561 
In a discussion of methodology the GAO Report states that 
its 
basic approach was to obtain the most diverse set 
of views on each issue and evaluate the evidence 
supporting each view. Accordingly, [they] obtained 
the views of over 30 nationally and internationally 
prominent scientific authorities on nuclear and 
other hazardous waste disposal techniques ..... 
The experts, for the most part, were from Government 
agencies, national laboratories, oceanographic 
research organizations, universities, and nuclear 
industrial societies. 5/ 
The Report also states that interviews were conducted with various 
organizations knowledgeable about any sort of ocean dumping. A 
list of these organizations is given (GAO Report, Appendix I) 
and the major agencies are mentioned in the text, but beyond that 
there is only one case (Dr. Jackson Davis, at 14) where any of 
the experts is given a direct citation. In addition, the views 
of some of the organizations that were specifically referenced, 
as well as several studies used in support of GAO's findings and 
conclusions, were misinterpreted or misrepresented. 
It is our belief that an analysis of an issue as complex 
and controversial as ocean dumping of radioactive wastes must be 
done with documentation and an accurate representation of all 
the pertinent literature and authorities. The GAO Report tralls 
far short in both of these tasks. 
In light of the information that is given in the GAO study 
and an examination of other sources, which will be mentioned in 
