal from Lynas Corp which was presented to ?our government in the early stages. Under the title “Deportment of Radioactivity” It is self-explanatory that Lynas Corp at that time plans to get away from the responsibility of managing the radioactive waste re – LAMP by declaring that the waste from its plant is not radioactive. It was using the China Standards GB9133-88 as benchmark. Furthermore, you may have noticed that the IAEA safety standards for Radioactive Waste Classification. IAEA No. GSG-1, was not mentioned anywhere in the EIA report for LAMP neither was it mentioned by IAEA in their peer review report on Lynas. Lynas Corp had not shown any commitments in any of its documentation to the IAEA standards right from the beginning till now.


3. The statement “in Australia even to extract the rare earth elements it is mandatory for the operations to be located 35 kms from residential areas” was never ever mentioned by me. I suggest it’s best that you have a look at the video clip again. To accuse me of having misled the public on this issue and statement is grossly bad faith on your part in a situation when it was not even said by me. On other occasions, whenever I was referring to the 30 km radius, I was referring to the Mt Weld Concentration Plant, vis-a-vis LAMP which is being built in a densely populated area within its 30 km radius.


4. The discussion on the specific radioactivity is provided by our consultant Dr Lee Chee Hong – a Chemical Engineer with an expertise on metal corrosion. Dr Lee quotes that “The activity concentration of the water leach purification (WLP) solid waste is reportedly 6.2 Bq/g, (IAEA Report) this puts the LAMP’s WLP waste in the Low Level Waste (LLW) category. It is recommended by the IAEA GSG, this waste requires robust isolation and containment for periods of up to a few hundred years and is suitable for disposal in engineered near surface facilities.”


5. Please refer to the Video clip again. When I was talking about alpha, I was referring to the radiation in the context the penetration distance and it being not so dangerous in that sense. To take it out of context is so unprofessional of someone with your background and expertise. The comments about the dust have been provided by our consultant on public health. Dr Chan Chee Khoon an epidemiologist. He quotes “Equally important, current international radiation standards have yet to deal satisfactorily with the contentious issues plaguing CERRIE’s deliberations on internal emitters”

ref: ECRR 2010 (p.7):

the present radiological safety models are largely accurate for external irradiation situations involving doses greater than 100 mSv so long as the exposures are well defined and uniform, but break down where calculations involving averaging methods are used to examine non-uniform doses in microscopic tissue volumes. It is the microscopic distribution of ionizing events in tissue, from the point of view both of the external field and of the medium of absorption, which is the critical factor in radiobiological damage and this has not been modelled by the physics-based ICRP model which largely ignores molecular interactions, dealing rather with average energy transfer. (Attachment 2)


6. I am aware that MP Robin Chapple has been to see you. According to your good self Uranium waste from LAMP will be stripped in Kuantan – I am sure you can recall your conversation with Hon Robin Chapple during his visit to Lynas Corporation sometime in May. Do you realise that Balok river is just next to the Gebeng Industrial zone and it leads to the sea. Our technical team is very concerned that some of the uranium will be dissolved during the process of extraction at high temperature using acids. After the centrifugal process to separate the solid from the liquid the dissolved uranium may be discharged as part of the liquid waste. Balok River leads to the sea and Kuantan harbours one of the largest fishing port in the region with 390 deep sea trawlers registered. These are real concerns that should never be dismissed.


7. Again you are putting words into my mouth. I never said we should close all plants that produce radioactive waste. I do not think that you can ever understand the seriousness of the situation, considering that you’re based in Australia. My greatest concern is that LAMP should never have been approved to be located in Gebeng or anywhere in Malaysia. Lynas Corp have the license to operate a secondary processing plant in Meenar, Western Australia. The commitments laid down by EPA were so stringent. Why is it Lynas does not follow the same commitments here in Malaysia?


As a conclusion, In order to make a decision regarding the safety of LAMP it involves inputs from various disciplines, and not radiation alone. Once you appreciate that, then only you will understand the angle where we’re coming from.


