Hmmm.... Must be two different IAEAs:
IAEA: Handling of Fukushima has been exemplary:
No. Probably the same one. Gorbachev authorized one of his officers to go before the IAEA with a complete, uncensored accounting of all of the radiation released and exposures to the population. Hearing the awful news, the IAEA sat in stunned silence after the officer was done, and then the IAEA declared that they would only report a small fraction of the radiation in the official records. Hans Blix and Gorbachev are on film talking about this in the video series ‘The Battle for Chernobyl’
The stated purpose of the IAEA is to support domestic nuclear power. The organization has led the charge to downplay casualties and severity of Chernobyl. I knew they would not criticize the Japanese in their official review which they released in Japan. Revealing the scope of mismanagement and lasting harm done in Japan would not get new reactors built, would it? So I was very surprised that they chose to ‘leak’ a closed door session wherein they complain they didn’t get the information they want. I believe they are frustrated that Japan was not heeding the authority of the IAEA and chose to leak this to embarrass the Japanese into being more cooperative.
I’d like to see the portion of that IAEA report where they discuss, with approval, TEPCO’s request to abandon the plant in mid March, leaving the reactors and spent fuel pools to go out of control, because it was no longer safe for the workers to remain. Or Kan’s reluctance in the first hours and days, to accept foreign assistance. If this is ‘exemplary’ then the bar has indeed been set low.