Lynas Project: IAEA mission makes 11 recommendations

IAEA mission makes 11 recommendations

Jun 30, 2011 1:56pm

Summary of the findings and recommendations of International Review Mission on the Radiation Safety Aspects of a Proposed Rare Earths Processing Facility

Main findings

The review team provides the following independent expert opinion, recommendations and suggestions for good practice:

Compliance with international radiation standards

The review team was not able to identify any non-compliance with international radiation safety standards.

However, the review team identified 10 issues for which it considered that improvements were necessary before the next licensing phases of the Lynas project. Those recommendations are listed below and discussed in more detail in the report.

The review team also added an 11th recommendation dealing with the manner in which recommendations 1–10 should be acted upon.

Recommendations

Where the review team considered that improvements were necessary, it made recommendations. The report presents and discusses the situations and bases for each of those recommendations separately. The following 11 important recommendations are made:

Technical recommendations

1. The AELB should require Lynas to submit, before the start of operations, a plan setting out its intended approach to the long term waste management, in particular management of the water leach purification (WLP) solids after closure of the plant, together with a safety case in support of such a plan. The safety case should address issues such as:

(a) Future land use (determined in consultation with stakeholders);

(b) The dose criterion for protection of the public;

(c) The time frame for the assessment;

(d) Safety functions (e.g. containment, isolation, retardation);

(e) The methodology for identification and selection of scenarios – this must include the scenario in which the residue storage facility at the Lynas site becomes the disposal facility for the WLP solids;

(f) Any necessary measures for active and/or passive institutional control.

As the safety case is developed, the radiological impact assessment (RIA) for the facility as a whole should be updated accordingly.

2. The AELB should require Lynas to submit, before the start of operations, a plan for managing the waste from the decommissioning and dismantling of the plant at the end of its life. The RIA and decommissioning plan should be updated accordingly.

3. The AELB should require that the results of exposure monitoring and environmental monitoring once the plant is in operation be used to obtain more reliable assessments of doses to workers and members of the public, and the RIA updated accordingly. The AELB should also require that dose reduction measures be implemented where appropriate in accordance with the international principle of optimization of radiation protection.

4. The AELB should develop criteria that will allow the flue gas desulphurization (FGD) and neutralization underflow (NUF) residues to be declared non-radioactive for the purposes of regulation, so that they can be removed from the site and, if necessary in terms of environmental regulation, controlled as scheduled waste.

5. The AELB should implement a mechanism for establishing a fund for covering the cost of the long term management of waste including decommissioning and remediation. The AELB should require Lynas to make the necessary financial provision. The financial provision should be regularly monitored and managed in a transparent manner.

6. For regulating the Lynas project, the Malaysian Government should ensure that the AELB has sufficient human, financial and technical resources, competence and independence.

7. The AELB and the relevant Ministries should establish a programme for regularly and timely updating the Regulations in accordance with the most recent international standards. In particular, regulations pertinent to NORM activities relevant to the proposed rare earths processing facility should be considered to be updated.

Public communications recommendations

8. The AELB should enhance the understanding, transparency and visibility of its regulatory actions in the eyes of the public, particularly those actions related to inspection and enforcement of the proposed rare earths processing facility.

9. The AELB should intensify its activities regarding public information and public involvement. In particular, it should:

(a) Develop and make available easily understandable information on radiation safety and on the various steps in the licensing and decision making processes;

(b) Inform and involve interested and affected parties of the regulatory requirements for the proposed rare earths processing facility and the programme for review, inspection and enforcement;

(c) Make available, on a routine basis, all information related to the radiation safety of the proposed rare earths processing facility (except for security, safeguards and commercially sensitive information) and ensure that the public knows how to gain access to this information.

10. Lynas, as the party responsible for the safety of the proposed rare earths processing facility, should be urged to intensify its communication with interested and affected parties in order to demonstrate how it will ensure the radiological safety of the public and the environment.

Follow-up recommendation

11. Based on recommendations 1–10 above, the Government of Malaysia should prepare an action plan that:

(a) Indicates how the above-mentioned recommendations are to be addressed;

(b) Sets out the corresponding time schedule for the actions;

(c) Is geared to the possibility of an IAEA-organized follow-up mission, which will review the fulfilment of recommendations 1–10 above in, say, one to two years' time, in line with other IAEA review missions.

Design problems, hazardous construction plague Lynas plant, reports NYT

Design problems, hazardous construction plague Lynas plant, reports NYT

TMI, June 30, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, June 30 — The controversial Lynas rare earths refinery in Kuantan is plagued by environmentally hazardous construction and design problems, the New York Times has reported, citing internal memos and current and former engineers on the project.

The report published today said the issues, including moisture in humid Malaysia, could potentially affect the RM700 million Lynas Corp plant being built to challenge China’s stranglehold in the key rare earths industry.

Malaysia is due to announce today the results of an independent international review of the plant that is scheduled to open this September. The listed Lynas Corp has asked for a halt in its share trading in Australia today pending the report.

Signboard showing the site of the Lynas plant under construction in Gebeng, Kuantan. — File pic

In a report headlined “The Fear of a Toxic Rerun” by Keith Bradsher, the New York Times reported that Lynas officials contend that the refinery being built here is safe and up to industry standards, and say that they are working with its contractors to resolve their concerns.