Thank You and Best Regards,


Fuziah Salleh

MP for Kuantan


3 Reference Links (in PDF files):

YB Fuziah’s Reference – Attachment 1: Deportment of Radioactivity

YB Fuziah’s Reference – Attachment 2: ECRR 2010 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk

Nick Tsurikov’s letter dated 29th August 2011 to Kuantan MP YB Fuziah Salleh:



Kuantan MP YB Fuziah Salleh’s Reply to Lynas “Radiation Safety Officer” Nick Tsurikov

Video Clip – Rare Earth Experts Embarrassed in Malaysia (China NTDTV)

Video Clip – TVPAS – Perception: Why We Must Stop Lynas? 29 July 2011

Video Clip – Ceramah Kuantan MP Fuziah Salleh Tentang Isu Lynas Di Kg.Belukar (26 Jun 2011)

Video dari pahangdaily

Bloomberg Markets July 2011 – Focus Malaysia – Development And Dissent

As Prime Minister Najib Razak seeks $444 billion in private investment by 2020, he faces protesters who want block the world’s largest rare-earth refinery.

Link to article in PDF file:

Bloomberg Markets – Focus Malaysia – Development And Dissent July 2011

Video Clip – YB Fuziah Ceramah Isu Lynas Di Sungai Petani, Kedah pada 18hb Jun 2011

Ahli Parlimen Kuantan dan Naib Presiden PKR YB Fuziah Salleh menerangi isu Lynas kepada penduduk Sungai Petani, Kedah semasa program Hari Ibu Bapa anjuran PKR Cabang Sungai Petani di Dewan Orang Ramai, Taman Sri Wang, Sungai Petani, Kedah.

Muat Naik: Dr. Joyce Lee
3hb Julai 2011

Merdeka Review (Bahasa Malaysia) – Nuklear di Jepun dan Rare Earth di Kuantan

Merdeka Review

Fuziah Salleh | Mar 16, 2011 03:42:55 pm

Saya turut serta rakan – rakan Ahli Parlimen yang lain di dalam solidariti dan menyampaikan ucapan takziah kepada Negara serta rakyat Jepun.  Ribuan nyawa manusia telah kehilangan akibat tragedi tersebut.  Ribuan manusia bersedih di atas kehilangan dan kematian keluarga tercinta.  Malah seluruh dunia berdukacita diatas bencana yang Alam Sekitar dan keselamatan penduduk bukan merupakan satu isu yang selalu mendapat perhatian awam di Malaysia sehinggalah tragedi seperti ini berlaku dan kita semua telah menyaksikan dengan perasaan gerun bercampur terharu serta sedih melalui kaca televisyen tentang bagaimana dasyatnya keadaan di Negara Jepun apabila tsunami melanda.

Sehubungan dengan perbahasan Alam Sekitar ini, saya ingin membawa isu berkenaan refinery plant ataupun logi pemprosesan rare earth kepunyaan Lynas Corp Ltd di Kuantan.  Perkara ini telah saya bangkitkan buat pertama kalinya di dewan yang mulia ini pada 18 November 2008 dan seterusnya buat beberapa kali lagi.  Namun perkara ini masih belum dianggap penting oleh Kerajaan Malaysia.  Projek ini masih diteruskan sehinggalah seorang wartawan NYT, Keith Bradsher telah terbang jauh ke Kuantan untuk membuat penyelidikan dan seterusnya akhbar New York Times pada 7 November 2011.

Apabila masyarakat antarabangsa mula mengambil perhatian tentang perkembangan yang berlaku di Malaysia berkenaan isu ini, maka rakyat di Malaysia juga sudah mula bercakap dan berbahas di kedai kopi serta di media sosial dan internet.

Setelah lebih dua tahun berbahas mengenai isu ini saya masih tidak faham apakah rasionalnya Kerajaan Pusat mahupun Kerajaan Negeri Pahang bertegas dan beria-ia mahu meneruskan projek ini.  Jelas tiada siapa yang akan mendapat keuntungan dari projek ini.

Memang industri ini merupakan industri yang strategik akan tetapi, wajarkah Malaysia melibatkan diri didalam keadaan tiada keuntungan buat Negara kita? Memang kita tiada mendapat keuntungan langsung.  Hanya risiko yang menanti.

Hanya risiko yang menanti

Saya jelaskan dan tegaskan keadaan ini adalah kerana:-

1. LYNAS CORPORATION LTD merupakan syarikat milik penuh Australia (tiada ‘local partner’ di atas kertas).  Maksudnya tiada syarikat milik rakyat Malaysia yang akan mendapat keuntungan dengan projek ini.

2. LYNAS CORPORATION LTD dianugerahkan oleh MITI “Strategic Pioneer Status” – tidak perlu membayar cukai import atau export selama 12 tahun.  Maka tiada keuntungan buat Malaysia dari segi cukai korporat yang dikutip.  Syarikat LYNAS Corp Ltd akan mendapat US$1.7 billion setahun daripada nilai export rare earth dan Malaysia tidak akan dapat satu sen pun dalam bentuk cukai selama 12 tahun.

3. Logi pemprosesan rare earth di Gebeng apabila beroperasi hanya akan mengambil 450 orang pekerja (tidak ‘labour intensive’).  Kebanyakan pekerja pula akan merupakan tenaga mahir dari luar Negara dan sedikit sahaja bilangan buruh dari tempatan.

Yang ada kesan ke atas kita, hanyalah risiko di atas sisa buangan thorium yang mengandungi bahan radioaktif.  Malaysia mendapat penghormatan menjadi “dumping ground” atau tapak buangan sisa bahan radioaktif dan rakyat Kuantan menjadi mangsa tak pasal-pasal.

Di seluruh dunia, buat ketika ini, selain di Negara China, hanya Negara India yang punyai logi pemprosesan rare earth – itu pun dalam skala yang amat kecil.  Malaysia pula merupakan hanya satu-satu Negara di dunia yang akan melibatkan diri dalam pemprosesan rare earth ini di dalam rangka masa 30 tahun kebelakangan ini.  Apabila seluruh dunia sudah punyai kesedaran tentang bahaya rare earth dan menolak untuk memproses bahan ini selama lebih tiga dekad, Malaysia buat keputusan untuk menerima pula?

Cucu-cicit boleh jadi mangsa

Negara China memang ada kepentingan untuk memproses “rare earth“, kerana mereka sekarang mengawal pasaran dunia di dalam industri strategik ini.  Malah kilang LYNAS di Negara China sebelum ini diarahkan tutup kerana Negara Cina mahu mengawal pasaran dunia.  Sekarang ini Negara China juga meletakkan embargo ke atas “rare earth” ini demi untuk menjaga harga di pasaran dunia dan mengaut keuntungan yang lebih banyak.

Negara Amerika Syarikat dan Canada juga mempunyai deposit “rare earth” akan tetapi berhenti melombong bahan ini kerana Negara China dapat menghasilkannya dengan lebih murah.  Negara China yang mempunyai lombong “rare earth” mereka sendiri, mempunyai lebih kurang 30% daripada deposit di dunia akan tetapi mengawal 97% dari produk rare earth dalam pasaran.  Maka di atas sebab itu mereka ada sebab untuk meneruskan pemprosesannya di sana, walaupun logi pemprosesan mereka di Shanghai sungguh-sungguh tidak menepati piawaian Alam Sekitar yang di tetapkan dunia antarabangsa.

Malaysia tiada lombong “rare earth” dan Malaysia tidak PERLU untuk proses “rare earth” ini.  Seluruh dunia selama tiga dekad sudah pun menolak untuk memproses bahan ini.

Penegasan dari saya ialah Negara Malaysia mahupun Kerajaan Negeri Pahang tidak mendapat keuntungan dari jumlah export LYNAS CORP sebanyak US$1.7 billion setahun hasil dari pemprosesan bermula pada penghujung tahun ini.

Apa yang rakyat Malaysia, khususnya warga Kuantan hanya akan dapat ialah sisa buangan yang mengandungi thorium.  Satu bahan yang radioaktif serta juga carcinogenic (boleh menyebabkan cancer).

Yang paling merisaukan ialah, kesan-kesan negatif dari bahan buangan radiaoaktif bukan sahaja akan berlarutan selama satu atau dua tahun – tetapi beribu-ribu tahun!!!  Ini bermaksud, Cucu kita, cicit kita, dan cucu kepada cicit kita juga boleh menjadi mangsa!

Kenyataan PM dan TPM

Saya di fahamkan bahawa Malaysian Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) hanya mengeluarkan lesen kepada LYNAS Corp Ltd untuk bina logi pemprosesan di gebeng Kuantan akan tetapi belum lagi mengeluarkan Lesen untuk beroperasi memproses rare earth. (Memetik Kenyataan Ketua Pengarah AELB)

Timbalan Perdana Menteri juga berkata beliau tidak pasti samada logi Lynas di Gebeng sudah mendapat kebenaran beroperasi atau tidak.  Timbalan Perdana Menteri juga berkata beliau akui bahawa ada kerisauan rakyat berkenaan pembinaan logi rare earth di Gebeng Kuantan ini.

