at what price is lyc a buy?, page-115

Bazzi,

I always try to be helpful. Your welcome!

I must say that I'm very surprised how unrelaxed you guys are here on a public forum. I can understand people biting their nails having payed > 2$ for a share of an explorer with over 1.7 billion shares out but this should not prevent people to discuss chances and risks of an investment.

Both, chances and risks should be evaluated. ISN'T THAT THE PURPOSE OF A PUBLIC FORUM?

I'm being attacked here for doing just that. The wonderland-perspective with loony price targets up to 10$/share are being tolerated. This would BTW equal a market-cap of 17 billion $.

Right now there are risks involved in this stock because the production facility is seriously questioned because of health concerns. Every experienced investor knows, what a decision on behalf of the Malaysian goverment would imply, if the LAMP should not be starting production as planned or even be called off.

Instead of discussing these risks people make fun of people who do.
It is my humble opinion, that LYC investors can only win if they would be aware not only of the chances, but also of the risks involved.

So, while there are no risks involved according to Lynas, there are several other opinions that can imvho not be ignored. One of them has just been published by a gentleman, Mr Chan Chee Khoon, ScD (Epidemiology) from the Centre for Population Health, department of social & preventive medicine, University of Malaya Faculty of Medicine.

QUOTE

"Aside from cancer biology, radiation risk can also be approached from an epidemiological perspective. One of the very few empirical attempts at this was a 1993-1994 study of male miners at a combined iron ore-rare earth minerals mine in China which was reported in the Journal of Radiological Protection in 2005.

In that study, highly dust-exposed miners had 5.15 times the age-adjusted lung cancer rate as compared to the rate among Chinese males in the general population. The less-exposed mining staff had 2.30 times the general population rate. Both groups had similar smoking rates (78 percent, vs. 67 percent for the general adult male population).

On this basis, the authors concluded that the excess lung cancer risk among the less-exposed was largely due to above-average smoking, and the further difference between the two miner groups was due to high exposure to airborne crystalline silica particulates (mainly) and to thorium-containing dusts and its radioactive daughter nuclides such as radon gas.

These conclusions are highly debatable, and it is precisely in this situation of uncertainty and lack of consensus that the Kuantan-Kemaman community shouldn't end up as tikus makmal (lab rats) in a natural experiment for Lynas.

Finally, it should also be noted that the ores that the Chinese miners were exposed to contained 400 ppm of thorium. The rare earth oxide concentrates that will be arriving shortly at Kuantan port will have 1,600 ppm of thorium.

The US Public Health Service (1990) reports that the natural background level in soil is typically approximately 6 ppm of thorium."

SOURCE:
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/167498

Ignore it or not, but please don't blame me for the facts of life.

regards
Julia