From three letters to Science, 13 November 1981:
1) "The grim proof of our clear overexploitation of the marine environment is reflected in the photograph of Panope generosa... The photograph, which must be more than 50 years old, shows a specimen much larger than anything taken in the fishery today, or even yesterday!"
2) "One thing about the photograph is clear. It is faked...."
¾ S.O. LANDRY, JR., SUNY, Binghamton, N.Y.3) "The composite photograph of Panope generosa was sold in the Pacific Northwest in 1935 on postcards, as were postcards illustrating jackrabbits large enough for saddle, bridle and rider, and trout overlapping the freightcars purporting to support them..." - T.H.Lewis, Billings, Mont.
OK, so a lone panicmaker fell for a hoax, but surely everybody agrees that dumping sewage, sludge and nuclear wastes in the ocean is filthy and irresponsible.
Yes, everybody except the oceanographers. Dr Charles Osterberg, former director of the International Lab of Marine Radioactivity says that wastes, including many radionuclides, properly belong in the sea. One reason: it cleans itself much faster than other ecosystems. ("Seas
¾ to waste or not," NY Times, 9 Aug 81). "Does it make sense to keep the vast ocean with 97% of the world's water inviolate?" he asks. "Is it right to protect all this salt water while endangering the piddling fresh water resources we must absolutely have? Of the 3% fresh water, ¾ is locked up in glacial ice."New York oceanographer Cyrus Adler points out that deep ocean plankton (food for whales) is starved for organic material; in surface waters, says Osterberg, marine life is largely limited by the lack of phosphates and nitrates, both abundant in sewage.
John D. Isaacs, the late director of Scripps Institute of Oceanography (yes, we must sadly report the death, last year, of this great scientist) considered the possibility of sub-ocean disposal of high-level nuclear wastes "perhaps the most important relationship of the ocean to human power needs in the future" [AtE Oct. 79, Feb. 81].
"Subseabed Disposal of Nuclear Wastes" (Science, 18 Sep 81) makes a similar point; one of its authors, C.D. Hollister, is Senior Scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
As for low-level nuclear wastes, America's drinkers of alcoholic beverages annually urinate more radioactivity into the oceans than is contained in a ton of low level wastes, and disposing of LLW in the ocean is a very reasonable method (Atom, England, Sept. 81), though the US does not use it.
Of course, all this is what the oceanographers tell us, and since they understand the ocean, today's rules disqualify them from decision making.
That should be left to Greenpeace and other protectors of the environment who would deny marine life the food for which it is starved so that man can more devoutly savor the gunk, sludge and sewage.
|
Vol. 9, No. 5
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 9, No. 5 Date: November 23, 2004 01:23 PM Title: Free to choose
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|