Why we cannot trust the International Atomic Energy Agency
Well, it’s just so simple. Would you have faith in a doctor who advised a medication, when you knew that his main job was to promote and sell that medication?
Today, as Japan starts to pour the tainted water from the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe into the Pacific Ocean, we should take note of Rafael Grossi’s recent statement:
“the future of nuclear as an alternative energy source relies on the success of the Fukushima release,” – Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
You see, whether or not Japan’s release of Fukushima nuclear wastewater is dangerous, is not the main point. Nuclear authorities around the world have been releasing radioactively tainted water into the seas for yonks. They used to just dump barrels of nuclear wastes. Then in 1993, ocean disposal was banned by international treaties. (London Convention (1972), Basel Convention, MARPOL 73/78). But that applies only to containers of wastes, not to liquids emptied via pipelines. The industry, and its promoter, the IAEA, wants this situation to be complacently accepted world-wide. The Fukushima decision is a key milestone in that process of acceptance.
It all really goes back to 1956, when the IAEA was created, in order to create a more friendly face to nuclear science, rather than being just for nuclear weapons. Its role was to promote the peaceful use of nuclear power, and also to regulate the industry – a conflict of interest from the start.
This became problematic for another United Nations Agency – the World Health Organisation (WHO.) On May 28, 1959, an agreement was signed between the IAEA and WHO , an agreement which began the uneasy situation in which the IAEA took over the prime role in radiation research. Article I (3) states that “whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual consent”.
This has resulted in the IAEA taking the lead role as watchdog over the information about radiation health effects which is distributed to the public, while the WHO has become confined to contributing to medical care and public health assistance.
The result of this agreement was especially obvious after the Chernobyl disaster, where IAEA (not WHO) took the lead in reporting radiation health effects. IAEA, enforcing the philosophy of the International Commission for Radiation Protection (ICRP), denied that any of the catastrophic health problems in the exposed population were related to radiation.
Grossi has been adept at downplaying the dangers of nuclear reactors. For instance, regarding the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine – “the problem there is war, the problem is not nuclear energy,” Grossi said. In this way, he quietly glosses over the reality that any nuclear reactor could become a military target, at a time of conflict.
This is all getting pretty serious now. It really is time for the world to ask questions about this conflict of interest. Should the control of information about health and environmental effects of the nuclear industry be transferred to some agency that is NOT committed to promoting that industry ?
No comments yet.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Leave a comment