national

IAEA seeks bigger crisis role in disasters like Fukushima accident

11 Comments

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

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

11 Comments
Login to comment

Will the Japanese let them? In our life times, will we ever see something like this again?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

TEMPCO would not want them inspecting their dirty work

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So they are saying that they think it will happen again?

I thougth fukushima was just a freak accident, caused by rouge wave. And chernobyl was just beacause of an incompetent operator. And harrisburg and three mile island were of so low probability that they will most likely never happen again?

But now that they are saying it will happen again, maybe its time to consider using something else?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Good idea. Not just Fukushima, but also Tokaimura, Monju, etc. prove that the Japanese authorities can't be trusted to supervise their nuclear power.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The IAEA has no experience with nuclear disasters and no expertise. Their main role is protecting the interests of certain countries in keeping their monopoly in nuclear weapons. It is clear a new world body needs to be created to deal with disasters. With ageing power nuclear stations and developing nations building them, accidents and disasters will become more commonplace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The IAEA, as the recognized global agency, could have and should have sent observers and advisers to Fukushima Daiichi as soon as it happened. The IAEA could have acted as a central resource by bringing in specific experts from its members around the world to advise on specific and expected problems. For example, I'm sure someone could have anticipated sooner the need to put a cover over the reactors to stop the radiation spewing out over the next 5 months. If that could have been done earlier, we could have got on with decontaminating playground soil and so on. Playing a central role could have put everyone ahead of the game, rather than being reactive as things still are now.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The IAEA has every right to intervene in Japan's nuclear crisis, since there's absolutely no system working well for the maintenance of reactors, manifest safety standards, and risk-communication and management overhaul. As NHK's documentary report on the nuclear accident clearly shows, neither the Nuclear Safety and Industry Agency nor the Nuclear Safety Commission was able to take the initiative in facilitating the communication in such an emergency. We can't let pork-barrel bureaucrats and power-companiy sympathizers put their fingers on the energy policy that will compromise the environmental and safety concerns. The METI is definitely NOT in a position to serve as a nuclear watch-dog, due to their apparent motive to defend the TEPCO over their history of cover-up and falsification of inspection report in the past years.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

TEPCO and the useless Japanese Nuclear Agency (or whatever it's called) would never allow a more active role by the IAEA because it would expose the complete lack of safety and mismanagement of the electric companies, not to mention the number of money scandals and accidents that would come to light and expose politicians as well. No... that would be like the Japan Sumo Association allowing the police to actually investigate a crime, or Israel allowing foreign agencies to investigate its war crimes. Japan will continue to insist it can handle it domestically with internal investigations (ie. pay-offs and cover-ups).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Some respondents believe that the IAEA considers that there could be a repeat of the Fukushima Daiichi incident in wanting more involvement in such incidents.

It wasn't the IAEA who initiated the thoughts about a more positive involvement in nuclear incidents on a hindsight basis, but the nuclear authorities in other countries affiliated to the IAEA indicated their concern. All affiliated countries have to agree on what they want to see the IAEA doing. It costs!

A more positive intervention of the IAEA in nuclear incidents has been raised as a general point, not on the basis that Fukushima could ever occur again. There might possibly be another magnitude 9 offshore earthquake off Japan in the future, with an equally huge tsunami, but by then I am sure that Japan will have long implemented all the necessary precautions to guard against a repeat problem at any of its nuclear reactors.

Necessary safety precautions had already been achieved for the Japanese nuclear reactors to withstand such a high magnitude earthquake (some distance offshore, of course), and but for the tsunami there would have been no disastrous consequences as did occur at the Daiichi nuclear power station, and for no other reason than power supplies were cut off, with far too long an interval before they could be restored.

Writing from South Africa, I trust that Japan is progressing well with its recovery from the most terrible disaster of the huge tsunami on its affected population. As with millions of other people in the world, I have never been a victim of any earthquake, so fully appreciating the real trauma as it affects large numbers of people, personally, isn't easy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amigos, Fukushima is just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@mike23thurgood

Necessary safety precautions had already been achieved for the Japanese nuclear reactors to withstand such a high magnitude earthquake (some distance offshore, of course), and but for the tsunami there would have been no disastrous consequences as did occur at the Daiichi nuclear power station, and for no other reason than power supplies were cut off, with far too long an interval before they could be restored.

Mike, being in South Africa you may not be aware of all the updates that go on here. It has been discovered that the reactors started the meltdown/melt through process as a result of the earthquake, not the tsunami. For sure, the tsunami exacerbated the problems, but the process had already started.

Thanks for the kind words to this country, but Japan is not progressing well with its recovery. The Red Cross in Japan has distributed very little of the billions it received in donations, the government has still not initiated systematic testing of contaminated foodstuffs and highly contaminated beef (many times over the emergency safety limits) has been consumed by the public, the plant continues to spew radioactivity into the environment, suicides have taken place among evacuees. However, apart from that, things are not so bad ;-)

1 ( +1 / -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