“All parties are in agreement that it is normal course of business in any construction project for technical construction queries to be raised and then resolved to relevant international standards during the course of project construction,” wrote Matthew James, an executive vice-president of Lynas, in an e-mail last night.

But the construction and design may have serious flaws, the engineers told New York Times, and provided proof through memos, e-mail messages and photos from Lynas and its contractors. The engineers said they felt a professional duty to voice their safety concerns, but insisted on anonymity to avoid the risk of becoming industry outcasts.

“The problems they detail include structural cracks, air pockets and leaks in many of the concrete shells for 70 containment tanks, some of which are larger than double-decker buses,” the paper said.

Lynas is mining rare earths ore deep in the Australian desert and shipping to Malaysia to be mixed with powerful acids to make a slightly radioactive slurry that would be pumped through the tanks, with operating temperatures of about 200 degrees Fahrenheit.

The engineers say that almost all of the steel piping ordered for the plant is made from standard steel, which they describe as not suited for the corrosive, abrasive slurry. Rare earths refineries in other countries make heavy use of costlier stainless steel or steel piping with ceramic or rubber liners, the paper said.

“The engineers also say that the concrete tanks were built using conventional concrete, not the much costlier polymer concrete mixed with plastic that is widely used in refineries in the West to reduce the chance of cracks.

“Documents show that Lynas and its construction management contractor, UGL Ltd of Australia, have argued with their contractors that the cracks and moisture in the concrete containment walls are not a critical problem,” according to the report.

Memos also show that Lynas and UGL have pressed a Malaysian contractor, Cradotex, to proceed with the installation of watertight fibreglass liners designed for the containment tanks without fixing the moisture problem and with limited fixes to the walls. But Cradotex has resisted, the paper reported.

“These issues have the potential to cause the plants critical failure in operation,” Peter Wan, the general manager of Cradotex, said in a June 20 memo obtained by New York Times.

“More critically the toxic, corrosive and radioactive nature of the materials being leached in these tanks, should they leak, will most definitely create a contamination issue.”

Wan said in a telephone interview with the New York Times on Tuesday that he believed Lynas and UGL would be able to fix the moisture problem but that he did not know what method the companies might choose to accomplish this.

The fibreglass liners are made by AkzoNobel of Amsterdam, one of the world’s largest chemical companies. AkzoNobel says it, too, worries about the rising moisture.

“We will not certify or even consider the use of our coatings if this problem can’t be fixed,” Tim van der Zanden, AkzoNobel’s top spokesman in Amsterdam, wrote on Monday night in an e-mail reply to questions.

Memos show that the refinery’s concrete foundations were built without a thin layer of plastic that might prevent the concrete pilings from drawing moisture from the reclaimed swampland underneath.

The site is located just inland from a coastal mangrove forest, and several miles up a river that flows out to the sea past an impoverished fishing village.

An engineer involved in the project said that the blueprints called for the plastic waterproofing but that he was ordered to omit it, to save money. The plastic costs US$1.60 (RM4.80) a square foot, he said.

Lynas disputes that the design ever called for using the plastic.

Nicholas Curtis, the executive chairman of Lynas, said in a telephone interview from Sydney on Monday that the project here met local environmental standards and that he believed those were consistent with international standards.

“I have complete confidence in the Malaysian environmental standards and our ability to meet the requirements,” he told the New York Times.

Engineers at the project said that Lynas officials had whisked the international inspectors through the factory in a single morning, partly because of security concerns about protesters outside the refinery gates. The team had little chance to examine the refinery’s structure, the engineers said.

Protecting Children from Radiation Exposure..... Produced by the SAY-Peace Project

