316 OCEANOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES 



Of course, I, as most laymen, was a little afraid of radioactive ma- 

 terials, being ignorant as to their effects and how safely they might be 

 handled. 



In particular that is so in our area because of the fact a little over 

 a year and a half ago we had a little mifortunate experience where 

 some employees were working in an industry which used radioactive 

 materials in their work, and we had contamination not only of the 

 plant but of these employees" homes. 



Therefore, any mention of radioactive materials in our area natu- 

 rally causes quite a disturbance. 



Recently, a new industry, Industrial Waste Disposals, Inc., was 

 licensed to dispose of radioactive waste, and the license provided that 

 they would dispose at a site in the gulf coast approximately 180 miles 

 off the coast in 1,000 fathoms of water. 



I did not become too concerned about that authorization due to the 

 fact I felt that the safeguards they had placed in the license indicated 

 that they who had knowledge of these materials were taking proper 

 precautions, and also I know that in our own medical center they use 

 a considerable amount of radioactive materials in medicine and re- 

 search which under proper precautions is bound to be safe, and if it 

 were not I am sure the men who know the uses of this material would 

 never allow it to be right in the heart of our medical center. 



Also, I thought our people were about to accept these pronounce- 

 ments as being proper, when along came the National Academy of 

 Sciences report in which they recommended a location just 20 miles 

 off the coast in 54 feet of water. 



I am very familiar with the spot they located just off Galveston 

 because I have personally caught many a red snapper, and many fish 

 of various varieties and species there, and it is quite a popular place 

 to fish. 



I began to see what the basis of these recommendations were. 



Of course, immediately the National Academy of Sciences comes 

 back and says "We made these recommendations subject to studies." 



I w^ant to point out to the chairman that I tliink the National 

 Academy of Sciences was a little presumptuous in making definite 

 site locations at this time because in the very forward part of their 

 report they state they were supposed to make a detailed study. 



I do not think they have made such a detailed study, if they are 

 just going to pick out sites, because they can easily pick out any 

 point just a few hundred feet off the coast, so far as that is concerned, 

 if the location is subject to detailed study. 



That was not my understanding. My understanding was that the 

 report was to have included a detailed study to begin with, and I think 

 they have certainly harmed the program of meeting this problem we 

 have. I say "we" because it is a problem that the whole Nation will 

 have from now on, this disposing of these waste materials. 



They liave not helped this thing at all by coming out in this manner, 

 with definite spots picked out where there has been no study. 



The National Bureau of Standards put out a handbook No. 58 in 

 1954, entitled "Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Ocean." 



In this booklet they moved with caution, and properly so. 



They recommended disposal, if it should be in ocean waters, to be 

 in depths where the water exceeds a depth of 1,000 fathoms. 



