182 
predictable importance is the relationship between ocean condi- 
tions and the toxicity of a substance that might, on its own, be 
harmless. 
You understand that at the moment we do not have the knowl- 
edge to answer all these questions. The consequence of this is to 
foster more marine research, not less. It also underlies the fact 
that when decisions must be made without the appropriate infor- 
mation and scientific data, the public is not told the truth and be- 
cause these decisions are often impossible to justify. This empha- 
sizes the necessity of the existence of an independent, nongovern- 
mental groups, nonindustrial groups, and citizens groups, receiving 
no subsidy from anybody but large enough to conduct their own in- 
dependent assessment and to spread the results to the public. 
The Cousteau Society takes today two firm positions. They are 
obvious, and I am sorry to repeat them, because a 17-year-old child 
could invent them. Unfortunately, they are not followed. First, sub- 
stances capable of causing irrevocable damage, nondegradable toxic 
compounds for example, should be flatly prohibited. Any dumping 
containing such compounds must be prohibited, sooner or later. 
These substances are enumerated on “blacklists.” 
There are a number of blacklists, some of them incomplete, that 
are generally annexes to international conventions. There are a 
number of international conventions aimed at regulating dumping, 
the most serious of them is the London Convention that the United 
States has occupied, but there are many local conventions such as 
the Oslo Convention, the Paris Convention, and the Barcelona Con- 
vention Most of these conventions have itemized blacklisted com- 
pounds. 
Then some other substances, the most common of them, that 
have transient consequences perhaps can be tolerated under care- 
fully examined circumstances, until such time as techniques are 
developed to recycle them economically. These products could be 
rendered harmless, or they can be substituted altogether. These 
compounds comprise the “gray” list. Both lists are appended to 
various international conventions. But in developing the “black” 
and the “gray” lists, marine experts find out in many cases that we 
are lacking adequate information. 
Now let us come to the heart of the question. Our society is sup- 
porting the spirit expressed in the legislation being offered by Con- 
gressman D’Amours. This represents continued progress in the 
right direction. Those who have discussed waste legislation have of- 
fered various suggestions that they would like to consider here. 
First, some have proposed postponing the deadline for prohibit- 
ing hazardous waste proposal until research better defines how 
hazardous some dumpings can be. We agree that the research ef- 
forts should be intensified, but they should be intensified before the 
damage can be done, not after. 
The second thing I am worried about is the remark that “the sea 
is the cheapest disposal unit.’’ This theory may seem attractive in 
an era of fiscal difficulty, the kind of times in which we now live 
and in which we may expect to live for some years. But the prob- 
lem is to know if such behavior is really economic. If it is not a 
shortsighted view. What is the cost of environmental health, for ex- 
ample? What is the cost of the reduction of the fishery yield? What 
