321 



of which 16 universities are represented and use approximately 70 

 percent of the total funds of the program per year, all have that 

 attitude. We fund them at less than 30 percent of their total yearly 

 support, so that they will not be controlled by the program. Hope- 

 fully, when and if they find something that makes it infeasible, 

 they will stand up without damaging their careers — loss of finan- 

 cial support — and say it is infeasible and here are the reasons why. 



Mr. Akaka. To summarize, would I be correct in saying that you 

 have found an area, that you have given me the longitude and 

 latitude of an area in the Pacific, north of Hawaii, south of the 

 Aleutians, that you are considering to be very feasible at this time 

 as a place for storage in the subseabed? 



Dr. Anderson. At the very most preliminary work, yes. 



The term we use is "regions." There are four. Of those four, the 

 ranking that we have given them now is that the more westerly 

 ones are the more interesting to us because the sediment thickness 

 is greater. The farther you move to the east across the Pacific, the 

 thinner the sediments become, the sea floors are younger, and the 

 less interesting they become. We have not identified the exact 

 depth that we might want to put a canister of waste into the 

 sediments. If that number becomes 50 meters, for example, then 

 obviously we will have to find an area in excess of 50 meters of 

 sediments for it to be useful. If you go north of Hawaii, there are 

 some areas in the eastern part of that central block that are less 

 than 50 meters thick. 



So, therefore, they would not be adequate. 



Mr. Akaka. Can you identify the most western area that is 

 feasible now in the Pacific? 



Dr. Anderson. With the very first screening; yes. The more 

 westerly we look, the more optimal. 



Dr. HoLLiSTER. You know why that is? 



Because the farther west you go, the older the crust, and the 

 thicker the sediment cover. This is a very simple and straightfor- 

 ward concept as you might know. 



But I think there is another point. 



Could I interrupt? I am going to, anyway. 



I think the idea should be stated this way: I'm a research scien- 

 tist and I think to defend something that hasn't been shown to be 

 feasible is a little premature. 



Do you know what I mean? 



I am trying to say we don't know if this concept is useful. So I 

 think this is more of an information exchange rather than a de- 

 fense. I don't feel at all comfortable in standing up in front of you 

 defending it as though I was an advocate. I was simply asked a 

 long time ago to look at the other two-thirds of the planet's geolo- 

 gy- 



And you do that by just taking the simplest places first and 

 looking at those. And we are really in the middle of the feasibility 

 phase of this program. 



We have so much more to learn. But on the other hand, we 

 already know a lot about the geology of the submarine world 

 because it is, in some cases, so boring. If I never see another red 

 clay core again, I will be very happy. It is a boring and tedious 

 piece of geology. 



