Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
18. Accepting this statement by the WHO...
Sat May 26, 2012, 06:46 PM
May 2012

Accepting this statement by the WHO as an accurate representation of the circumstances, to what degree do you think the IAEA can shape the design of the research protocol the WHO uses to investigate accidents with potentially profound impacts to interests under the authority of the IAEA?


INTERPRETATION OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION'S AGREEMENT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been questioned by several journalists and others on its relationship with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There was concern that WHO cannot act independently on matters related to exposure to radioactive substances and human health because it is bound by the 1959 Agreement between the two agencies. Such concern is unfounded.

The 1959 Agreement between WHO and IAEA does not affect the impartial and independent exercise by WHO of its statutory responsibilities, nor does it place WHO in a situation of subordination to IAEA. This has been amply demonstrated in the past, with one such example being the WHO recommendations on iodine prophylaxis in the case of nuclear accidents, which were published recently in hard copy and which may be consulted on the WHO web site.

The Agreement between WHO and IAEA follows the model of agreements concluded between WHO and the United Nations or other international organizations. Such agreements establish a general framework to enable the organizations concerned to shape and develop their cooperation according to their programmes and priorities, and do not contain detailed obligations. It is customary, for example, for organizations to agree to consult on matters of joint interest or on which either party may have a substantial interest. However, as Article 1 of the WHO-IAEA Agreement makes clear, such commitment does not in any way imply a submission of one organization to the authority of the other so as to affect their independence and responsibilities under their respective constitutional mandates.

The confidentiality clause appearing in Article III is contained in agreements concluded by WHO with other international organizations. It represents a normal safeguard against disclosure of information that the organizations concerned, WHO included, are legally obliged to protect in the course of their operations. In the case of information held by WHO, such a clause is relevant, for example, for the protection of clinical and other similar data on individuals.

WHO is in the process of developing a comprehensive Global Programme on Radiation with a clear strategy and priorities to safeguard public health concerns in the use of nuclear techniques. As in the past, WHO environmental health experts will continue the scientific collaboration with radiation and health experts at IAEA. This entails not only nuclear safety issues and assistance in radiation emergencies, but also the application of radiological techniques in medical practice.

As regards depleted uranium, WHO is currently finalizing a generic assessment of any possible health risks posed by exposure to depleted uranium. As requested by the January 2001 session of the WHO Executive Board, the WHO Secretariat will report its findings and recommendations related to depleted uranium to all its Member States at the next World Health Assembly which takes place in mid-May. In addition, WHO has undertaken field missions to Kosovo and Iraq to investigate the health situation and to provide the needed professional advice to the respective health authorities. These activities of the Organization are in no way hampered by the WHO/IAEA agreement.

[font size="1.5"]For further information, journalists can contact Melinda Henry, Public Information Officer, WHO, Geneva. Telephone: (+41 22) 791 2535; Fax: (+41 22) 791 4858; E-mail: henrym@who.int. All WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features, as well as other information on this subject, can be obtained on Internet on the WHO web site: http://www.who.int The full text of the 1959 Agreement between WHO and IAEA can be found on the WHO web site by clicking on: Information Sources, Basic Documents, Search Infobases, Basic Texts and finally Agreements with Other Intergovernmental Organizations.[/font]



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Current Fukishima headlines #2: [View all] dixiegrrrrl May 2012 OP
There's no contradiction. kristopher May 2012 #1
WRONG AS ALWAYS!! PamW May 2012 #5
Wrong way Pam strikes again... kristopher May 2012 #8
thank you, Kristopher. dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #6
dupe: delete dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #7
Flat wrong. FBaggins May 2012 #10
Chernobyl, does, in fact represent the present peak of the conceptual pyramid kristopher May 2012 #11
I don't see why the "pyramid" would ever be "rebuilt" caraher May 2012 #13
These go to eleven OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #14
It is refreshing to have a well reasoned position presented kristopher May 2012 #15
Amen to that last part caraher May 2012 #27
Nope. An active imagination doesn't mean you have a clue. FBaggins May 2012 #21
Further evidence is found on page 29 FBaggins May 2012 #22
You're a hoot, Baggins. kristopher May 2012 #23
Were you going to adress any of the evidence AT ALL? FBaggins May 2012 #24
Major problems’ with radiation testing for children dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #2
TEPCO's post-mortem shows No. 2 reactor main source of radiation dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #3
Yesterday the WHO said radiation levels were low in Japan WTF? Frosty1 May 2012 #4
Probably a lot of the radiation has gone due to half-life decay NickB79 May 2012 #9
Preliminary Dose Estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake… OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #12
What do you think about that report? Reliable? dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #16
Yeah… I'm going to trust the UN OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #17
Accepting this statement by the WHO... kristopher May 2012 #18
I don't think the WHO is colluding with the nuclear power industry OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #19
It isn't a matter of collusion. kristopher May 2012 #20
Your implication is that the WHO cannot be trusted OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #25
I didn't imply anything. kristopher May 2012 #26
Garwin called them "deliberately misleading" bananas May 2012 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Current Fukishima headlin...»Reply #18