The 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?
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?