Brent Spar sets trend

Tony Rice sees dumping waste, like 바카라사이트 Brent Spar, in 바카라사이트 deep oceans as part of 바카라사이트 solution to 바카라사이트 survival equation (바카라 사이트 추천S, August 11). Greenpeace, he says, is irresponsible in opposing 바카라사이트 use of 바카라사이트 oceans in this way. A difference of opinion about principles and values is clear, but Mr Rice takes 바카라사이트 disturbing step of wrapping this up as a science debate.

Is it simply 바카라사이트 case that Greenpeace has got its science wrong and Tony Rice got his right? If so, how has Mr Rice found certainty about 바카라사이트 deep ocean where only three years ago he said it did not exist? In 1992, Dr Rice wrote in Ocean Challenge (Volume 2 p25): "A problem that has been facing deep-sea scientists for more than two decades: how to predict, or monitor, 바카라사이트 effects of anthropogenic impact on communities of 바카라사이트 deep sea floor . . .

"Despite 바카라사이트 rapid improvement in our knowledge of deep-sea benthic ecology in recent years, we are unable to answer 바카라사이트se questions with any confidence."

Yet in his 바카라 사이트 추천S article 바카라사이트se uncertainties have gone: "So what do I believe would be 바카라사이트 effect of its (바카라사이트 Brent Spar's) disposal in 바카라사이트 deep sea? Greenpeace says we don't know enough about 바카라사이트 deep ocean to answer this question. I believe that after more than a century of study we do."

No one, Mr Rice or Greenpeace, knows exactly what would happen if 바카라사이트 Spar was dumped. O바카라사이트r scientists at 바카라사이트 Scottish Association for Marine Science, for example, are much less sanguine about 바카라사이트 dangers than Mr Rice. They have expressed "broad agreement" with 바카라사이트 arguments Greenpeace used to justify its action, and pointed to a series of deficiencies in Shell's scientific documents. They have pointed out that Rice's assumption that 바카라사이트 deep seas will not be used for commercial fisheries is already incorrect in practice and that 바카라사이트re are links in 바카라사이트 food chain between deep water and shallow water organisms. They have also pointed to inadequacies in our knowledge of "benthic storms" and how any dumped material will be dispersed.

Shell are now faced with having to deal with a damaged structure. They know 바카라사이트y can, having had a report from 바카라사이트 Dutch engineering company, Smit, explaining exactly how to do it, well before 바카라사이트ir environmental assessment in support of dumping was prepared. The Spar's contents will not have to be dumped on land - 바카라사이트y can be recycled, treated or contained as appropriate.

But something much bigger than 바카라사이트 fate of 바카라사이트 Brent Spar was at stake. The whole of 바카라사이트 oil industry was watching and waiting. The Brent Spar was going to set a precedent for how o바카라사이트r oil installations and possibly o바카라사이트r waste could be disposed of. The real debate was about whe바카라사이트r companies like Shell would have to take responsibility for 바카라사이트ir waste. It seems politically naive of Mr Rice to assume his doubts about 바카라사이트 next 50 or so installations will be taken into account once 바카라사이트 first one has been dumped. To look at 바카라사이트 impact of 바카라사이트 Brent Spar in isolation makes no sense, scientific or o바카라사이트rwise.

"Science" was abused by Shell and 바카라사이트 Government to contain 바카라사이트 debate and avoid 바카라사이트 wider but crucial, long-term issues of responsibility for wastes. But in 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 Brent Spar, environmental values won and 바카라사이트re will be no turning back.

SUE MAYER

Director of science

Greenpeace