Sounds like a recipe for corruption.

It just means that they agree to cooperate, to better coordinate resources. You're not against cooperation, are you? If anything, this means that the IAEA needs to consult with the WHO before launching any program related to public health.

If this is all you've got to prove your grand conspiracy, then you really don't have anything.

The people you claim WHO has working checking radiation etc. belongs to IARC, not quite WHO's own people.

IARC is part of the WHO. Specifically, IARC is the WHO's cancer research center. All IARC employees are WHO employees (and UN employees as well). My wife used to work there, so I should know.

They study all potential causes of cancer, including the effects of ionizing radiation. They continue to study the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident and any adverse health effects of nuclear power workers. You can see some of the work that they have done on their website.

There's no doubt that they will be doing follow-up studies of the Fukushima tsunami as well.

Sounds like a recipe for corruption.

The people you claim WHO has working checking radiation etc. belongs to IARC, not quite WHO's own people. And If one searches for Fukushima on their site, the only hits one gets is scientists with Fukushima as surname.

And for the record without prejudice is not exactly the same thing as to prohibit.

Your stupidity is starting to try my patience. Look, the claim that was made is that the agreement between the IAEA and the WHO has somehow resulted in "WHO's subjugation to the IAEA." If you would actually look at the agreement, however, you would see that this is absolutely not the case. The agreement actually says that the WHO retains the right to investigate anything related to "health work," and both sides acknowledge this right.

It should be up to you to demonstrate where in the agreement the IAEA is allowed to interfere with the WHO's work. Where does it say that the IAEA can stop the WHO from performing a study or publishing a document? It doesn't.

WHO should have their own people covering the effects of nuclear power accidents etc.

Why are you anti-nuclear clowns all so damn ignorant? The WHO most certainly does have such people.

Seriously (Not) Per... your actions are bordering on laughable now. Your entire body of arguments is aimed at trying to fling dirt at anyone and everyone that does not conform to your notion that nuclear power is a The Ultimate Catastrophe™ waiting to happen. You havn't even tried to argue against the facts and reasoning we are presenting here... you just go "well they are poopoo-heads anyway so I'm not listening" or you just plain ignore our answers or try to divert the attention elsewhere.

It took 9 months at TMI before anyone even inserted a camera into the containment. It took over 3 years before they had a look inside the core. Before they looked into he core no one even knew how much of the core had suffered meltdown.

So there will certainly be a meeting next year about Fukushima, and the year after, and after, and after. Because there will be enough things to analyse to last years.

WHO should have their own people covering the effects of nuclear power accidents etc.

Plutonium release is simply not an issue when it comes to reactor accidents, not even in Chernobyl where the whole god damn thing blew apart.

There are enough nails in Sweden to kill every human being on the planet if one uses a nailgun to shot the nail into every singles persons heart.

That statement is about as valid as Caldicotts considering that she presumes one grounds the Plutonium into fine dust and distributes it evenly to every person on the planet. Something that is physically possible unless one gives every person an asthma inhaler spiked with plutonium.

I wonder how many chemicals produced in sweden where one can claim "there is enough chemical x produced at Preems refinery to kill every single person on earth".

But then again both Per and Caldicott are immune to those comparisons since they seem to have a deep need to believe radionuclides in general, and plutonium specifically, are the most dangerous substances on earth.

How can you claim that the agreement prohibits IAEA from interfering with the rights of WHO? Thats not quite what it says there.

Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of "without prejudice." It's a legal term that means without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges. Thus, the agreement specifically states that the WHO is not giving up the right "to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting, and co-ordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects."

As long as health is concerned, the WHO has maintained its right to investigate it. If the WHO still has its rights, how can the IAEA interfere?