Protecting Children from Radiation Exposure   Produced by the SAY-Peace Project Editorial Supervision by Dr. Matsui Eisuke, Gifu Environmental Medicine Research Institute Translation by John Junkerman   Introduction: Our Basic Stance The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant that occurred after the Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11 has released large amounts of highly radioactive material into the air, sea, and soil, and it continues to affect our lives. Young children are particularly susceptible to the effects of radiation. In order to protect children from exposure to radiation, pregnant women and parents of small children are required to exercise caution in their daily lives and to act on the basis of accurate information. The government has made announcements such as “There is no immediate danger to health” and “We have established safe standards.” But there has been little effort to explain the mechanisms of radiation exposure (in particular, the internal exposure from breathing, eating, or drinking contaminated matter), and no attention has been paid to the danger of delayed effects that may appear in 10 or 20 years. Many specialists in radiation medicine have pointed out that the standards for exposure that the government has set cannot be considered “absolutely safe.” Nonetheless, a pamphlet published on April 1 by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare assured pregnant women and the mothers of small children that “there is no need to worry,” without providing any scientific basis for the claim. This is the height of irresponsibility. (The photo at the right is the cover of the pamphlet.) There are still many things we do not know about the physical effects of radiation, but this lack of understanding should not lead us to relax. Rather, it is important to maintain this stance: since we do not know, we should exercise the utmost caution, and avoid exposure to radiation to the furthest extent possible. We hope this pamphlet will be of use in protecting children from exposure to radiation. What is Radioactivity? “Radioactivity” is the ability to emit radiation, and substances with that ability are called “radioactive substances.” Radiation takes the form of rays that are able to pass through matter. Through a process called “ionization,” they can damage the cells and DNA that make up the human body, resulting in a variety of physical effects. One of the insidious features of radiation is that it cannot be seen or smelled; it is not perceptible to normal human senses. “Half-life” refers to the time it takes for a radioactive substance to lose half of its original strength. For example, the half-life of iodine-131 is eight days, while cesium-137 has a half-life of 30 years. It is often said that radioactivity dissipates over time, but it is important to remember that a substance retains half of its radioactive strength after its half-life has passed; after another half-life, it still retains one quarter of its original strength, and so on. We must also remember that until the Fukushima accident is fully under control, the reactors will continue to discharge radioactive substances into the environment. What are the Effects of Radiation on the Human Body? When the physical effects of radiation are discussed, it is common to hear the term “threshold.” The threshold is the standard value or permissible amount for the risk from exposure to radiation, and it is often said that being exposed to radiation below threshold levels has no effect on the human body. However, it is not possible to assert that exposure below the threshold is “safe” or that it “has no effect on one’s health.” No matter how weak radiation is, it causes damage to human cells. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “safe level.” The more you are exposed to radiation, the greater the danger of damaging one’s health. In fact, a committee of the National Academies of Science in the US issued a report in 2005 that concluded that there is no threshold: the risk of exposure exists in direct proportion to the amount of exposure, beginning at low levels. Minimal exposure represents a potential danger to humans. Even the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which uses measurement techniques that underestimate internal exposure and low-level radiation exposure, supports this “linear no-threshold model” and acknowledges that doses of radiation under the threshold of 100 millisieverts annually still increase the risk of developing cancer. In other words, it is now accepted wisdom internationally that, even at low levels, radiation affects the human body. As a consequence, the proper approach when thinking about radiation is not to say, “It’s OK to be exposed to this amount,” but rather, “We should exercise the utmost caution, and avoid exposure to radiation to the furthest extent possible.” What are the Effects on Fetuses and Babies? Fetuses, babies, and young children are far more susceptible to the effects of radiation than adults. It has been estimated that babies and infants are four times as vulnerable as adults in their 20s or 30s, so the risk of exposure is much greater. This is because cell division takes place much more vigorously in small children, so cells that are damaged by radiation are reproduced before they can be repaired. Based on data in J. W. Gofman, Radiation and Human Health (Sierra Club Books, 1981). “10,000 person-sieverts” means the collective dose of 1,000,000 people exposed to 0.01 sievert of radiation in a year (also equivalent to 100,000 people being exposed to 0.1 sievert in a year). “15,000” for age zero means the expected number of deaths when 1,000,000 babies are exposed to 0.01sievert (10 millisieverts) in a year. In Belarus, where the effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident were most severe, the rate of thyroid cancer among children increased rapidly 5 to 10 years after the accident. One should not be reassured when the government announces that “there is no immediate health risk.” Based on a lecture in Japan by M. Malko, “Assessment of Chernobyl Cancers in Belarus” (2003). Why is “Internal Exposure” Dangerous? Exposure to radioactive substances outside of the body is referred to as “external exposure.” On the other hand, when tiny particles of radioactive substances are breathed into the lungs, or ingested through mother’s milk or cow’s milk, water or food, the exposure to this radiation is termed “internal exposure.” Internal exposure differs from the short-term external exposure caused by X-rays and CT scans, because the exposure is at a very close distance and it continues over a long period of time. This has led the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) to conclude that even low levels of radiation pose high risk. Pink zone: Risk that the International Commission on Radiological Protection ignores. Pink + orange zones: Risk that the Japanese governmnent and academic circles ignore. Simply expressing radiation dose in sieverts is insufficient, as we need to know which nuclides are involved. Risk models are also affected by other variables, such as age, sex, genetic makeup, immunity, and time period, so the standard level is no more than an averaged-out, rough guideline. Matsui Eisuke, “Health Effects on Children of Internal Radiation Exposure,”Gekkan Hodanren, 6, No. 1067 (2011). Radioactive substances that enter the body accumulate in various organs and continue to emit radiation. The chemical composition of the substances determines how they are absorbed by the body’s organs and how long they remain in the body (biological half-life). Iodine-131 concentrates in the thyroid, where it causes thyroid cancer. Cesium-137 is considered dangerous because it lodges throughout the body, in the bones, liver, kidney, lungs, and muscle tissue. Strontium-90 and plutonium-239 remain in the body for a long time, so once they have entered the body, they continue to affect it over the course of many years.

This diagram depicts the inhalation of plutonium, but the process is essentially the same for other radioactive isotopes. Iodine binds to thyroglobulin, the protein that forms the base of the thyroid hormone, so it concentrates in the thyroid and can cause thyroid cancer.

When the air and soil have been contaminated, the contamination first spreads to plants and agricultural products, and then to animals. Through the food chain, the radiation is carried from one animal to the next, until it reaches human beings. In many cases, the radiation becomes more concentrated through this process. Even if the nuclear accident is brought under control and radiation levels fall, highly contaminated food products may continue to enter the market in the future because of this process of biological concentration. It is estimated that iodine in the air becomes concentrated up to ten million times in plants and 620,000 times in milk. Cesium becomes concentrated five times in mollusks, and twenty times in other marine products.

