# 5384
The past 24 hours has seen a steady stream of chaotic, and often conflicting, news stories out of Japan in the wake of the massive 8.9 – 9.0 Honshu quake on Friday.
Frankly, my confidence level in the details of a lot of these media reports has been pretty low. So low, that in many cases I’ve opted not to use them in this blog.
Even press releases from the IAEA have been subject to revision, as evidenced by this latest correction.
13March 2011
IAEA update on Japan Earthquake
0235 CET, 13 March 2011 -- CORRECTED
An earlier version of this release incorrectly described pressure venting actions at Units 1, 2, and 4 at the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant. Venting did not occur at these units.
Japanese authorities have informed the IAEA that Units 1, 2, and 4 at the Fukushima Daini retain off-site power. Daini Unit 3 is in a safe, cold shutdown, according to Japanese officials.
Japanese authorities have reported some casualties to nuclear plant workers. At Fukushima Daichi, four workers were injured by the explosion at the Unit 1 reactor, and there are three other reported injuries in other incidents. In addition, one worker was exposed to higher-than-normal radiation levels that fall below the IAEA guidance for emergency situations. At Fukushima Daini, one worker has died in a crane operation accident and four others have been injured.
In partnership with the World Meteorological Organization, the IAEA is providing its member states with weather forecasts for the affected areas in Japan. The latest predictions have indicated winds moving to the Northeast, away from Japanese coast over the next three days.
The IAEA continues to liaise with the Japanese authorities and is monitoring the situation as it evolves.
The reports of venting pressure from 3 damaged reactors is a very big deal. It suggests a potential release of radiation, and adds considerably to the concerns of those in the vicinity.
So getting this `wrong’ and reporting it has a major negative effect.
Admittedly, the fault here does not lie with the International Atomic Energy Agency. They are simply reporting what they are being told by local officials.
The IAEA, along with nearly all of the governmental agencies and media outlets, are on the receiving end of a badly damaged communications pipeline. So errors such as these – while regrettable – are to be expected.
Early reports from the ground during any major disaster are usually fragmentary, often misleading, and occasionally just downright wrong.
The exaggerated reporting of rapes, murders, and complete anarchy inside the Superdome in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in 2005 is a prime example.
While some of this bad information may be due to local attempts to `manage’ the crisis in order to avoid public panic (or ire) - or conversely - a hyping of reports to sell newspapers, there need be no nefarious intent for the media to get things wrong.
The fog of disaster, like the fog of war, can be both impenetrable and difficult to clear.
Add to that the fact that hundreds of media outlets – cable news, newspapers, blogs, etc. – are scrambling for content to draw an audience, and you end up with a lot of speculation from `experts’ who are neither on the scene or privy to any more information than the rest of us.
So we get headlines that scream that Japan may be facing a `potential Chernobyl’ followed by reassuring pronouncements insisting that a nuclear catastrophe has been averted.
Who to believe?
Many of these reports appear to be biased by either political expediency or activist agendas (on both sides of the nuclear issue).
Others simply seem to be attempts to `fill the media vacuum’ in lieu of continually repeating what little scarce, and actually verifiable information we have.
Since there are much better venues for `breaking news’ than this particular blog, over the past day I’ve backed off on the hour-to-hour coverage of the disaster in Japan.
Yes, I’ll continue to blog on major (credible) stories out of Japan - and I’ll try to give some context where I can.
But as of today I’m going back to my regular format; focusing of emerging infectious diseases, public health and preparedness issues.
Admittedly, there are many facets of those particular topics that mesh tightly with the disaster in Japan, and here at AFD I’ll continue in my attempt to cover them.
I’ve no problem, btw, with the way other sites may elect to cover this disaster. This is not a criticism of their editorial policies.
I am, after all, avidly reading them in order to stay updated on the crisis.
But until the `fog’ lifts, and I can be sure of what I’m seeing, I’ll leave the breaking news coverage to others more suited to the task.
