information about Fukushima published in English in Japanese media info publiée en anglais dans la presse japonaise
23 Octobre 2013
October 21, 2013
Press Release 2013/19
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2013/prn201319.html
21 October 2013 | Tokyo -- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'s international expert mission to review remediation efforts in areas affected by the Fukushima Daiichi accident concluded today with the presentation of a Preliminary Summary Report to Japan's Senior Vice-Minister of the Environment, Shinji Inoue.
The Follow-up IAEA International Mission on Remediation of Large Contaminated Areas Off-site the Fukushima Daiichi NPS recognised the huge effort and enormous resources that Japan is devoting to its remediation strategies and activities, with the aim of improving living conditions for people affected by the nuclear accident and enabling evacuees to return home.
The Mission Team highlighted important progress since the first IAEA remediation mission in October 2011, noted that Japan had made good use of advice from that earlier Mission, and offered fresh advice in a number of areas where it is still possible to further improve current practices, taking into account both international standards and the experience of remediation programmes in other countries.
"Japan has done an enormous amount to reduce people's radiation exposure in the affected areas, to work towards enabling evacuees to go back to their homes and to support local communities in overcoming economic and social disruption," said team leader Juan Carlos Lentijo, Director of the Division of Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology in the IAEA Department of Nuclear Energy.
"The Mission Team has been really impressed by the involvement of a wide range of ministries, agencies and local authorities in driving these crucial remediation efforts."
Among the findings of the Mission, which was requested by the Japanese government and began on 14 October, the team welcomed the extensive provision of individual dosimeters so that residents can monitor their own radiation dose rates, helping to boost public confidence.
Good progress has been made in the remediation of affected farmland, and comprehensive implementation of food safety measures has protected consumers and improved consumer confidence in farm produce. A comprehensive programme to monitor fresh water sources such as rivers, lakes and ponds is ongoing, including extensive food monitoring of both wild and cultivated freshwater fish.
The Mission encouraged the Japanese government to strengthen its efforts to explain to the public that an additional individual radiation dose of 1 millisievert per year (mSv/y), which it has announced as a long-term goal, cannot be achieved in a short time by decontamination work alone. In remediation situations, with appropriate consideration of the prevailing circumstances, any level of individual radiation dose in the range of 1 to 20 mSv/y is acceptable and in line with international standards and the recommendations of the relevant international organisations such as the IAEA, International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and World Health Organisation (WHO).
The Mission encouraged the relevant institutions in Japan to assess the role that the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) could play in the independent review of the remediation activities, particularly those required for the long term. The Mission also encouraged the relevant organisations to conduct safety assessments of the facilities and activities for the long-term management of contaminated materials, and to allow for their independent review.
The Mission Team acknowledged that the Japanese authorities have implemented a practical option for remediating the region's extensive forest areas, taking a limited approach by removing material under the trees in a 20-meter buffer strip adjacent to residences, farmland and public spaces. It recommended concentrating efforts on areas that bring the greatest benefit in reducing doses to the public, while avoiding damage to the ecological functioning of the forest where possible.
The 16-person team consisted of international experts and IAEA staff working in a range of disciplines, including radiation protection, remediation technologies, waste management and stakeholder involvement.
The Mission's Preliminary Summary Report can be viewed here. The final report will be presented to the Japanese government in December.
Background
The Mission, which is the follow-up to the IAEA International Mission on Remediation of Large Contaminated Areas Off-site the Fukushima Daiichi NPS in October 2011, had the following three objectives:
The Mission Team assessed comprehensive information provided by the Japanese authorities and held discussions with the relevant institutions, including national, prefectural and local institutions. It also visited the affected areas, including several sites where remediation activities were conducted and some temporary storage sites for radioactive waste and soil, as well as a survey area for an interim storage facility, and a demonstration facility for incineration of sewage sludge.
The Mission was in line with the IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety, which was unanimously endorsed by the IAEA's Member States in September 2011 and defines a programme of work to strengthen the global nuclear safety framework.
See also:
http://independentwho.org/en/who-and-aiea-aggreement/
The World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) signed the Agreement “WHA 12-40” on 28th May 1959.
One should note in particular :
The International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization recognize that they may find it necessary to apply certain limitations for the safeguarding of confidential information furnished to them …
The Secretariat of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Secretariat of the World Health Organization shall keep each other fully informed concerning all projected activities and all programmes of work which may be of interest to both parties.
It is recognized by the World Health Organization that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the primary responsibility for encouraging, assisting and co-ordinating research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world without prejudice to the right of the World Health Organization to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting, and co-ordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects.
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 agreement.
Since the signing of this agreement, WHO has shown no autonomy of action towards achieving its stated objectives in the field of radiation protection.
On the contrary it has shown its capacity for misinforming the public about the health consequences of radioactive contamination caused by the civil and military nuclear industries.
WHO waited five years before visiting those territories that had been heavily contaminated by the accident at Chernobyl. They gave no instructions for evacuation or for the provision of clean food to the affected populations.
WHO has kept hidden the health consequences of this catastrophe, especially by not publishing the proceedings of the 1995 and 2001 conferences.
WHO still estimates the number of deaths caused by Chernobyl at less than fifty and attributes the health problems of populations of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia to fear of radiation.
WHO does not recognise the validity of the work published in 2009 by the Academy of Sciences of New York which estimates the number of deaths caused by Chernobyl to be nearly one million.
With Fukushima, WHO has the same attitude as for Chernobyl.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) does not respect its constitution which lays down the following principle:
“Informed opinion and active cooperation from the public are of paramount importance for improving the health of people …”
In the first chapter, Article 1:
“The goal of the World Health Organization shall be the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.”
In chapter 2 – FUNCTIONS of WHO:
a) to act as the directing and co-ordinating Authority on International Health Work.
Revision of the agreement WHO / IAEA
The revision must be agreed by a General Assembly of WHO which is held in May each year. Before that, it must be placed on the agenda of the General Assembly. This is drawn up by the Executive Council in the January before. A proposal that the revision of the WHO-IAEA Agreement should be put on the agenda must be made to the Executive Council by a Member State and with the support of another Member State. Leading up to that, the support of recognized NGOs is very useful in convincing Member States to propose the revision and also useful for the final vote. It needs to be understood that putting an item on the agenda of the WHO is a long process that can take years. We know also that the more powerful Member States are able to influence decisions through informal channels.
/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.over-blog.com%2Ft%2Fcedistic%2Fcamera.png)