The Contamination Zone

“Hot spots” are areas where rain and snow bring down radioactive substances from the clouds and where high concentrations of these substances are then detected. This applies particularly to the area downwind of a reactor; in the case of the Chernobyl accident, areas 300 kilometers downwind of the plant were contaminated. Because of this dispersal, it is necessary to put into place detailed countermeasures, utilizing the computer system called SPEEDI (System for the Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information). Recently discovered “hot spots” are in the cities of Fukushima, Koriyama, Nihonmatsu, Date, and Iwaki.

The result of MEXT (Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) and the US Department of Energy’s aerial monitoring (accumulation of cesium-134 and cesium-137 within the 80 kilometer radius of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant).

In areas that are considered hot spots, national and regional governments must take measures to evacuate people, particularly pregnant women and young children. Government authorities must take responsibility for providing nursery schools, day care centers, and other schools in areas that are freer from contamination.

In areas outside of these hot spots, it is often suggested that parents need not be overly concerned about allowing their children to play out of doors. However, in Tokyo’s Suginami Ward, for example, the airborne radiation level was 0.13 microsieverts/hour on April 20, but it was as high as 6.39 microsieverts/hour on the surface of the ground. In addition, radiation levels rise during and after rainfall. In such areas, children should avoid getting wet in the rain. Since small children are especially vulnerable to radiation, great care should be taken; they should avoid going outside, and when they do, they should wear a facemask.

Radiation in Tap Water and Breast Milk

The government insists that the water supply is monitored to ensure its safety, but standards in Japan are dramatically higher than in other countries. On March 17, the government raised the standard for iodine-131 from 10 Bq/L (becquerels per liter) to 300, and the standard for cesium-137 from 10 Bq/L to 200. Further, under the Food Sanitation Law, the provisional guideline for liquids given to infants is 100 Bq/L; this level “poses no health risk,” even to infants under 1 year old.

However, standards for iodine-131 elsewhere in the world range from the World Health Organization’s 10 Bq/L to German Technical and Scientific Association for Gas and Water (DVGW)’s 0.5, with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintaining a guideline of 0.111. In other words, Japan’s standard is 2,700 times higher than that of the US EPA in the case of iodine-131.

World Standards for Iodine-131 in Tap Water (Bq/L)

US EPA	DVGW (Germany)	Ukraine	Belarus	WHO	Japan's Provisional Guideline
0.111	0.5	2	10	10	300 (200 for cesium-137) [100 for infants]

In addition, there is the problem of inadequate monitoring. The Bureau of Waterworks in the Tokyo metropolitan government, for example, publicly announced as “undetected” radiation contamination at levels less than 20 Bq/L until April 14. Until the government tightens safety standards, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and small children should use tap water only for bathing and washing clothes and dishes, in areas surrounding Fukushima Daiichi plant including the Kanto area. Avoid drinking tap water as far as possible, to reduce the risk of internal exposure to radiation.

As for breast milk, we cannot simply generalize that mothers should avoid breastfeeding, considering nutritional (immunity) and safety benefits of breast milk, especially when babies less than three-months old are concerned. According to a survey by the Breast milk Survey and Mother-Child Support Network, there were cases in which no radioactivity was detected in breast milk of mothers living in hot spots, while radioactivity was detected in breast milk of a mother in Mitaka, which is not a hot spot. Therefore, breastfeeding mothers should avoid internal radiation as much as possible, regardless of where they live. Also, increased testing of breast milk must be done in order to take appropriate protection measures.

Radiation in Food

First, since radioactive iodine is still being detected, we must abstain from eating leafy vegetables, herbs, and wild plants from contaminated areas. In particular, vegetables with broad leaves (spinach, lettuce, etc.) carry a high risk because they have large surface areas. The government is prohibiting the shipping of produce with radiation surpassing the standards, but on April 26, for instance, spinach produced in Chiba Prefecture was shipped despite a government ban. Further, the Food Safety Commission has raised the provisional standard for radioactive cesium in vegetables from 370 Bq/kg (previously set by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare) to 500 Bq/kg.

World Standards for Radiation in Food

Isotope	Food Group	Ukraine	Belarus	US	Codex Commission	Japan
Radioactive Iodine	Baby food, drink			170	100 (Total of five nuclides: Sr 90, Ru106, I129, I131, U236)	100
	Milk, milk products					300
	Meat, eggs, fish, etc.					2000
Radioactive Cesium	Baby food, drink	40 (food for small children)	37	1200	1000 (Total of eight nuclides: S35, Co60, Sr89, Ru103, Cs134, Cs137, Ce144, Ir192)	200
	Milk, milk products	100	100			200
	Vegetables	40 (70 for fruits)	100 (40 for fruits)			500

Citing the uncertainty of the criteria for safety testing and regulation, the German Society for Radiation Protection recommends not giving food or drink that contain more than 4 Bq/kg of cesium-137 to infants, children, or young people.

