lamp byproduct reprocessing is ok

OK so I thought that I should share some information from a different angle on the Lynas plans to reprocess the byproduct from LAMP.

I work for a company that specialises in processing Toxic waste and Hazardous substances so I can say that what they plan to do in reprocessing is exactly what happens every day in the real world when dealing with harmful substances and toxic waste.

Industries produce toxic waste in Australia.

We collect that waste product and the reprocessing is done by denaturing the elements using additives so that they are neutralised and the concentration is under EPA standards of a substance that can cause harm.

For instance acids, heavy metals and pcb's are all nasties there is no doubt however once we are aware of the levels in the materials we repatriate we treat materials containing those substances with neutralising agents that bind the nasty elements and from the process we have a material that you could sprinkle on your garden and grow veggies in.

Its all about the concentration.

We know in the instance of LYC that the byproduct is a very low level of thorium which emits a very very low level of certain types of naturally occuring radiation (norm).

This would only be in any way harmful is in very high quantities and concentration so really the plans to dilute this material is a winner IMO.

There is absolutely no reason that it can't work because in the industry we do it every day.

When you process acids you denature them by using an alkaline additive at a rate that makes them neutral for landfill.

Acids are soluble and can leach so are probably more dangerous than the low level thorium in the LAMP byproduct because it cannot mix with water and leach into the environment in the same way.

So really the process that they are undertaking to take a low level NORM and dilute it further by processing it a material that can be safely used for say a road base is not rocket science, its what we do.

Really just a simple matter of testing to see the concentrations, processing byproduct then testing to see concentrations in finished product.

If that finished product is under the acceptable standard which it would be given the product you start with has no radiation as such but Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) then the process they are suggesting is OK and not difficult to do really.

It would be different if we were dealing with Uranium and radiation in concentration however we are not, and the concentrations of NORM in the low levels of Thorium present mean the materials actual NORM is very very low.

They (SMSL, HH) really are making a mountain out of a molehill. If I took this case to my chemists to find a solution that would fit our EPA profiles to produce a material classified as non-harmful and capable to be disposed of in any general waste receiving facility in Australia as harmless landfill it would not be terrible difficult IMO.

And our EPA are so tight they make the Humping Hijo's and SMSL seem like a pack of pro-nuclear, anti environmental vandals.

Finding the commercial end of it is what it hinges around really, making it into a product that can be sold rather than used for landfill. That is the best part of it all because rather than pay fees to have it received you are then getting paid for it as it has a useful purpose.

Good on Lynas for doing it and adding more value to us shareholders. Shame on those SMSL and Humpin Hijo's for lying to their people about this process as it is completely a more commercially viable and environmentally responsible way of doing business.

Its the way things are done every single day in this industry.

Just a bit of food for thought thats all.