Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO

Changing the Global Ocean Dumping Regime 139
dependent on marine resources, fish being one of the two staple foods and
an important economic resource, Kiribati and Nauru feared that radioactive
waste endangered the marine environment and presented a scientific
report in support of their claim. Their report claimed that radioactivity had
leaked from old drums into the marine environment and had entered into
the oceanic food chain, that existing knowledge of behavior of radioactivity
in the ocean was based on incorrect and uncertain theoretical models,
and that experts disagreed on low-level radiation hazards. 35
The five Nordic countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and
Sweden—proposed a ban on dumping to start in 1990. They agreed in principle
with the proposal of Kiribati and Nauru but wished to give dumper
nations enough time to develop land-based alternatives. In the intermediate
period, dumping should be more strictly controlled and the amount of
waste should not exceed the present level. Furthermore, only existing dump
sites should be used, and no new dumpers should be allowed. The Marine
Pollution Division of Denmark’s National Agency of Environmental
Protection (NAEP) formulated the Danish policy, but Denmark failed to
win Nordic support for the Nauru and Kiribati proposal. Danish scientists,
who like their international peers considered the risks of dumping low-level
radioactive waste to be very low, were not conferred with (interview, Asker
Aarkrog, March 20, 1992). Two of the Danish government officials later
joined Greenpeace (interview, Kirsten F. Hansen, January 17, 1990).
The Spanish delegation told the consultative meeting that dumping in the
North Atlantic was a cause of great domestic public concern. Spain considered
that the effects on human health and long-term consequences of
dumping were the subject of scientific controversy and proposed suspension
of dumping operations until the necessary research and evaluation
were completed. The delegation from Ireland, one of the countries nearest
the dump site then in use, was opposed in principle to the dumping of
radioactive waste at sea and supported the Nordic proposal. The Irish government
was “coming under increasing domestic pressure from a public
opinion which was not convinced that dumping did not constitute a hazard”
(LDC 1983a, pp. 22–23). Ireland maintained that governments wishing
to dump had the responsibility to demonstrate that dumping was safe.
But pro-dumping states strongly defended their policy and the scientific
basis of radwaste disposal. Britain replied that the documents submitted by
Kiribati and Nauru did not provide the scientific and technical basis