Akan tetapi Perdana Menteri sudah pun membuat kenyataan bahawa semua langkah keselamatan telah diambil di logi Lynas Gebeng.  Mana mungkin PM membuat kenyataan demikian di dalam keadaan AELB masih lagi meneliti prosedur keselamatan berkenaan pengurusan sisa buangan di logi Lynas.

Sehubungan dengan itu, saya ingin bertanya kepada AELB selain dari laporan dalaman agensi, adakah AELB sudah berusaha mendapatkan laporan dan kajian dari Badan Bebas (Independent Risk Assessment) berkenaan risiko yang akan kita bakal hadapi dan impak daripada bahan sisa buangan yang mengandungi thorium ini.  Selama ini apabila saya menuntut satu DEIA dibuat ke atas projek ini, pihak Kementerian buat tak tahu juga.

Tregedi Bukit Merah

Buat masa ini LYNAS masih belum ada perancangan konkrit berkenaan bagaimana sisa yang mengandungi thorium itu akan diselenggara.

Saya tegaskan di sini bahawa apa yang terbaik patut dilakukan oleh AELB ialah hentikan segala niat untuk keluarkan lesen memproses rare earth kepada LYNAS.  Logi LYNAS kini masih di dalam binaan dan belum bermula operasi sehingga penggal terakhir tahun ini.  AELB masih sempat balik ke pangkal jalan dan buat keputusan yang terbaik demi rakyat.

Adakah kita mahu tunggu ada kes seperti di Bukit Merah, ada anak pekerja yang lahir cacat, abnormal, baru kita mahu bertindak?  Adakah nyawa dan keselamatan rakyat Kuantan begitu tidak berharga kepada Kerajaan Malaysia?

Pada ketika ini, kebanyakan rakyat Kuantan sudah pun menyedari risiko yang dibawa oleh logi Lynas ini dan sedang bangkit untuk menyatakan ketidakpuasan hati mereka.  Sekiranya selama ini pihak MOSTI, Kerajaan tempatan mahupun LYNAS mampu memperkecilkan isu ini dengan membuat “PR exercise“, kini tidak lagi.

Selaku wakil rakyat di Kuantan usaha saya membela keselamatan rakyat Kuantan akan saya teruskan sehinggalah logi pemrosesan LYNAS yang kini dalam binaan ditutup dan kita hantar mereka balik ke Australia.  Kalau mereka terdesak sangat mahu memproses rare earth mereka, buat lah logi pemprosesan di Negara mereka sendiri.

Sehubungan dengan itu, saya gesa sekali lagi, AELB, untuk hentikan serta merta segala usaha yang menjurus kepada pengeluaran lesen kepada LYNAS untuk beroperasi.  Malah pada saya isu ini tidak seharusnya timbul untuk dibahaskan kerana Kerajaan Malaysia sepatutnya sudah awal-awal lagi menolak projek yang tidak mendatangkan manfaat serta tidak membawa keuntungan serta faedah di dalam semua aspek kepada Negara ini.

Latar belakang maklumat Pemprosesan bahan yang sama di Malaysia sebelum ini:

1. November 1979: Syarikat Asian Rare Earth (ARE) dibentuk untuk mengekstrak itrium (sejenis unsur nadir bumi) daripada monazit.  Sisa buangan yang menjadi milik kerajaan Negeri Perak akan disimpan kerana berpotensi sebagai sumber tenaga nuklear.

2. Jun 1982: Penduduk Parit, Perak mendapat tahu kerajaan telah memilih kawasan seluas sembilan ekar, kira-kira 6 km dari penempatan mereka untuk dijadikan tapak penimbunan sisa radioaktif syarikat ARE.  Ekoran bantahan hebat daripada jawatankuasa penduduk serta lain-lain pertubuhan politik dan sosial, kerajaan membatalkan cadangan itu dan kemudian mula mencari tapak baru.  Kilang ARE mula beroperasi di KM 7.2, Jalan Lahat di Bukit Merah.