Again, even if the nuclear accident is brought under control and radiation amounts return to low levels, biological concentration may result in highly contaminated food products still entering the market after the passage of some time. In order to prevent internal exposure to radiation, it is necessary to tighten the safety standards, increase testing for radiation, and thoroughly enforce bans on shipping contaminated produce. Of course, the government and Tokyo Electric Power must compensate farmers and other producers for the losses suffered by bans on the shipping of contaminated produce.

Summary of Protection Measures

Here we summarize the protection measures that have been suggested. It is difficult even for specialists to agree on such measures, and these steps will not necessarily ensure one’s safety. Rather, they are no more than some areas where we can exercise caution in our daily lives. In giving first priority to safety, evacuation measures taken by the national and local governments are an indispensable element of prevention, to protect the lives of children. Evacuation must be seen as a right, with the government bearing the burden of moving expenses and employment measures, rather than something that is the responsibility of the individual.

Below is a list of temporary measures that individuals can take.

Air: This applies particularly to areas that are contaminated hot spots.

1. Remain indoors as far as possible. Keep outside air from entering (It is difficult not to use air conditioners, fans, or to keep windows closed in the summer time. Some air conditioners allow very little outside air to come indoors. Please consult with manufacturers).
2. When you go outdoors, wear a facemask or cover your mouth and nose with a towel.
3. Wear a hat, do not expose skin, and wear a jacket that will not collect dust.
4. Before entering the house, with the facemask still on, brush dust off your clothing.

Even outside of hot spots, radiation is highest during and after a rainfall. In areas surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi plant including the Kanto area, avoid getting wet in the rain. Avoid going out. Wear a facemask.

Breastfeeding: We cannot simply generalize that mothers should avoid breastfeeding, considering nutritional (immunity) and safety benefits of breast milk, especially when babies less than three-months old are concerned. Regardless of whether breastfeeding mothers live in hot spots or not, it is necessary to minimize internal radiation exposure and to increase the testing of mother’s milk in order to develop appropriate protection measures.

Tap water: Until the government tightens safety standards, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and small children should use tap water only for bathing and washing clothes and dishes. It should not be used for mixing formula. Avoid drinking tap water as far as possible.

Food: For the time being, abstain from eating leafy vegetables, herbs, and wild plants from contaminated areas. Also avoid milk, meat, and fish, which can be highly contaminated due to bioaccumulation. It is necessary for municipalities and schools to thoroughly disclose where food comes from, and increasing the testing of radioactivity in food is urgently required.

In Conclusion

Since March 11, many people have found it difficult to relax in their normal lives, out of concern for earthquakes and the nuclear accident. At the same time, we are told repeatedly, “There is no need for excessive worry, which is actually bad for your health.” Or, “There is absolutely no problem with food on the market.” Or, “Misinformation and rumors are causing harm.” Some of us may feel that we are the only ones who are worried, or that those around us think that we are being alarmist.

However, it is only natural to be concerned. With radiation, it is not possible to say, “You’ll be fine as long as you limit your exposure to this level.” We do not understand with any certainty the physical effects of radiation. If we assign the highest priority to safety, then exercising utmost caution and adopting the strongest preventive measures is not out of line. It is the obvious thing to do.

But it is also true that there are limits to the preventive measures that individuals can adopt. No matter what you do, if there are radioactive materials present, you will be exposed. The best possible route is to remove oneself as far as possible. Those who can evacuate should do so. It is very dangerous for those people in highly contaminated areas of Fukushima to remain there. Policies and measures for evacuation should be implemented to the furthest extent possible.

It is best not to worry over radiation in isolation. There are many people living close by who share your concerns. It is important to talk with these people, to make connections, and to provide mutual support.

The nuclear accident and the scheduled power outages that followed have caused us to think a great deal about our own lives and the problems of electricity and energy. If we didn’t have nuclear power plants, we wouldn’t have to be concerned like this about the risks of radiation.

Japan is beginning to reconsider its nuclear energy policy. The Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Shizuoka, which is at risk of causing a catastrophic radiation disaster if the predicted Tokai earthquake occurs, has already stopped operation. The time has come to think about how society could function without relying on nuclear energy.

What is the SAY-Peace Project?

SAY-Peace Project is a non-profit organization run by young people in their teens and 20s, who have come together under the slogan "Solidarity among the Asian Youth for Peace." We provide a space for young people to learn about, think, and act for peace. We engage in a variety of activities with the aim of bringing about peace, from Asia, through dialogues about disarmament and history.

Contact information:
SAY-Peace Project
Coop Matsuo #103, Daizawa 5-7-8, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 157-0032
Tel/Fax 03-4413-3929 E-mail: mail@saypeace.org Home page:SayPeace.org.

Dr. Matsui Eisuke, editorial supervisor

Born 1938. Director, Gifu Environmental Medicine Research Institute. Previously taught radiology at Gifu University School of Medicine. Japanese Respiratory Society certified specialist. A special member of the Japan Lung Cancer Society and the Japan Society for Respiratory Endoscopy. One of the few specialists in Japan to address the problem of internal exposure to radiation. Matsui has been involved for many years with class-action suits over the certification of atomic-bomb victims, and has also written extensively on the health effects of asbestos. His latest book is Mienai kyôfu: Hôshasen naibu hibaku (Invisible Terror: Internal Exposure to Radiation) (Junpôsha, 2011).

