74 



comparBd to 3 BqAn3. This difference is traced, among others, to sea- 

 borne radioactivity from nuclear industries and accidents in other far -off 

 countries, e.g. die nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria on 

 the west coast of England. 



in. 



Although not yet Ailly made known in scope and detail, the 

 collapse of the communist regime in Eastern Europe has resulted in 

 disclosure of past dumping and discharges of radioactive and other toxic 

 wastes into tt^ sea, waterways or underground storage close to 

 groundwater sources. All diese activities pose a grave direat of marine 

 pollution in the Arctic and could lead to serious consequences for Ae 

 ecosystem and the indispensable food sources for humankind present in 

 die northern seas. 



It is, therefore, die firm view of the Government of Iceland, diat 

 further investigation of the scope and nature of poUudon in the former 

 Soviet Unicm should take place widi urgency in the framework of 

 intemadonal cO'Operadon. The focus should be aimed at expedient steps 

 to clean up contaminated sites where feasible, and bringing others, where 

 appropriate, under control to contain further spatial effects. Emphasis 

 should also be placed on developing proposals for reducing and 

 preventing further pollution and risks from installations still in operation 

 that discharge heavy metals, persistent organic substances and radioactive 

 materials. Particular enqihasis should be placed on closing outdated and 

 unsafe nuclear reactors in die light of experiences from Chernobyl, and 

 this year at Sosnovy Bor and Tgnalina. 



An ap pr opr iate avenue for initiating such an international 

 operation, in the view of the Icelandic Government, would be the recentiy 

 established co<K>peration of Arctic countries on the Arctic environment 

 The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy offers a ready political and 

 technical framework for expedient actions. 



