3 ms·
IAEA is one of the three sources cited for that statement, as is the WHO and a Japanese institution. Whether or not the IAEA (or other institutions who have ma
by jjulius 3y ago
IAEA is one of the three sources cited for that statement, as is the WHO and a Japanese institution.
Whether or not the IAEA (or other institutions who have made similar statements) passes your stated litmus test, however, doesn't really prove such assertions wrong, especially in the absence of data that can prove otherwise, which I'm struggling to find.
- paganel 3y agoThe IAEA is in fact the only institution that I can trust from that list, Iraq 2003 made me trust them, but I'd leave anything WHO-related as politically-tainted (this recent pandemic has proved it) and, as I've said, anything directly related to Japan itself is tainted by definition when it comes to Fukushima. The question now is how much of a say the IAEA had in that study, i.e. it they only rubber-stamped it with their approval or if the data came directly from them?