Reuters vs IAEA – The Problem with News

I know it’s easier to criticize than to write it, but if something that has been this blatantly reported in the last day or two is incorrect, what else in it is wrong?
Here’s a twitter post from Reuters from 03/23 4:20am JST with part of the article, pay special attention to the part in bold.
IAEA tracks radiation leaks at Japan’s crippled plant reut.rs/gA1qul

Senior IAEA official Graham Andrew said that the overall situation remained “very serious” and that the U.N. atomic watchdog was concerned it had not received some information from Japan about the Fukushima nuclear plant.

“We have not received validated information for some time related to the containment integrity of unit 1. So we are concerned that we do not know its exact status,” he said.

The IAEA also lacks data on the temperatures of the spent fuel pools of reactors 1, 3 and 4, he said, though Japan was supplying other updates.

Now here’s a quote from the IAEA website about their own role in the whole situation.  Once again, pay attention to the bold.

IAEA Director General’s Statement to the Board of Governors, 21 March 2011  (about halfway down the page) http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2011/amsp2011n007.html

Since the accident, I have tried to address some widespread misconceptions in the media about the IAEA’s role in nuclear safety. These misunderstandings fuelled some criticism of the Agency’s response, which was not always justified.

I explained that we are not a “nuclear safety watchdog” and that responsibility for nuclear safety lies with our Member States. The IAEA acts as a hub for international cooperation, helping to establish safety standards and providing expert advice on best practice. But, in contrast to the Agency’s role in nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear safety measures are applied voluntarily by each individual country and our role is supportive.

Can’t get more clear than that.  I’m not saying that the Reuters article doesn’t say valid things, but it’s small things like that that make me question how much trust I can put into any news organization.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Reuters vs IAEA – The Problem with News

  1. Le Monde, August 28th 1986: “Because of the importance of this energy, the world could endure each year an accident in the order of Chernobyl…” – Hans Blix – former IAEA director.

    The IAEA gags the WHO with the agreement WHA 12-40 (independentwho.info) -> Since then the WHO is allowed to publish only data, which the IAEA calls valid. So, physicists decide, not medics, over the health of the people in Fukushima and Chernobyl. The IAEA is a profiteer and servant of the atomic industry. The strength of the IAEA: Selling the ideology of the atomic power around the planet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s