IAEA: Handling of Fukushima has been exemplary

[miyazaki]

A preliminary report by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has stated that the response to the Fukushima nuclear incident was "exemplary" and that nobody has been harmed by radiation exposure resulting from it.

The report was drafted by an IAEA fact-finding team which has just completed a visit to Japan. The team was led by Mike Weightman, the UK Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations – Britain's top nuclear regulator.

The IAEA team give a brief account of the events of the earthquake – which the affected powerplants resisted without difficulty, despite it being far stronger than they were designed to withstand – and the following tsunami, which caused serious damage at Fukushima Dai'ichi. Only one backup diesel generator survived the enormous wave, at 14m high more than twice as tall as the plant's defences could take.


-<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/03/fukushima_iaea_preliminary_report/>

[The Wielding Truth]

1. Huh... well we hope the report is accurate. Yet, how can nuclear meltdowns

be good in any way? What an awful risk to take! What a dirty fuel! Forgive us Mother Earth.

[bananas]

2. Lewis Page peddles junk science.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=879041&mesg_id=879585

[kristopher]

3. The primary objective of the IAEA is more relevant.

ARTICLE II: Objectives

The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy... throughout the world.



ARTICLE II in full:

Objectives
The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose.

[The Wielding Truth]

6. This is distressing.Could there be some positive intervention to

stop the use of a fuel that has such an terrible byproduct?

Although, it's hard to develop and sustain a popular movement, when there is public addiction to this supply of power and when the Nuclear power company profits buy our politicians and control the information.

[Yo_Mama]

7. They are not calling the disaster good

They are calling the response (the reaction to the disaster) good.

Opinions may vary on that, but no one thinks this thing is not a disaster.

[Angry Dragon]

4. Did they start laughing as they wrote this piece of __________??

[wtmusic]

5. To whomever is unreccing this thread

When really smart people tell you something that sounds wrong, maybe you're wrong.

Something to consider.

[SpoonFed]

8. Hahahaha

I assume you're agreeing with the IAEA with regards to the definition of the word "exemplary" in the case where it
means "serving as a warning" or "serving as an illustration".

Let me use those in some examples for you:

The handling of Fukushima is serving as a warning about how not to handle a nuclear disaster.
The handling of Fukushima is illustrative of the lengths to which a corrupt industry and its minions in government will go to hide the truth from common citizens.

I simply can't fault the IAEA on their use of the word exemplary here.