Thursday, May 05, 2011

Is IAEA really Impartial and Independent?

Press Release
Fuziah Salleh
MP Kuantan
5th May 2011

After the horrifying statement made by the Director General of AELB vouching that the radioactive waste from LAMP is ‘SAFE’ to the extent that it can be scattered everywhere, I was initially hopeful that the appointment of IAEA as an independent body to look into ‘Lynas Project’ will allay some of the fears of the Kuantan people.

But as I read the article below written by Joan Russow from Global Compliance Research Project, I can’t help but wonder whether it’s too wishful for me to continue to be hopeful?…….


IAEA Meets in Vienna: A Monitor Must Not a Promoter Be
Posted by: "Joan Russow"
Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 am (PST)

IAEA Meets in Vienna: A Monitor Must Not a Promoter Be
- Joan Russow Global Compliance Research Project

On September 16, 2007, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
meeting opened in Vienna. The IAEA has the role of nuclear watchdog
but has violated several fundamental principles, through selective
monitoring, and through promoting nuclear energy by means of
nukespeak, seductive devices etc. Recently at the DPI/NGO conference
at the UN, on Climate Change, the NGO Peace Caucus and the
Militarism/nuclear matters networking group called upon the IAEA to
end the promotion of nuclear energy as the solution to climate change.


(i) Principle of sovereign equality of states
Under the Charter of the United Nations, the principle of sovereign
equality of states is affirmed. Yet the IAEA functions as though some
states are more equal than others. If the IAEA were serious about
eliminating the risk of nuclear proliferation, it would have to be
perceived to be fair. The IAEA has not embarked on a full programme of
monitoring the nuclear arsenal of the five permanent members of the UN
Security Council (United States, Russia, France, China and Great
Britain) - and their allies.
(ii) Principle that a monitor should not a promoter be
The IAEA was set up to monitor not only the proliferation of nuclear
arms, but also the so-called peaceful use of nuclear- including
nuclear energy.

For years, at least since 1992, and the negotiation of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the IAEA has been a promoter
of nuclear energy as the solution to climate change

(iii) Principle that a proposed solution should never be equally bad
or worse than the problem it is intended to solve.
See Newly released book: Canada's Deadly Secret
Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System
Jim Harding, Foreword by Helen Caldicott
"Harding exposes the role the government played in perpetuating
nuclear propaganda through the disinformation of campaigns of its
covert Uranium Secretariat and penetration of the public education
curriculum...He also explores the deadly corporate planning processes
that reveal the growing partnership between the oil and nuclear
industries." Harding "unveils the dark side of nuclear politics in his
home province, which bears the distinction of of being the largest
uranium-producing region in the world and he challenges us to explore
how Canada has consistently been complicit and instrumental in the
expansion of the global nuclear system." — Helen Caldicot


In 1996, the late Dr Fred Knelman and Dr. Joan Russow authored the
following piece related to the strategies used by the IAEA to promote
nuclear energy as the solution to climate change.

MARCH 26, 1996

By Dr F.K. Knelman and Dr. Joan E. Russow

Dr F.K. Knelman is the Vice President of the Whistler Foundation for a
Sustainable Environment, and Dr. Joan E. Russow, was the delegate for
the Whistler Foundation at the New York Preparatory Committee for
UNCED and at the Earth Summit at Rio. The Whistler Foundation and the
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation had circulated a Declaration that was
signed by 37 Nobel Laureates; this declaration called for the phasing
out of Nuclear energy. They requested permission to read this
declaration at one of the plenary session at Rio Centro; permission
was denied.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was initially set up in
the 1950's to inspect nuclear arms and to regulate Nuclear energy;
they have, however, become one of the strongest proponents of nuclear
energy. A fundamental regulatory principle of the "separation of
function" is that "the agency entrusted for regulating a technology
cannot be the same agency that promotes the use of that
technology"(Knelman, 1975). IAEA , through its UNCED document entitled
"Nuclear Techniques and Sustainable Development." acted as a major
proponent, not only of the current use, but of the increased use of
nuclear energy.

Agenda 21-- the 700 page far-reaching action-plan document from UNCED,
was adopted unanimously by the global community represented at the
Earth Summit in Rio. In Agenda 21 the following concern about
radiation was expressed:

The deterioration of environmental quality, notably air, water and
soil pollution owing to toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, radiation
and other sources, is a matter of growing concern. ( Chapter 16.
subsection 12),

The extent of the consequences of the nuclear industry were also
identified in Agenda 21:

Annually about 200,000 m3 of low-level and intermediate- level waste
and 10,000 m3 of high-level waste ( as well as spent nuclear fuel
destined for final disposal) is generated world wide from nuclear
power production. These volumes are increasing as more nuclear power
units are taken into operation, nuclear facilities are decommissioned
and the use of radionuclides increases. (Chapter 22, subsection 1)

Yet at one of the plenary sessions, Mr. Hans Blix, Director-General of
the IAEA, was given permission to present a document advocating
nuclear energy as being a safe alternative energy for the future, and
as being a solution to climate change. The International Non
Governmental Organizations, (NGOs), however, recognized that the
fundamental regulatory principle had been violated, and gave IAEA, the
dubious honour of being presented with the International NGO
Community's "Most Preposterous Proposal Award" "for presenting nuclear
power as the environmental solution in energy and successfully keeping
its problems out of the documents".

We would like to highlight some of the SEDUCTIVE DEVICES, STRATEGIES,
DOCTRINES, DOGMAS and FALLACIES that have made the IAEA worthy of this
honour. The examples will be drawn from IAEA document which was
prepared for UNCED. Also references will be made to other UNCED
Documents such as Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration-- the Earth
Charter-- 1992, and the Canada's National Report for UNCED, 1992

The seductive devices, strategies and fallacies used by the IAEA all
draw upon the fundamental language of 'nukespeak". Knelman (1986,
1992) has expanded on the euphemistic nature of Nukespeak:
( term first used in Hilgartner S,. R. Bell, and R. O'Connor 1982)

The rule is sanitize by euphemism: political euphemism is of course
older than nuclear power. How many of us recognize the "elimination of
unreliable elements"? There are forbidden words in the language of
civil nuclear power. For example, the words "accident'. "pollution" or
"disease" are never used. Accidents are either "transients". "events",
"significant events". "anomalies', "occurrences" or "abnormal
occurrences". In the extreme, they become "normal abnormalities", i.e.
truth becomes lies. Explosions are "events of rapid disengagement" or
"prompt criticality'. Waste dumps are "residue areas'. Thermal
pollution becomes "thermal effects" and pollution becomes "impacts".
Disease becomes "health effects". This is a euphemism for cancer and
genetic malformations. And missing plutonium, which is the link to
clandestine acquisition of nuclear explosives is "material unaccounted
for" or simply MUF! (Knelman, 1986.)
Other names relating to nuclear accidents are criticality, nuclear
excursions, abnormal evolution, normal aberration, plant transients,
unnecessary ignition sources. "Nukespeak" is perpetuated through
"nuclear acceptance campaigns" by the PR departments of the nuclear
establishment, designed to find "palatable synonyms" for "scare words"
through the use of "truth squads" in order to remove "undue public
concern", create "pro-energy climate" where "technically qualified
persons" would agree that nuclear power poses "no significant threat"
and could be entrusted" for the timely detection of potential
abnormalities, or there is "no evidence" of such threat ( as though
lack of evidence is proof of assertion) and the promises that turned
into lies i.e. that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter"
providing society with "boundless energy" and save us from "freezing
in the dark"., this is the language of Orwell's 1984, where peace is
war and truth is a lie. ( Knelman, 1992).

Seductive devices, doctrines, dogmas, strategies and fallacies

• The "blatant misrepresentation or expedient omission" device

This device involves the convenient exclusion of any part that could
be detrimental to one's position.

The IAEA through expedient omission (possibly for advantageous
"clarification") has left out a significant section in Agenda 21 which
does not include nuclear energy in the list of "safe" technologies for
the future.
To "clarify" Agenda 21, the IAEA in its UNCED document stated the following:

The UNCED Agenda 21 notes the need for a transition to environmentally
sound energy systems, which will entail major changes in the patterns
of energy production and consumption (IAEA Document, p.5, 1992)

In the Atmosphere chapter of Agenda 21, the following [safe] and sound
technologies are advocated:

cooperate to increase the availability of capacity, capabilities and
relevant technologies ...for utilizing and producing environmentally
[safe and} sound renewable energy resources, such as solar, wind,
geothermal, hydropower and biomass,... Each resource should be
utilized in a manner that ... minimizes environmental stress and
health impacts, .... (Section 9. Subsection 9 g Agenda 21, 1992)

Thus, we see that in the Energy section of Agenda 21, Nuclear energy
is not mentioned as being one of the [safe] or sound technology.

• The "co-opted terms" strategy

This strategy involves the stipulating of a new definition for a term
that would jeopardize one's own argument.

In the Rio Declaration the following precautionary principle was advocated:

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of
full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." ( Rio
Declaration, 1992).

In the following statement, the IAEA redefines the important
precautionary principle that was agreed to in the Rio Declaration,

The basic principles for radiation protection and safety in all
applications and activities in nuclear science and technology are
precautionary (IAEA Document , p. 2, authors emphasis)

The Rio principle, however, if enacted and truly adhered to, would
bring about a moratorium on new nuclear power plants while phasing out
currently existing ones.

• The "comparison of convenience" device

This device involves the narrowing down of alternatives so that
whatever aspect is compared will appear favourable to the proposed

In the following statement from the IAEA document, the IAEA narrows
the alternatives used for comparison to those which would appear to be
favourable within the terms of reference of their comparison. Thus,
for example, they compare the relatively low volume of nuclear wastes
to the much larger volume of wastes from fossil fuels. However, it is
the volume of wastes multiplied by their toxicity that is significant.
Merely comparing volumes is a "comparison of convenience". The same
false comparison is used to compare fuel requirements for the same
energy output.

A nuclear plant would require 27 tonnes of slightly enriched uranium
each year, which corresponds to a few truckloads. The corresponding
quantity of natural uranium is 160 tonnes.
a coal fired plant would need 2.6 million tonnes of coal each year...
which corresponds to the load carried by 5 trains, each transporting
1400 tones every day
an oil fired plant would require 2 million tonnes of fuel oil per
year, which is about 10 supertanker loads. (IAEA document, 1992, p.12)

The nuclear establishment never fails to compare coal and nuclear as
competing energy sources, always claiming the inherent superiority of
nuclear . Usually this is accomplished by failing to include the
entire fuel cycle over its full life of impacts, social and
environmental. They conveniently exclude "safety" factors,"
"production of wastes,". "disposability of wastes," "degree of
potential for bioaccumulation," lifetimes of wastes, toxicity and
proliferation problems associated with nuclear.

Yet no bombs are built of coal, no terrorist is interested in
hijacking coal or in the clandestine acquisition of coal weapons, coal
plants do not have to be decommissioned and mothballed after some 30
to 50 years of operation, their hazardous wastes do not have to be
guarded for 100,000 years, coal dust is easier to contain than radon
and coal plants do not require liability subsidies by acts of
parliament" ( Knelman, 1992)

• The "lull and lure of the technological fix" syndrome
( the "misleading assurance" device or the fallacy of "technological

This syndrome, device or fallacy involves the revealing of the
seriousness of the problem and the offering of a "solution" which is
usually worse than the problem
The proponents of a potentially dangerous act indicate that they
recognize the danger and focus on one area for which they can offer a
technological fix

In the following statement from the Radioactive Wastes section of
Agenda 21, into which it appears that the IAEA had input, the
following situation is recognized:

Annually about 200,000 m3 of low-level and intermediate-level waste
and 10,000 m 3 of high-level waste ( as well as spent nuclear fuel
destined for final disposal) is generated world wide from nuclear
power production. These volumes are increasing as more nuclear power
units are taken into operation, nuclear facilities are decommissioned
and the use of radionuclides increases. The high level waste contains
about 99 percent of the radionuclides and thus represents the largest
radiological risk. ( Agenda 21, Radio Active wastes, 21.1.).

In the IAEA document the authors affirm the certainty of the technological fix.

There is nevertheless a consensus among experts that safe geological
disposal of high level wastes, including spent nuclear fuel, is
technically feasible. ( IAEA Document, p.17)
The view of experts in the field is that safe technological solutions
exist for managing the waste. (IAEA Document, 1992, p. 15)

Knelman (1992) points out that

The assumption behind the notion of permanent disposal of High level
wastes deep in a stable geological formation is false because this
assumption relies on the mistaken belief that anything we do
technologically can be permanent This assumption of permanence is
particularly false when we are dealing with the lithosphere over some
100,000 years and when we must first disturb the geological structure
by digging a very deep hole. AECL(Atomic Energy of Canada Limited) has
dug a deep hole near Lac du Bonnet in Manitoba which is totally
inappropriate for such so-called "permanent" disposal. For one thing
you must, in all events, avoid water. Yet, The AECL hole must be
soaked Walt Patterson, a nuclear critic described this AECL research
as follows: A drunk has lost his keys and is discovered by a police
officer crawling around a street light. When questioned, the drunk
admitted that he had lost his keys in front of a dark building, a
block away. When asked why the drunk was then searching around the
street light, the drunk said " you see, officer, the light is better
here" and as Dr Martin Resnikoff, an expert on geological waste
disposal has put it " the earth does not stand still. In other words,
experts in the relevant fields do not agree. (Knelman, 1992, in

• The "rhetoric of notwithstanding clause" doctrine.

This doctrine allows for the indulging in strong statements about deep
concern and the need for significant change and then including a
notwithstanding clause that negates the strong statement.

In the Rio declaration (1992) there is a strong statement about third
world dumping:

States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the
relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and
substances that cause sever environmental degradation or are found to
be harmful to human health. (Principle 14 Rio Declaration, 1992)
There are, however, disturbing "notwithstanding clauses" that appear
such as in the following statements:

Develop regulatory and non-regulatory measures and procedures aimed at
preventing the export of chemicals that are banned, severely
restricted, withdrawn or not approved for health or environmental
reasons, except when such export has received prior written consent
from he importing country or is other wise in accordance with the PIC
procedure; ( Section 19. subsection 53 f , Agenda 21, 1992)

In the following statement in the IAEA document, the IAEA
energetically adopts the spirit of the " rhetoric of notwithstanding

The IAEA in 1990 promulgated a Code of Practice on the International
Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste as a basis for
harmonization of national legislation and policies. The code lays down
the conditions and principles for international waste transfers, such
as that movement must be made in a manner consistent with the
international safety standards, that there must be prior notification
and consent of the sending, receiving and transit States, and that
each State involved should have a regulatory authority...( IAEA
Document, 1992, p. 20

• The "flamboyant absurdity" doctrine or dogma

This doctrine or dogma carries the concerns of one's opponents to the
point where the regulations governing the opponents concerns should
become the standard by which other potentially lesser concerns will be

The IAEA appears to advocate that, what is considered to be the most
dangerous industry, just because it is dangerous, has developed
stringent standards, and that they who contribute to possibly the
greatest uncontrollable hazard are the ones who should assist the
community in dealing with other hazards.

The basic principles for radiation protection and safety in all
applications and activities in nuclear science and technology are
precautionary and are so well founded in science and so widely
accepted that they are now also being regarded as a source of guidance
in controlling pollutants and impacts arising from other human
activities. Their wider application would undoubtedly contribute
towards sustainable development. (p.2)

• The "justification through dire consequences of alternatives" device

This device involves the revealing of the dire consequences of the
current practices and offering one own practice as the salvation for
the problem

In the following statement the IAEA cites the dire consequences of the
other alternatives to justify their proposed alternative:

The problem of acid rain, which is linked to emissions from the
burning of fossil fuels, has been recognized for decades..... . the
primary concern about the continued and increasing use of fossil fuels
is the problem of CO2 emission and the potential impact on world
climate....... World conference on the Changing Atmosphere... need to
reduce CO2 emission (IAEA document, p. 5)
climate change in connection with fossil fuels (p. 9)

•The "benevolent outcome exploitation" strategy

This strategy involves the selection of the outcome which the
opposition to the proposed alternative would advocate and the
subsequent attempt to demonstrate that the proposed alternative, which
the opposition would condemn, would
be the best way of achieving that outcome.

