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

Explaining Regime Change 159
Yet the approach does not separate, measure, and compare those variables,
and it is accordingly quite likely that the impact of epistemic communities
on international environmental policy has been imprecisely assessed. This
case documents the existence of complex relationships of ENGOs, scientific
communities, and governments. These relationships should be examined
more carefully.
Obviously, the development of the regime did not reflect scientific opinion,
and ocean scientists criticized it in professional journals. Pointing out
that the 1985 London Convention resolution “totally disregarded” science,
the British geobiochemist E. I. Hamilton wrote (1986, pp. 296–297):
“There is no scientific evidence to indicate that the discharge of low level
radioactive wastes to the sea, land or air is harmful to man.” A peerreviewed
1986 article concluded that the risks from past radioactive ocean
dumping in the Northeast Atlantic were “very low indeed” (Camplin and
Hill 1986, p. 250). Thus, making a barely concealed reference to the moratorium
on radwaste disposal, Camplin and Hill wrote: “It is clear that there
are no scientific or technical grounds for excluding sea dumping from consideration
alongside other viable disposal options for radioactive wastes”
(ibid., p. 251).
Internationally acclaimed scientists who served as advisors to the regime
were also critical. The regime’s scientific advisory group, GESAMP (Group
of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution, established under
UN auspices in 1969) seriously questioned the wisdom of changing the
regime’s radwaste disposal policy. Members of GESAMP emphasized that,
despite the fact that existing knowledge was imperfect and uncertain, the
consensus of the marine scientific community was that the risk from past
dumping was “exceedingly small” (Bewers and Garrett 1987, p. 118). More
generally, GESAMP described the policy development as an example of
“lack of confidence in the regulatory process” when full environmental
implications of waste emissions were not known (GESAMP 1991, p. 10).
GESAMP advised against banning radwaste disposal, but the transnational
anti-dumping coalition ignored the regime’s scientific advisors, and the scientists
had very little political clout. 12
Specialized UN agencies did not recommend the regime change either.
The IAEA compared risks relevant to ocean dumping of low-level radioactive
waste and reached essentially the same conclusion as GESAMP. An