3. 24 Mei 1985: Kira-kira 6,700 penduduk Papan dan pekan-pekan yang berhampiran menandatangani satu surat bantahan dan menghantarnya kepada Perdana Menteri, Menteri Besar Perak, Menteri Kesihatan serta Menteri Sains, Teknologi dan Alam Sekitar.  Kemudian seramai 200 penduduk Papan membantah tapak pembuangan yang dicadangkan.  Mereka menyekat jalan yang menuju ke tapak itu.  Pelbagai tunjuk perasaan telah diadakan oleh masyarakat setempat sebagai membantah tindakan kerajaan ini.

Kemudian pada 19 September 1985, sekumpulan tiga orang dari Agensi Tenaga Atom Antarabangsa (IAEA) Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu mengunjungi tapak buangan di Papan atas jemputan kerajaan Malaysia.  Mereka mengisytiharkan tapak buangan itu tidak selamat.

4. 11 Januari 1985: Selepas mesyuarat kabinet yang dipengerusikan oleh Timbalan Perdana Menteri ketika itu, Musa Hitam, kerajaan mengambil keputusan memindahkan tapak buangan sisa ke Mukim Belanja di Banjaran Kledang yang terletak kira-kira 5 km dari Papan dan 3 km dari Menglembu.  Lapan orang penduduk, bagi pihak diri mereka sendiri dan penduduk Bukit Merah membuat satu permohonan di Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh menahan ARE daripada mengeluar, menyimpan atau menimbun sisa radioaktif di sekitar kampung tersebut.  Akta Perlesenan Tenaga Atom 1984 dikuatkuasakan.  Ia memastikan pengendali bahagian pemasangan nuklear (termasuk kerajaan) bertanggungjawab terhadap ancaman nuklear.  Lima ahli Lembaga Perlesenan Tenaga Atom (AELB) dibentuk di bawah Akta itu, dengan perwakilan dari Puspati, Kementerian Kesihatan serta Kementerian Sains, Teknologi dan Alam Sekitar.

Kemudian Hakim Anuar Datuk Zainal Abidin di Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh memberikan kepada penduduk Bukit Merah perintah menahan dan menghentikan ARE daripada mengeluar dan menimbun bahan sisa radioaktif sehingga langkah-langkah keselamatan yang secukupnya diambil.  Lebih daripada 1,500 penduduk Bukit Merah hadir di mahkamah untuk mendengar keputusan itu.

5. Kemudian pada 19 Januari 1994 ARE telah memberhentikan operasinya.

*Fuziah Salleh (gambar kiri) ialah ahli parlimen Kuantan, merangkap Naib Presiden PKR.  Tulisan ini disedut daripada ucapan Perbahasan Titah DYMM SPB Yang Di Pertuan Agung sidang parlimen Penggal Ke-4, Parlimen Ke-12.

The People’s Green Coalition’s Criticism on IAEA (English)

Statement by The People’s Green Coalition on the Investigation by The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into the Safety of Radiation Level at The Lynas Advnace Material Plant (LAMP) in Gebeng, Pahang, Malaysia

Issued by The People’s Green Coalition Malaysia on the 11th June 2011 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.


The IAEA was invited by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) Malaysia to hold an investigation into the radiative risks posed by LAMP in Gebeng Industrial Estate, Pahang. The IAEA carried out its work from the 30th May to the 3rd June 2011 by having half-an-hour dialogue sessions with various selected groups in Kuantan Pahang and at Putrajaya. It also visited the LAMP site in private without the participation of stakeholders and media reporters.

The Position of The People’s Green Coalition

The People’s Green Coalition resolutely supports the people of Pahang and Malaysia to stop LAMP from operating in any part of Malaysia. We hold that there is no save radiation level and that incremental radiation exposures will harm the health of the people and their future generations by damaging their genome. We further believe that exposing a population to man-made radiation despite their strong oposition tentamounts to a slow and insidious form of genocide and a crime against humanity. ( Ref. 1)

Criticism of The IAEA

We hold that the IAEA was invited by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) Malaysia to stage a short and superficial investigation into the radiative risks posed by LAMP in order to pacify the increasingly widespread and strong objection to the LAMP project in Gebeng Pahang.