In the following statements from the IAEA document, the IAEA focuses
on the desired outcomes of reducing acid rain and limiting greenhouse
gas to justify the selection of their proposed alternative:

Several governments have already made commitments to reduce carbon
emission, while recognizing that this will be hard to achieve except
through drastic policy decisions in the energy sector. (IAEA Document,
1992, p.6)

Nuclear power plants in normal operations cause very little
environmental detriment and are beneficial when they replace plants
which would emit CO2, SO2, and NO2 (p. 12). In this resects they would
help to reduce acid rain and limit greenhouse gas emissions (IAEA
Document 1992 , p. 12)

To accomplish the above, IAEA and other nuclear proponents are
recommending the construction of some 4000 to 5000 new commercial
nuclear power plants. The combination of the multi- trillion cost and
the time required for construction renders this proposal no less than
bewildering. By the 6 to 10 year period required for construction,
other sources of climate-altering gases would wipe out all gains.
Secondly at 1/7th to 1/10th the above cost, a much greater reduction
in CO 2 and other climate-altering gases can be achieved through
simple available conservation and efficiency measures.

• The "flaunting and condoning of the vicious circle principle" strategy

This strategy is best explained by the economic principle that "bad
money drives out good,". that is the opportunity costs of nuclear
power are unacceptable and prohibitive Thus the money spent to
subsidize nuclear power is at the expense of the funds required to
solve the energy problem with safe alternatives, and consequently,
because the research into alternatives will not be effectively carried
out, the safe alternatives will not be able to adequately replace the
non-renewable forms of energy.

In the 1992 report to UNCED, following was stated:
Nuclear energy has safety risks associated with the entire uranium
cycle, from mining through processing to the ultimate disposal of
high-level radioactive wastes. In addition, there are safety risks
associated with the reactors used to generate electricity from uranium
. And the use of fossil fuel to drive conventional thermal generation
produces carbon dioxide and waste heat. (Canada's National report
UNCED p. 46- 47)
From a domestic consumption point of view, the least environmentally
damaging energy option is energy efficiency. (Canada's National report
UNCED p. 47)

Despite the above statement, the document concludes::

New, cleaner technologies such as solar energy may help, but the hard
fact is that to a large extent we will have to rely on either thermal,
hydro, or nuclear energy in the future. In addition, energy projects
for both export and domestic supply provide jobs and economic wealth
to the country, and are especially important in some regions of
Canada" ( p. 47. Canada's National report UNCED June, 1992, authors'

The Canadian government has invoked the "vicious circle principle" by
cutting subsidies to conservation efficiency and renewals. Canada is
thus playing an important role in facilitating this not too hidden
agenda by using many strategies, devices, doctrines, etc.


The " nukespeak" and the seductive devices, strategies, syndromes used
by the Nuclear Industry involve the language of delusion and
distortion. Hopefully, through the continued revealing and
categorizing of these words of delusion we could, in some small way,
counteract the impact of the not too-hidden-agenda of the IAEA, and
the rest of the nuclear establishment and their government supporters.

Agenda 21, (1992) UNCED document,

Hilgartner S. Richard C. Bell, R. O'Connor 1982 Nukespeak the Selling
of Nuclear Technology in America. Markam Ontario, Penquin Books Ltd.
IAEA ( 1992) Nuclear Power, Nuclear Techniques and Sustainable Development.
Vienna, Austria: IAEA
Knelman, F. ( 1976) Nuclear Energy the Unforgiving Technology.
Edmonton: Hurtsig Publishers
Knelman , F(. 1986) " Beyond 1984: The Future of Peace". in Arnopoulos
( ed). Prospects for Peace: An Anthology of Canadian Perspectives on
Social Conflict and Peaceful Change. Montreal: Gamma Institute Press.
Knelman, F. (1992, in progress) Nuclear Power: the Conspiracy of the

Patterson, W. (1992) " In search of the peaceful atom" Energy Policy,
June 1986, pp 196-200
Rio Declaration (1992) UNCED document
Russow, J (1992). Content Analysis of the UNCED documents that were
adopted by Global Consensus: Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration.
Russow, J. (1992). "Seductive Devices and Strategies in , IAEA
document that was prepared for UNCED" paper presented "Nuclear Issues
and Rio," public lecture sponsored by the Greater Victoria Disarmament
Group and the Vancouver Island Peace Society


No comments:

Post a Comment