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

78 Chapter 5
“Our Oceans Are Dying” (which has often been quoted in popular science
publications and in the ecology literature 23 ). On this occasion and on others,
Cousteau significantly influenced public and political opinion with his
message that “the oceans are dying” (interview, Robert J. McManus,
August, 29, 1991). 24
The View of Congress
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries released its report on ocean dumping in the summer of 1971. As
to whether the oceans should be used for waste disposal, it said this: “. . .
it seems fair to say that the Committee wished to emphasize its answer to
that question as a very large ‘No.’” 25
The committee’s report did not reflect the wide divergence of views
among the scientists who had testified. Using carefully worded language,
it noted “almost complete current unanimity of concern for the protection
of the oceans from man’s depredations.” It continued: “In the hearings
before this Committee, the witnesses were unanimous in their support for
the purposes of this legislation. No argument was raised by any witness as
to the desirability of creating a system of protection from unregulated
dumping of waste material into the oceans.” 26 As described in the previous
chapter, there had been considerable disagreements among scientists and
professional witnesses from the waste management field. But the committee
chose to ignore the view of the latter group. To explain and justify the
need for regulation of ocean dumping, the House committee quoted the
prominent environmentalists Paul and Anna Ehrlich, Jacques Cousteau,
and Thor Heyerdahl extensively, though only Heyerdahl had testified in
the spring hearings. 27 An extensive quotation from Paul and Anna Ehrlich
stressed nations’ responsibilities toward one another: “No one knows how
long we can continue to pollute the seas with chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and hundreds of thousands of
other pollutants without bringing on a world-wide ecological disaster.
Subtle changes may already have started a chain reaction in that direction.
The true costs of our environmental destruction have never been subjected
to proper accounting. The credits are localized and easily demonstrated
by the beneficiaries, but the debits are widely dispersed and are borne by