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

66 Chapter 4
Environmental Quality nonetheless concluded that there was “reason for
significant concern” (CEQ 1970, p. 18). Moreover, it was clear to U.S. government
officials with experience in control of oil pollution from tankers
that international control of ocean dumping was needed (interview, Charles
Lettow, September 24, 1991).
Quite incompatible with the propositions of the epistemic-community
approach, congressional hearings held in spring 1971 demonstrated that
experts disagreed whether significant pollution had occurred in the ocean,
whether an ocean had the capacity to safely absorb some wastes, and
whether regulation reducing ocean dumping was justified. The view of the
Nixon administration and a group of congressmen backing ocean dumping
legislation and the view of representatives from the waste management field
were strongly at odds. Professional witnesses from the waste management
field did not find that waste disposal necessarily was a danger to the health
of the oceans. They stressed that the oceans were robust, had an enormous
capacity to receive waste safely, and should be considered in any rational
waste management strategy. Indeed, they did not support stringent ocean
dumping control, and many strongly disagreed that ocean dumping should
be advised against in all cases. But another group of witnesses, mainly ecologists
and marine scientists, disagreed. They advocated stringent control of
ocean dumping on the ground that irreversible damage otherwise would be
inflicted on the oceans. In their view, the assimilative capacity of the oceans
was limited and should be protected by legislation. The lack of any form of
dumping regulation resulted in a lack of incentives to reduce the amount of
waste disposed of. 23
Contradicting an important implicit claim of the epistemic-community
approach, public opinion was far from indifferent on the issue of ocean pollution.
Further illustration of the wide divergence of views among the
acknowledged experts and, at the same time, of considerable public concern
over the health of the oceans, is found in a testimony given by David D.
Smith, a marine geologist who had co-authored the study that formed the
basis of the influential CEQ ocean dumping report. While he advised against
any bill that ignored the assimilative capacity of the oceans, Smith realized
that the examination of the pros and cons of ocean dumping was met with
public disbelief. Clearly, public opinion was in favor of significantly reducing,
if not completely banning, ocean dumping of wastes. Smith told the
Senate: “We are faced with a matter of attitude in the United States today.
It seems clear that in the general public’s mind the idea prevails that disposal