Ever since the rare earth project in Gebeng, Pahang was initiated; the floodgates to protests has widened phenomenally. The concern and worries have been compounded by the Fukushima incident in Japan post earthquake that hit the nation. Let us relook and remap the entire episode in a nonpartisan perspective with sound scientific rationality and putting aside emotions that have overwhelmed the media.
Opposing merely on the grounds of concern does not hold much weight in the long run if we do not make ourselves understand the basic sciences and concepts thoroughly and turn a blind mind to all arguments. One lacks the wisdom to listen and comprehend if there is too much of political inferences.
The very word “radioactivity” has been taken out of context and viewed as a word from hell and has been given a tone of evilness. There is radioactivity all around us whether we like it or not. There is always background radioactivity, far more in confined areas like shopping malls, hospitals and even the open parks where we exercise and the very houses we live in. There is no escape from it. This is a fact nobody can deny regardless on which political divide one sits in.
From the time of Madam Curie to –date, the field of radioactivity has evolved in great length. Madam Curie died from aplastic anaemia due to her ignorance on the dangers of ionizing radiation that could bring much harm to her. Nevertheless the scientific world did not let her efforts and research go to waste and continued dissecting the various facets of radioactive elements occurring naturally. Imagine the world today if all works were discontinued upon her demise.
The benefits extracted from radioactivity have brought a paradigm shift in detecting and treating diseases especially cancer. Today we have radiopharmaceuticals which are widely used in the medical field for treating cancer. We have radioactive tracers used to detect abnormal growths and for research & development. It is widely used not only in humans but also in agriculture and animal studies. How many of us would have taken the effort to educate ourselves on this. Or do we grind to a halt merely knowing the fact today?
We have cyclotrons in Malaysia that synthesise fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG), a radiopharmaceutical injected into patients which is widely used for PET scans in the field of medical imaging. Let’s not go into the details of its radiochemistry but the fact is it is here to stay and its uses will only be increasing with time. Are we to abandon it for it is radioactive? Some may reply in affirmative tone if they lack the insight.
Now, coming back on the issue of rare earths, indeed it is not as rare as we have perceived. Over time the terminology “rare earth” has gained more momentum in daily language and has mislead the vast majority to believe that it is a kind of earth that it represents is scarce and authentic to a certain degree. In reality that is not. It is found all round the crust of planet earth. The term “rare earth” came to making due to the scarcity of the minerals that it contains which are minute in quantity and the word “earth” was at that time synonym to minerals.
If we were to walk down the history aisle of the periodic table of elements in the field of chemistry, terminologies like “noble gases” may not make sense but they were in context in the year 1869 when the table was formulated.
And because of the availability of rare minerals, which are indeed more abundant than gold, we have acquired the current lifestyle in the world we live in. There is more “rare earth” in our homes, pockets (via communication gadgets), and work place that have sneaked silently without any notice over the century. Even the cave man were exposed to rare earth; maybe more for they were living in caves! Imagine the world today if we run short of “rare earth”.
We must accept the fact that despite the abundance of its availability on earth, many countries have refrained from mining the rare minerals from the rare earth is because China has been exporting them at very low prices. It does not make economic sense to venture into mining such minerals if we can purchase a commodity far below the cost of producing ourselves. Nevertheless, China has decided to impose strict export terms and to reduce the quantity supplied to the world market. Now this is a dangerous precedent as they have the monopoly of the market with 95% share.
With the China policy; in a very near distance we all will be subject to higher prices of electrical and electronic goods like television, computers, phones, and even vehicles for the matter. The inflationary effect will snowball the entire chain of supply for our daily needs. The citizens of the world should not be subject to such monopolistic maneuver. Though China has stated environmental issues as a reason, we know it is not that simplistic. They have a bigger agenda and we should not take it for granted.
So the question that is currently haunting in many minds: WHY IS MALAYSIA involved in such a project? But the question I beg to ask WHY NOT MALAYSIA?
Let’s dwell on some facts.
Countries all around the world play hosts to many economically viable industries to the advanced and developed nations. Job creations, technology transfers and socioeconomic uplift are among the many outcomes host countries have benefited. Malaysia is not an exception. We have also reached the current mile stone due to an open economy concept much to the envy of many of our neighbors at one time. Every industry chooses the most favorable platform to do business from and indeed Malaysia has also created such niches to many famed international companies. Why one nation is chosen over others is not only determined by economic factors but also education level, social and definitely political and government policies.



Relocating a business entity is not an alien concept. Many entities have relocated their operations around the globe and at times not in entirety but factional in nature which at times does not get publicized. There are many manufacturing companies that have fragmented their chain of operations for various reasons. There are pharmaceutical companies here that import raw materials from Europe and export the finished products back to their originating nation and worldwide. We have regional hubs for logistical reasons which give an added advantage for these companies.
On that note, bringing in the raw material, in this case rare earth, from Australia should not be viewed negatively. The concentration of rare minerals in the earth from their site provides the viability of the project. Processing and exporting from Malaysia is viable geographically and economically.
Nevertheless, the issue on the byproduct of the process, thorium as being radioactive, has been the point of debate and headlines. What intrigues me is the fact that the only evidence of opposition is based solely on the 8 cases of leukemia claimed to be associated with the radiation caused by the radioactive waste in Bukit Merah. A mere medical and clinical observation made by a medical expert cannot be extrapolated into making a substantial and statistically accepted fact in science. It is important that when a scientifically trained person makes a statement in full public access, he or she must be honest and unbiased in making a conclusion. Only then the statement made holds water. Or else it is just speculative and considered junk science. Hundreds if not thousands of Malaysian children suffer from leukemia annually. How do we justify that statistics? Do we stop all “risky” activities? Even Down’s syndrome and smoking are risk factors! Why have we not banned cigarette smoking entirely to curb leukemia?
There are various types of leukemia and the truth is; experts still do not know what really causes leukemia! There are only possible factors known to increase the risk but again surprisingly many who have these risk factors do not get leukemia! Therefore it is utmost important to lay all facts before the eyes and it is the duty of the health expert to be forthcoming to all parties and not dish out a skewed version. On the other hand, many who suffer from leukemia do not have any risk factors. Making a direct link retrospectively hastily only shows the shallowness of a scientific statement.
It is an accepted fact that thorium is radioactive and it is naturally found in our soil. Incidentally we do not sieve our soil to remove thorium when we erect our buildings. There are far more harmful chemicals around us in the environment and above all, the food we consume. One is more likely to ingest harmful levels of heavy metals like mercury and lead via sea food consumption than being exposed to radiation per se. There are more deaths daily due to diabetic complications than radiation related. And the list can go on. We need a rational point for argument.


Making comparison to the nuclear reactor incident in Japan is really farfetched on the other hand. It is seen as a convenient gateway to ruffle the facts. The two processes are like North and South Pole. Equating the two is pure ignorance per se. The only common term in the two operations is “radioactivity”. All other facts do not relate and ironically none of the opponents have volunteered to make a factual comparison. And that is because there is nothing to compare.
There is definitely a glaring knowledge gap and understanding in the sciences of radioactivity. This is so evident for the fact that we have all lived in a radioactive environment, used radioactive gadgets and machineries without much or any question all our lives. The educational curve may be tedious but those disseminating information must do a thorough fact finding before presenting it to the masses.
A puzzle is not complete till the last piece is put in place. A scientific debate must never run high on politically charged agenda. Presenting the facts to counter a scientific and technological oriented project is utmost important.