It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IAEA team in Japan

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
IAEA team in Japan


Experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived in the Japanese city of Fukushima on Sunday to observe the massive decontamination effort following the world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.


All I can say is, it is about time? What the heck have these clowns been doing since March as things spiraled out of control? One of the biggest radioactive and industrial disasters in human history, and the international nuclear watchdog just arrives months after multiple nuclear incidents and potential meltdowns? I don't see any miraculous incite by them, or any reasonable solutions by this visit. Personally, I think it is all a publicity stunt on the part of the IAEA.

The international community had an opportunity to make a difference at the very onset of this disaster. However, mysteriously, everyone chose to sit on their hands? I hate to be the pessimist about this visit by the IAEA, but all I see them doing is providing further confirmation of how bad things have gotten in Fukushima and the surrounding areas. Maybe they can get a few photo ops with some sick babies, displaced elderly, or maybe distributing iodine pills, but that is probably all they will be good for. A little late guys and gals?
edit on 9-10-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
It is a little too late for this and I want to beat the buggers who decided to go now when they should've went back in March: Human stupidity at its finest, no wonder I hate my own species.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


Very true! Where the hell were they since March? These are supposed to be the experts, and our last line of defense when nuclear incidents occur. They have remained relatively silent about the whole affair. Now, all of a sudden they are going grace Japan with their presence after one of the biggest nuclear disasters in history? What do they expect to accomplish?

Talk about being a day late and a dollar short. Maybe they have been receiving generous cash filled envelopes from our benevolent friends at Tepco to turn a blind-eye toward the disaster? Now, that was me talking with the tin foil hat atop my head. In all seriousness, where the heck have they been!?
edit on 9-10-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51
Very true! Where the hell were they since March? These are supposed to be the experts, and our last line of defense when nuclear incidents occur. They have remained relatively silent about the whole affair.



A quick google search shows...
1. This isnt the first visit. They've been there a couple of times before.
2. They arent silent. Google has #loads of links about IAEA and Fukushima.

The way you people act its like the IAEA has been living in a cave and has only decided to come out today.
Not so, if you bother to look further than this thread.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


You are correct, and there has been visits since the disaster. Still, why the perceived blackout on their part and the MSM? You have to admit that international response should have been greater than a few visits here and there, and some talking points. I would have expected a full court press in terms of response and media coverage, but that has remained illusive. Thanks for the input, but I still think a hell of a lot more could be done by the IAEA and others after the disaster and even now.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1
Not so, if you bother to look further than this thread.
Actually, they didn't even have to look past this thread. The third paragraph in the story the OP linked to says they've been there before.


Originally posted by Jakes51
You are correct, and there has been visits since the disaster. Still, why the perceived blackout on their part and the MSM?
What blackout?

Have you even read what the IAEA has written this year, based on its earlier visit?

Have you even looked for it?

Google search terms: iaea report fukushima site:cnn.com

CNN is MSM, right? That's a lot of articles on CNN.com about IAEA reports, if there was an MSM blackout
edit on 9-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I get a sense of a blackout. Now, you mention CNN, and that is all well and good. However, this is a serious crisis and catastrophe, and it ought to be widely covered on every major network and publication. How many people do you know that actually realize the true scope of what is taking place at Fukushima? Most of the people I know think everything is under control. So are they experiencing a blackout? Perhaps so?

I still feel more coverage, and an extensive response was needed at the beginning and even now. Not a few visits by the IAEA, a few reports, and some press conferences. We are talking about a country that faces contamination to its food supply and water supply, adverse medical affects on the population for generations, and quite possibly the abandonment of one the world's most vibrant economic centers.

What was needed and still needed is a no-holds barred approach to coverage, clean-up, and recovery. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I see the whole thing as spin doctoring, and an epic failure on the part of the news media about getting the facts out to the people in an excessive and expedient manner. Moreover, the international response was sub-par at best. People are indeed in the dark about this ongoing crisis. That is what I consider a blackout. Thanks for your reply, and you bring up some good points.
edit on 9-10-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51
I see the whole thing as spin doctoring, and an epic failure on the part of the news media about getting the facts out to the people in an excessive and expedient manner. Moreover, the international response was sub-par at best. People are indeed in the dark about this ongoing crisis. That is what I consider a blackout.
I agree with a lot of what you said before "That is what I consider a blackout". Is it under-reported? Yes.

Are people somewhat ignorant of even the under-reported bits? Yes.

So we agree on that much, but I guess we don't agree that constitutes a blackout.

Here are some examples of media blackouts that I wouldn't dispute were really blackouts:

Media Blackout

Some examples of media blackout would include the media bans of southern Japan during the droppings of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,[1] the lack of independent media correspondence from Iraq during the Persian Gulf War,[2] and the media blackouts in totalitarian states like China that frequently take place when embarrassing events transpire.


The Fukushima incident doesn't really rise to that level, to be called a media blackout, since there's way too much information reported on it. Under-reported, yes. Blackout, not really.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You make a strong case. Perhaps, I used the wrong choice of words? We do that from time to time. I agree with you about it being under-reported, and that much is obvious. This is still a serious story, and the media should be covering it like they do with wars, civil unrest, and other catastrophic events. This incident fits the bill, but it seems it is not getting the front page coverage, or top of the news segments where it belongs. This story does not just jump out at you like it did in the past, and one has to put in a little effort to stay up on it. People are really in the dark about the severity of this crisis and that is sad. Thanks for the reply!



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


It's underreported because they want to prevent a panic and the sudden cry for the end of nuclear power plants. The truth is, we are not prepared to handle these level disasters. How many times can they say: it's still leaking, there are potentially tens of thousands of people that will face death in the next decade, we don't know what else to do, etc.

If they covered this appropriately and accurately, there would be a mass exodus from Japan, and people globally would start protesting nuclear power to a much greater degree. The problem is that without nuclear power, we don't have the capability to produce enough electricity for the current population in a cost effective, affordable manner. Until that happens, they are not going to continue to shout from the rooftops our inability to handle a disaster of this magnitude nor the potential harm to humans when disaster does, rarely, happen.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


How often do you hear about Libya?
Egypt?
Syria?

Other than an occasional line item or the call for Assad to step down, they only cover these events for long enough to form the public opinion in the way that they want. Once the story no longer pushes their agenda, or shows failure of a mission, they back right off. No use reminding us of our leader's inequities on an hourly basis.

Libya was on every news station for the first week or so. So was Japan when it first happened.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by Jakes51
 


How often do you hear about Libya?
Egypt?
Syria?

Other than an occasional line item or the call for Assad to step down, they only cover these events for long enough to form the public opinion in the way that they want. Once the story no longer pushes their agenda, or shows failure of a mission, they back right off. No use reminding us of our leader's inequities on an hourly basis.

Libya was on every news station for the first week or so. So was Japan when it first happened.


All 3 have stories on the Yahoo news homepage right now.

Not so for Japans nuclear crisis.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Given that the death toll from the Fukushima nuclear plant incident is 4, none of which were connected to the radiation and immediate problems are under control what would they be reporting? If you're interested in the more mundane day to day activities, you could easily find them online.

I can't wait til they ban hydro-electric power. Largest nuclear power plant problem since Chernobyl - 4, RusHydro power plant - more than 70.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join