We object to this public relation exercise for the following reasons:

  1. The IAEA promotes and advocates for the nuclear industries. It is not a neutral body and should not be given the mandate to assess nuclear related risks which result directly from the very industries it promotes.
  2. The IAEA was given priority to overide the World Health Organisation in publishing morbidity and mortality data related to nuclear disasters by virtue of an agreement signed in 1959. It effectly puts a gag on the WHO in publishing such data. (Ref. 2)
  3. The IAEA failed to correctly assess the damages caused by the nuclear disasters in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. ( Ref. 3)

In particular, we object to the IAEA’s role in Malaysia for the following reasons:

  1. The IAEA was brought in at the late stage of the LAMP project when public anger has been mounting against the opaque manner in which the project has been approved.
  2. The IAEA team was made up of internal IAEA members and members of consultancy firms many of whom have worked with the IAEA. No independent members with expertise in the nuclear safety, public health, environemntal protection, social and economic concerns was included in the team. ( Ref. 4 )

Furthermore, the IAEA panel admitted to the representatives of the People’s Green Coalition that:

  1. The IAEA panel was given a very limited mandate by MITI to assess that the radiation level emitted by the LAMP will conform to the standard prescribed by the IAEA. No other issues will be given considerations.
  2. The IAEA has accepted that there is no safe threshold to ionizing radiation and even exposure to background radiation can cause some cancers. Additional exposure to ionizing radiation can cause further risks. The IAEA has also accepted that one in five workers would get cancer if exposed to the legally allowable occupational doses over 50 years in the workforce. These risks are much higher than that permitted for other carcinogens (Ref. 5).
  3. The IAEA will not take into consideration non-radioactive pollution produced by LAMP . The Environment Impact Assessment submitted by LAMP lists large quantities of industrial acids and chemicals to be used which will adversely impact the environment.
  4. The IAEA panel commented that if the people of Malaysia strongly oppose LAMP, then the Malaysian government should close down the plant.
  5. The IAEA panel also commented that although they have their conscience towards the people of Malaysia, that conscience may not be fully exercised as they are restricted to base their recommendations strcitly according to the radiation safety standard of the IAEA to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Ex-IAEA member Dr. E.E. Fowler’s Report on Bukit Merah in 1986

22 September 1986 : Asia Rare Earth at Bukit Merah, Perak invited an American atomic energy expert, Dr E. E. Fowler (formerly with the IAEA) to visit its factory. Dr Fowler stated that radiation levels near ARE facilities have met ICRP standard and that the factory was safe for operation. ( Ref. 6 )

Contrary to Dr. Fowler’s report, residents of Bukit Merah suffer increased incidences of miscarriages, birth defects, ill health and leaukamia. Seven out of eight leukemic patients have died. Other international experts have testified in law courts that these diseases were due to the radioactive waste produced by Asia Rare Earth. Mitsubishi which owned Asia Rare Earth closed down the plant and has since spent 300 million ringgit to clean up the radioactive waste.


The People’s Green Coalition urge the public to consider the above facts when evaluating the IAEA’s report on the LAMP project which will be released soon.

Any piecemeal recommendations by the IAEA to improve the standard of transportation, handling, processing and disposal of hazardous materials by LAMP are mere tactical manouvres to grant LAMP the licence to proceed. The IAEA has no power to regulate nor has it the power to enforce compliance to its recommendations once LAMP starts its operation. The Department of Environment (DOE) and the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) have failed in their duty to regulate the industry as shown by the tragedy of Bukit Merah.

We assert that there is no safe radiation level and that incremental radiation exposure will harm our health and imperil our future generations.

We demand the closure of the LAMP.

We further urge all Malaysians to support our demand for the closure of LAMP.

End of statement


1…WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: “Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring.”

Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Radiation : Attack of the Nuclear Apologists ; By HELEN CALDICOTT

2…On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: “Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement.” In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry.

Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Radiation : Attack of the Nuclear Apologists ; By HELEN CALDICOTT

3.UN’s nuclear watchdog IAEA under fire over response to Japanese disaster: IAEA and Japanese secretary-general accused of ignoring lessons of Chernobyl and letting firms cut corners at Fukushima.

Japan’s woes, world crisis

4.Lynas panel revealed: Independent, you say?

5. Panel admits no safe radiation level says CAP

6. Consumers’ Association Penang website : Chronology of events in the Bukit Merah Asian Rare Earth developments.

End of references