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

220 Notes to pp. 122–127
the Pacific, the Black Sea, the Red Sea, and the Baltic are all in danger of destruction.”
(U.S. Senate, International Conference on Ocean Pollution, p. 39) And, a second
illustration: “The shores of United States waterways have been so invaded by
pollutants, that evidence indicates the nation already has a number of “dead” seas:
some parts of Lake Erie, the Houston Ship Canal, San Pedro Bay, the upper
Delaware River, off the Hudson Estuary, and others. Elsewhere on earth, the
Caspian Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Irish Sea, the Sounds between Sweden and Denmark,
the North Sea, and the Sea of Japan can be found in varying stages of entrophication.
Perhaps the most shocking example of the developed nations’ apparent lack
of concern about the quality of their waters is the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland,
Ohio, which actually burst into flame in 1969.” (Weinstein-Bacal 1978, p. 875.)
21. See, e.g., “New York’s Dead Sea,” Newsweek, February 23, 1970, p. 86.
22. See Grayson and Shepard 1973, p. 66.
23. “Danish delegates said the Baltic Sea is already subject to such oxygen starvation
as to be almost dead, and that the North Sea is rapidly becoming the same.”
This quote from Friendly 1971 appears on p. 199 of U.S. Senate, Ocean Waste
Disposal.
24. For example, Heyerdahl concluded his speech at the International Institute for
Environmental Affairs’ seminar series held concurrently with the Stockholm
Conference with these words: “. . . the revolving ocean, indispensable and yet vulnerable,
will forever remain a common human heritage” (Heyerdahl 1973, p. 63).
In an essay titled “Stop Killing Our Oceans,” Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote: “Finally,
all nations together must establish an International Policy on the Sea that sacrifices
narrow self-interest for the protection of this vast domain that is a common heritage
of all mankind.” (Congressional Record: Senate, February 8, 1971, p. 2036)
25. See Weart 1988, p. 325.
26. See Linsky 1990, p. 206.
27. See Kingdon 1984, pp. 62–63.
28. According to a close observer, “it was not until the [the Preparatory Committee]
met for the third time in September of 1971 that it had become clear that the job of
educating the public and their political leaders had already been partly accomplished
through the explosion of public interest in environmental matters, and that the
Stockholm conference would have to produce some concrete action if it were to be
taken seriously by observers around the world” (Rowland 1973, p. 87).
29. On the success of the Stockholm conference, see, e.g., Hawkes 1972b, pp.
1308–1310; “Mr Strong’s Recipe,” Nature 237 (June 23, 1972), pp. 418–419. One
analyst concluded that the preparations for and subsequent convening of the
Stockholm conference had “apparently heightened environmental consciousness
internationally” (Soroos 1981, p. 30).
30. “Only One Earth” was the conference’s epigram.
31. Many representatives of the scientific community were skeptical about the quality
of scientific knowledge about environmental impact of pollutants. See, e.g.,
Myrdal 1973, pp. 70–71. Strong’s position marked a compromise between environmental
crusaders and their critics. For a discussion, see Handelman et al. 1974, p. 76.