Despite Fukushima, IAEA sees global progress on nuclear safety


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Despite Fukushima, IAEA sees global progress on nuclear safety.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, after all.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Of course IAEA sees progress. The entire enterprise of that organization is based on supporting nuclear energy.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

IAEA is a bunch of idiots, if they can't see the issues with Fukushima we are all doomed

6 ( +6 / -0 )

It is obvious IAEA urgently needs restructuring and new leadership...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Let's look at the facts as we know them, Nuclear Power is great! Unless its placed close to the sea or perhaps in an are prone to earthquakes. It also needs professional oversite unsullied from corruption or incompetence. And the waist matter does need storage so having a huge land mass does help. Mmmmm. Japan does have..... None of these. Thus the current Ssshhhh do not talk about it, situation. Yep N-Power is the go??????

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

As many posts suggest, IAEA 's existence stems from nuclear power, without this they dont have a cushy job. While they were quick to pounce on Iraq and Iran they have done precious little to alert the entire world to the major crisis that has been unfolding at Fukushima since March 2011. They have completely turned belly-up and covered up the dangers in Japan. They have never issued any alerts or exact radiation numbers for cesium, strontium 90 that have been leaking inside and outside the plant. Their inspectors seem to be yes-men under the leadership of a Japanese guy with close links to the Japanese Government, otherwise he would never land this job. In November, the nuclear rod bundles have to be removed from reactor #4 , a slight mis-step, and the demon of radiation is going to flood the atmosphere.

Despite the ongoing catastrophe Abe wants to sell nuclear technology to India and countries in the middle east. Has the world gone mad?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Too bad we can't get a wikiLeaks on IAEA...organizations like that make me sick.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes, let's look at the facts:

In a report prepared for its annual member state gathering, the International Atomic Energy Agency said nearly all countries with nuclear plants had carried out safety “stress tests” to assess their ability to withstand so-called extreme events.

“As a result, many member states have introduced additional safety measures including mitigation of station blackout,”

A safety plus.

And as for the Greenpeace spokesperson quoted at the end of the article, they have a nerve accusing others of not being impartial - they wouldn't know the truth if it hit them square in the face

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Lest we forget,the clean-up at Fukushima is projected to be around 30 YEARS!

After 2.5 years there isn't enough space to store the contaminated water,after 30 years (if we survive that long) where is all this water going to be stored?Is the whole of Japan is going to be one vast storage area? I don't think so-the only way is to let it leak into the sea isn't it?


Where is the manpower to manage these vast storage areas going to come from? Who is going to willingly volunteer to put their own lives at risk to do so?

At present, what tanks is the salty radioactive water being stored in? What measures are being taken to prevent corrosion? Tepco claims that there is just one leak going into the sea.

How can they be trusted or believed when they don't even know where the corium from 3 melted reactors is?!?!?!

The IAEA should see the crisis (and have the answers to these questions) finished at Fukushima before they comment on 'nuclear safety'.........

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Don't talk about progress. This is just pure self-justification for your own existence. Talk about how as an agency you can force the Japanese Government to do what is necessary and do it expeditiously to arrest the problems. Unless this can be done the IAEA is nothing but an empty bottle making discordant sounds.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Nuclear power plants require very heavy investments, much of which is required for safety measures. Cutting corners allows the operators to "save" hundreds of millions of dollars, if not even sums beyond the billion dollars. With such high incentives, corruption is almost guaranteed. The IAEA assessments continue to ignore systematic human errors in the definition and supervision of legal frameworks and thus are still completely useless.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Without nuclear power companies, there would be no need for IAEA. So it comes as no surprise that they'd continue to support nuclear energy and TEPCO. They're literally being paid to support nuclear power!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Right on Greenpeace! We need the sanity check. Spread the word on Greenpeace, many Japanese mistake them for Sea Shepard.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Something that is overlooked (with glee by the IAEA) is nuclear waste. All the nuclear weapons and nuke energy nations have huge stockpiles of this waste; however, except for illegal dumping or conversion into 'depleted' munitions there is no adequate repository for this toxic material which will remain with us for hundreds or thousands of years.

No one can say that the business of nuclear energy or arms is safe, well managed, or acceptable until such a basic feature of the industry is solved. This does not even start to address the problems of day-to-day handling of nuclear energy or arms, such as Fukushima.

It serves well to remember that Fukushima is just ONE incident. Heaven forbid that Japan suffer another incident. A second accident would collapse the country both economically and environmentally. A worse picture is one in which a previously untainted area of the tiny island of Japan was affected. Is it possible to evacuate the population of an entire country?

Fukushima No1 plant is far from stabilized and it is obvious that neither TEPCO nor the Japanese government have the resolve, expertise, or facilities to rein in the problems they face there. Liquification of the ground due to another earthquake in the area could rupture hundreds of tanks. Worse yet, should reactor building 4 collapse both hot fuel rods and spent rods would go tumbling to the ground. Unapproachable and uncontained the probability of an unchecked criticality accident is almost certain. There is no plan to deal with such an eventuality, except run. But then again, you can only run so far and it will catch up to you in one way or another.

If one were to dismiss the issue because it does not affect 'me', it is worthwhile to remember that those rings of proximity to an incident are only a generalized guideline. Airborne nuclear contamination issuing from an accident site is more like a lighthouse, sending saturated nuclear contaminants in a stream, dependent on wind direction and strength, across borders and oceans. With eventual mixing of air in the strata, nuclear pollution of the air envelope becomes well dispersed and nearly uniform over the ages.

If we are to judge world standards on nuclear reactor safety based solely on those plants in which an accident has not yet occurred, without examining the one shinning example of what can happen to (any) plant in the matter of hours, it would be the most grevious example of negligence and intoxication with the myth of safety.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites