{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1483262,
        "msgid": "bpt-newmont-respondsb-1447893297",
        "date": "2004-10-25 00:00:00",
        "title": "PT Newmont responds",
        "author": null,
        "source": "JP",
        "tags": null,
        "topic": null,
        "summary": "PT Newmont responds We refer to the letter to the editor in The Jakarta Post on Oct. 21 entitled: Newmont ad misleading which was written by P. Raja Siregar on behalf of Indonesian Environmental Forum (WALHI). Siregar accuses PT Newmont Minahasa Raya (PTNMR) of having misled the public in regard to the conclusions of the World Health Organization (WHO) Final Report, dated Sept. 8, 2004, and entitled Mercury pollution. PTNMR has in no way misled the public.",
        "content": "<p>PT Newmont responds<\/p>\n<p>We refer to the letter to the editor in The Jakarta Post on <br>\nOct. 21 entitled: Newmont ad misleading which was written by P. <br>\nRaja Siregar on behalf of Indonesian Environmental Forum (WALHI).<\/p>\n<p>Siregar accuses PT Newmont Minahasa Raya (PTNMR) of having <br>\nmisled the public in regard to the conclusions of the World <br>\nHealth Organization (WHO) Final Report, dated Sept. 8, 2004, and <br>\nentitled Mercury pollution. PTNMR has in no way misled the <br>\npublic.<\/p>\n<p>First, it is easy enough for the public to read the WHO Final <br>\nReport for themselves. It is available on our website <br>\nwww.newmont.co.id. We encourage everyone to read it.<\/p>\n<p>Second, we do not understand why Siregar is comparing our <br>\nadvertorial to a press release by the Ministry of Health relating <br>\nto the WHO Final Report. Why doesn't he compare our advertorial <br>\nto the WHO Final Report itself? Common sense would dictate doing <br>\nso, since we based the advertorial on the WHO Final Report, not <br>\nsome other document that describes the WHO Final Report.<\/p>\n<p>And let's look at just one of Siregar's statements in his <br>\nletter to the editor (keep asking yourself this question: Who is <br>\nattempting to mislead?). Siregar's statement: \"The WHO study, <br>\nmeanwhile, confines its conclusion only to the presence or <br>\nabsence of Minamata disease.\"<\/p>\n<p>Compare this statement to the following quote from the WHO <br>\nFinal Report: \"However, the environment has not  become highly <br>\ncontaminated with methylmercury at present as indicated by the  <br>\nlow mercury level in fish.\" Clearly, the WHO Final Report makes a <br>\nconclusion in regard to contamination of the environment.<\/p>\n<p>Siregar also states: \"Therefore the conclusion made in the <br>\nNewmont advertorial published in a number of mass media <br>\npublications to the effect that there is no contamination is both <br>\nerroneous and unfounded\".<\/p>\n<p>Let us be absolutely clear to ensure that no one misses our <br>\nposition: PT Newmont Minahasa Raya has not polluted Buyat Bay. <br>\nThis is confirmed by years of our own monitoring data, by WHO, by <br>\nthe Ministry of the Environment's Integrated Team, and by the <br>\nCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization <br>\n(CSIRO).<\/p>\n<p>WALHI and other NGOs have also created panic among the public <br>\nby raising a scary issue about \"Minamata disease.\" WALHI also <br>\npublished a report called \"Minamata from Minahasa.\"<\/p>\n<p>Both Minamata Institute and Health Ministry have concluded <br>\nthat there are no symptoms of Minamata disease in Buyat. In a <br>\nstatement, Siregar admitted that there is no Minamata. We should <br>\nask the question again: Who is attempting to mislead who?<\/p>\n<p>We find Siregar's accusation against us more than a little <br>\nironic. Who has misled the public?<\/p>\n<p>KASAN MULYONO<br>\nPublic Relations Manager<br>\nPT Newmont Minahasa Raya<br>\nJakarta<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/bpt-newmont-respondsb-1447893297",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}