It's doing so to protect the nuclear giants, the group adds

Jun 2, 2015 07:15 GMT  ·  By
Fukushima was way worse than IEAE would have people believe, Greenpeace claims
   Fukushima was way worse than IEAE would have people believe, Greenpeace claims

Come June 8, the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency will meet to discuss the findings of the organization's latest report on the Fukushima nuclear disaster of March 2011. 

A summary of this report that was obtained by media agencies towards the end of May shows that the International Atomic Energy Agency thinks that both plant operator Tepco and regulatory authorities in Japan are to blame for the Fukushima incident.

More precisely, the leaked summary argues that, although fully aware that the Fukushima nuclear plant was vulnerable to an earthquake and tsunamis, Tepco failed to properly secure the facility.

Further, Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency is guilty of not having forced the plant operator's hand into implementing measures to ensure that the Fukushima facility could withstand an earthquake and a tsunami hit without too much damage to its reactors.

The organization adds that both Tepco and the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency chose to do nothing despite new studies warning of an increased risk of a major earthquake and tsunamis the area.

Interestingly, environmental group Greenpeace argues that, although pinpointing the right culprits, this latest International Atomic Energy Agency report fails to show the actual scale of the Fukushima disaster and is in essence a case in favor of nuclear energy.

The report can only be described as inaccurate, Greenpeace says

In a post, environmental group Greenpeace says that, having obtained and browsed through a copy of the report, it found it to contain a whole lot of inaccuracies and uncertainties.

Greenpeace says that, taking advantage of the fact that radiation monitoring in the area didn't work properly for several days following the meltdown of three of the nuclear plant's reactors, the report downplays the health risks to the general population.

Besides, the report fails to take into account the impact that the March 2011 nuclear catastrophe must have had on local ecosystems in this part of Japan, the environmental group adds.

As for the International Atomic Energy Agency's views on nuclear safety regulations implemented in Japan following the Fukushima incident, they are superficial and underestimate seismic and other threats to nuclear facilities in the country.

Plainly put, the agency is bending over backwards to make Fukushima sound less terrible than it really was and to make people in both Japan and elsewhere trust the nuclear industry as being perfectly safe.

“The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is trying to create a narrative that minimizes the health and environmental impacts of Fukushima, while emphasizing that lessons are being learned, including in making nuclear safety regulation more effective,” Greenpeace thinks.

In the aftermath of the Fukushima catastrophe, Japan was forced to pull the plug on all the other nuclear reactors up and running across its territory. These days, the country is working towards getting them back online.

In a recent interview, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that, should all go as planned, nuclear power could grow to account for 20 to 22% of the country's overall energy mix by 2030 at the latest.