CONFESSIONS AND REMEMBRANCES: July 1994... By Dr Leong Shown Chong

CONFESSIONS AND REMEMBRANCES: July 1994

By Dr Leong Shown Chong, Kota Bharu, Kelantan

For 6 ringgit I obtained a treasure – how I love to browse through and search for these bargains at the University Book Store back home in Petaling Jaya!

William Osler’s  “A Way of Life”  – discarded, unread, unloved among a pile of scattered, sorry-looking old books in its discount section. And who knows or cares about William Osler? Except me perhaps, and Danaraj surely!

And now when I read through Osler’s writings I have come to know better the truer measure of the man Danaraj is. Stirrings of familiarity, and a clearer understanding of the path that he has trodden, that he showed us, his students. I now appreciate better his reasons and his philosophy that guided him as a physician, teacher and friend.

But he is so far away now from us, sitting alone, dimly aware, while the advancing years snatch his presence away from us; while he suffers the very ailments he prayed his students would be delivered from – “may you never be sclerosed or thrombosed”; while his students forget his precepts and prayers.

Now he reminds me, and will always remind me, of a world past, where men – physicians- were well-read, keen of mind and body, commanding the world in science, ethics, art and philosophy. I feel sad and depressed when I realize how far we have fallen behind, and worse still, bereft of history – we are arrogantly ignorant of the moral and intellectual decay we have fallen into.

We prefer to read not Osler, but the stock market reports, dreaming not of upholding the integrity and good name of our profession, but of joining the ranks of businessmen; believing not in the honed skills lovingly and painstakingly procured over the years of diligent work, but in the seductive powers of advertisement and marketing, for our professional well-being.

We started out in our careers seeking wisdom but ended up believing in cleverness; we take the short-cut and not the long-view; we prefer the noise and action of the marketplace and not the silence of contemplation.

Indeed, just recently a prominent doctor, a cardiologist no less, “conceptualized” himself to be on par with motorcars and toothpaste in the local press! I quote “If advertising and marketing are allowed for every product from toothpaste to motorcars, how then did it become excluded from medicine and the law?”

And this, 150 years ago, Osler had already warned against! “Do not be given over to Bacchus, Aphrodite and Circe! Do not exchange a noble profession for an ignoble one. From physician, motivated by the patient’s best interest, to businessman, motivated by his own best interest; from physician, revered by all men, to politician, despised by all men! “

But perhaps we are only players on a much larger stage after all – the world has become a marketplace, and businessmen are held in much higher esteem than scholars in these days where research is a profit-directed activity, where the quest for profits overrides the questions of ethics, where ideas are shared only on payment of a sum….and what are we poor misguided renegades, except mere hapless pawns, in a much larger game?

There is an inexorable march towards the marketplace, in all spheres of our lives, summoned imperiously as we are by the God Mammon himself – while all around him, the high priests and priestesses sing of the false heaven of His, incessantly, seductively, and shrilly. These are men and women of the market, and as they come, they come in all manner of guises. We have doctors among them too. “Medicine and Law are in fact (profitable) businesses, a part of the huge service-orientated industry.”

The signs are unmistakable – the emphasis on GDPs, Commodities prices, Stock-Market charts, the labeling of Medicine as an Industry, the intrusion of private profit-seeking Insurance companies positioning themselves as middlemen between patient and doctor, the profusion of advertising and marketing gurus, the oft-quoted bottom-line, the prominence given to businessmen – these are in the forefront of the news, TV, magazines and films to the exclusion of rational thought and healthy debate. All else has become secondary.

And who has not been taken in, even momentarily? In the wake of this ‘money-worship’ the casualties litter the earth – the devastated environment, the suffering peoples, the purity of sports, the ethics of our professions, the decency of our lives…and still we march somnambulistically along, as the propagandists convince us that all is well, that we have progressed, the future bright, that we must become more business-like. And many of us choose to believe them.

The values that Osler and Danaraj spoke about have increasing relevance in these troubled and confusing times, to our profession in particular. When we have gurus to advise us to invest in the stock-market, they have advised us to invest in life-long education, that touting should be confined to horse-races and not patients, that our patients’ interests must come first before that of any others, that the only advertisement that doctors need are well and happy patients; to do good; to do right and to maintain a proper dignity at all times, eschewing the weariness of spirit and flesh.

What then, will I do? I know what I can and will do; what I am unable to decide upon as yet is whether to come forward and say my piece openly, to provide an alternative point of view; hoping that there will be enough physicians out there willing to reconsider and return to the enduring foundations and ethics of our profession.

Do I dare? Do I care? I should because I owe this much to the teacher who had taught us so well. Then I shall turn from the marketplace and live among men like him and Osler. It would be such a difficult thing to do – their stature dwarfs me!

I would have my own little private life, my own little private kingdom; take my pleasure in letters and literature, and in the joys and satisfaction of the profession.

I would take my practice beyond the scope of the marketplace! Indeed, the results of this may impoverish me, but let the patients, if they have the health, the heart and the wisdom, advertise for me!

For me I shall revel in my own satisfaction for a race well run, for a life well-lived, ran and lived on my own terms, and not dictated by the whims of the marketplace!

