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

Changing the Global Ocean Dumping Regime 145
and that “such a decision could involve value judgments which go beyond
consideration of the technical and scientific evidence.” 54 However, as to
the risks of dumping, the experts concluded that “the calculations show
that any risk to individuals from the use of the [Atlantic] dump site is very
low, both in relation to other common radiation risks such as that from
natural background radiation and to the risk that corresponds to any of the
dose limits or upper bounds that would apply following current international
radiation protection recommendations” (LDC 1985d, p. 136). 55 In
other words, no scientific consensus existed to support and justify a halt
on nuclear ocean dumping. The coming consultative meeting would have
to reconsider the moratorium without clear recommendations from its scientific
advisers.
Within the expanded group of experts, including representatives from
governments and Greenpeace, some representatives proposed to make a
clear statement that could be used by the consultative meeting in reaching
a final decision. 56 They suggested that “no scientific or technical grounds
could be found to prohibit the dumping at sea of all radioactive wastes,
provided that dumping is carried out in accordance with internationally
agreed procedures and controls” (LDC 1985a, p. 26). But a number of representatives
opposed any such categorical statement. There was agreement
on a compromise stating “no scientific or technical grounds could be found
to treat the option of sea dumping differently from other available options
when applying internationally accepted principles of radioprotection to
radioactive waste disposal.” 57 The British press, however, reported that “all
the parties who attended seem to come away with a different version of the
result” (Brown 1985a).
Ignoring expert opinion, the transnational anti-dumping coalition continued
to attack the scientific and conceptual basis of the radwaste policy.
The report of the expanded panel was the focus of the ninth consultative
meeting of the global dumping regime, held in September of 1985. 58
Governments reached very different conclusions from the findings of the
report. Nauru, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Saint
Lucia, Iceland, and Brazil found the report supported their fears about
radioactive dumping. Several of them stressed that land disposal was safer,
more controllable, and more reversible than ocean disposal. Governments
that were in the process of developing land-based alternatives (Finland,
Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Federal Republic of Germany) also