Yes, I remember! And it is good to remember Osler and Danaraj!

malaysiakini: Lynas Project: Public safety and business: Getting the priorities right.... by Mustapa Mohamed

Public safety and business: Getting the priorities right

Mustapa Mohamed
Jun 20, 2011, 11:09am

 

COMMENT On June 4, the International Panel of Independent Experts appointed to review the Lynas project returned to Vienna to complete its work. The panel had been in Malaysia to study safety aspects of the proposed rare earth processing plant in Gebeng, Pahang, and will submit its report to the government at the end of the month.

This completes one phase of a decision-making process that has important implications for the government and the nation. Public safety will not be compromised by this People's First Government.

Let me explain.

The economic considerations

Lynas Corporation Ltd is an Australian company which was given a license in January 2008 to set up a manufacturing plant in Pahang. As a foreign investor, the company is no different from other foreign investors here. They come to our shores because they think they can earn a decent return on their investment, and because they believe they will be treated fairly according to established rules and regulations.

 

We welcome foreign investments because they help us to modernize and grow our economy. Not any investment, of course, but the right type of investment.

When we evaluate an investment proposal, we ask questions like: What benefits will it bring? Will there be spin-offs that can benefit other sectors of the economy? Will it create jobs? What kind of jobs? Will there be any transfer of technology or skills? And so on.

These are standard factors we take into account when evaluating a foreign investment proposal. A comprehensive due diligence exercise will be undertaken for this purpose, and a yes or no decision will be made depending on its findings.

Issues of governance

When the Lynas investment proposal was first submitted to the Government in 2006, however, it raised questions that went beyond the ambit of these economic considerations. Issues of public safety and health, and environment were also involved.

The government was well aware then that the rare earth industry was associated with health and safety issues, especially after the experience of the Asian Rare Earth (ARE) project in Perak in the early nineties. So it was pertinent to ask what impact will the Lynas project have on public health? How will it affect the environment and the livelihood of people living in its vicinity? Are these risks measurable, and within acceptable limits? Do we have the rules, regulations and institutional framework to monitor and manage these risks?

Critical to the government's decision was the fact that the authorities had by then learnt from the ARE experience and had a better understanding of how to manage radiological risks. By 2008, the rules and regulations governing such activities had been revised and brought up to international standards. A repeat of ARE was not possible under the new regulatory regime.

This explains why when Lynas was granted its manufacturing license, the company was specifically required to comply with the safety standards and good practices established by the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (the regulator for the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984) and the Department of Environment (regulator for the Environmental Quality Act 1974).

 

Among other things, these standards define the amount of radiation exposure that is considered dangerous to workers, the public and the environment. These standards apply to all phases of the Lynas project: construction, pre-operations, operations, transportation, waste management, decommissioning and remediation.

A key feature of the work procedure involved is the staged-approval process Lynas has to undergo. For example, the company must meet safety standards imposed at the construction phase before it can proceed to engage in pre-operations activities. And it cannot do the latter without first satisfying the AELB and DOE that the safety standards applicable in this next phase can be met.

This approval process therefore ensures that the safety standards imposed by the regulatory bodies cannot be bypassed, postponed or avoided. Monitoring is continuously carried to ensure that they are adhered to.

At this point in time, Lynas has not applied for nor has it received approval to proceed to the pre-operations stage.

Independent panel of international experts

The Lynas project was discussed at public briefings in Kuantan and in Parliament in 2009, but became a topic of more extensive debate only after the Fukushima incident on March 11 this year.

 

It soon became clear that some people living in the vicinity of the Lynas site believed the project would pose unacceptable health and safety risks to human life and the environment. In the view of some at least, the project should be terminated.

This despite assurances by AELB and DOE that Lynas had to date complied with all safety standards required of it.

While the government remained confident in the integrity of the decisions taken by the regulatory bodies, it felt it owed the public, and the people of Kuantan in particular, a duty to ensure that their health and safety would not be compromised. This was, and remains, the government's highest priority, and overrides all other considerations.

Accordingly, on April 22, I announced the government's decision to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to appoint an independent panel of international experts to study all safety issues related to the Lynas project.

The IAEA nominated a nine-member panel to do the job. The panel consisted of a leader and eight members. All are world-renowned experts on issues of radiological safety. Four members are from the IAEA itself, and the rest are from the Netherlands, Canada, India, United Kingdom and Italy. No one from Australia, China or Malaysia was invited to be a panel member to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.

The panel began its work immediately and visited Malaysia from May 29 to June 4 to meet members of the public, representatives of Lynas, government officials and visit the Lynas site.

The government also made elaborate arrangements to ensure that anyone who wanted to make representations to the expert panel could do so either in person or in writing. Public announcements outlining these arrangements were made in all mainstream newspapers in Bahasa Malaysia, English, Chinese and Tamil

In the event, representatives from residents' associations, NGOs, community organizations, political parties and professional bodies did take advantage of the opportunity to meet the expert panel and make their submissions at meetings held in Kuantan and Putrajaya. Among the political parties participated in the sessions include UMNO, MCA, PKR, PAS and DAP. Of course, YB Fuziah Salleh, the MP of Kuantan, was invited and she used the opportunity to submit her case to the expert panel.

The panel has undertaken to submit its findings and recommendations to the government by the end of this month, and the government will make the report public.

Where do we go from here?

How will the Lynas issue be resolved?

The government's decision on the future of the project will be guided by a few fundamentals. First, the health and safety of the rakyat is the No. 1 priority. This overrides all other considerations, and any decision on Lynas will not be made at its expense.

Second, any decision taken will be based on facts, not emotion or political considerations. The IAEA-appointed expert panel will determine the facts in this case, and the government's decisions will be guided by its findings and recommendations.

Thirdly, the government continues to welcome constructive public discussion of this issue, and views it an important component of the democratic process. On its part, the government has sought to contribute to this process by making sure that anyone who wants to make a submission to the expert panel is able to do so either in person or in writing.

Fourthly, the government will continue to act transparently in its dealings with the public on this issue. All public information and reports related to the Lynas project are accessible through relevant web links.

These guidelines will ensure integrity in the government's decision-making and in the decisions that will finally have to be made.

There are about 10 days to go before the expert panel submits its report. Until then, it is appropriate that all parties refrain from making comments that may pre-judge the panel's findings.

I think investors will welcome the fact that this government makes its decisions based on facts and reason, and does not act arbitrarily.

This incident also highlights the need for investors to be responsible corporate citizens in their host country. They should adhere to standards of conduct and governance which are not in any way inferior to those practised in their home country. I think these are legitimate expectations, and no enlightened investor will have any quarrel with them.

MUSTAPA MOHAMED is international trade and industry minister.

The NHS reform & shake-up

Bbc News, 14 June 2011 Last updated at 13:57 GMT

The government wants to overhaul the way the NHS in England works.

Under the plans, GPs and other clinicians will be given much more responsibility for spending the budget in England, while greater competition with the private sector will be encouraged.

It has been dubbed one of the most radical plans in the history of the health service - and has certainly proved controversial.

Ministers even had to take the unprecedented step of putting the plans on hold after criticisms from MPs and health unions.

The government has now agreed to make changes after an independent review called for parts of the plans to be re-written.

Why does the government want to make changes?

Despite the NHS budget being protected, it is not immune from the need to make savings.

In fact, financially many believe the next few years will be the most challenging in its history.

Costs in the NHS are rising at a much higher rate than inflation.

This is because of factors like the ageing population, costs of new drugs and treatments and lifestyle factors, such as obesity.

To cope, the NHS has been asked to make savings of up to £20bn by 2015.

To put that in context, it would require the NHS to become 4% more productive each year. And that is for a service that has become gradually less productive over the past decade.

If it does not meet the challenge services will undoubtedly suffer. There could be more rationing longer and waiting lists and so ministers believe overhauling the way the system works could help the NHS meet this challenge.

Who is responsible for the budget now and how is that changing?

Local health managers working for primary care trusts currently control much of the spending. They use the funds to plan and buy services for patients including community clinics, mental health units and hospital care.

The changes will transfer much of that responsibility to clinical commissioning groups.

Although it is likely responsibility for services such as dentistry and specialist care like neurosurgery will end up with the national board that is being set up to oversee the new system.

Originally, the commissioning groups were to be led by GPs, but other professionals including hospital doctors and nurses will now be involved too.

As the changes happen, both PCTs and regional bodies known as strategic health authorities are to be phased out.

What about competition?

The reforms are partly designed to encourage greater involvement from the private sector and charities.

In many ways, this is nothing new for the NHS. Under Labour, they were encouraged to get involved, especially in elective operations such as hip and knee replacements.

However to date, just 3.5% of these operations are done by the private sector.

In other areas of health care, especially mental health, the role of other providers is much more pronounced.

In total, £1 of every £20 spent in the NHS goes to a non-NHS provider.

The reforms will probably expand this - something that has proved extremely controversial and opened up the government to claims it is going to privatise the health service.

Ministers have responded by agreeing to introduce competition in a more managed and balanced way.

How much will the changes cost?

The cost of the programme is £1.4bn.

Most of that will come in the next two years as more than 20,000 management and administration staff are made redundant from health authorities, PCTs and the Department of Health.

It could cost as much as £1bn to make redundancies. Another £400m will be spent on things such as IT and property in setting up the new consortia.

But the government claims the cost will be more than off-set by savings.

The reduction in staff alone will save £5bn by 2015, according to the government's own costings.

What changes will patients see?

Visually, very few. Patients will still walk through the doors of their local GP surgery and talk to the same staff they always do.

However, if the government achieves its aim they may find themselves with more control over their care.

The government has said patients will be handed more choice over how and where they are treated.

They can already choose which hospital they want to go to for non-emergency operations, such as knee and hip operations.

In the future, this choice could be extended to GPs. Practice boundaries may be scrapped, enabling a patient to register with any family doctor they wish to.

Patients have been promised more and clearer information. Central to this will be HealthWatch, a patient body which will collate information on performance and feedback from patients themselves.

What happens next?

The pause that was put in place while the listening exercise was carried has now been lifted. In many ways, it is all systems go.

The government will spend the next few weeks making amendments to the bill so its passage through parliament can be started again before the summer recess.

If everything now goes to plan, the new clinical commissioning groups will take responsibility for the budget in April 2013.

However, those areas that are not ready to take charge will not have to. Instead, the national board will be in charge of the purse strings until they can get their arrangements fit for purpose.