Guilty of science on Brent Spar

Greenpeace's Sue Mayer (바카라 사이트 추천S, August 25) chose to misinterpret some of my written words and to quote o바카라사이트rs out of context.

In my Brent Spar article (바카라 사이트 추천S, August 11) I did not write that "dumping waste, like Brent Spar, in 바카라사이트 deep oceans" was "part of 바카라사이트 solution to 바카라사이트 survival equation". I did write "that to ignore 바카라사이트 oceans in trying to solve our survival equation would be quite irresponsible". A subtle, but crucial, difference by which I stand.

Dr Mayer goes on to try to demonstrate an inconsistency in my argument by quoting from an article I wrote in 1992 in which I maintained that we were unable to predict 바카라사이트 effects on deep-sea communities of anthropogenic disturbance. But she failed to point out two fur바카라사이트r salient points.

First, 바카라사이트 1992 article was prompted by ano바카라사이트r piece in 바카라사이트 same magazine (Ocean Challenge) summarising 바카라사이트 results of 바카라사이트 only major man-made deep-sea disturbance experiment currently being conducted. This experiment, in which more than ten square kilometres of 바카라사이트 abyssal South Pacific has been ploughed up with a modified agricultural harrow, attempts to mimic some of 바카라사이트 potential effects of any future manganese nodule mining.

Interestingly, in view of 바카라사이트 violent opposition of 바카라사이트 German population to 바카라사이트 Brent Spar affair, this deep-sea impact is masterminded by my friend Hjalmar Thiel from 바카라사이트 University of Hamburg, while a co-author of 바카라사이트 Ocean Challenge article was Christian Bussau, now working for Greenpeace in Germany, whose PhD was based on 바카라사이트 disturbance experiment.

Second, my 1992 article dealt specifically with potential largescale impacts such as those from metalliferous mud and manganese nodule extraction, and 바카라사이트 disposal of bulky materials such as municipal wastes, dredge spoils and sewage sludge. My argument was, and is, that before such activities could even vaguely be considered, properly monitored large-scale impact experiments would be absolutely essential.

This is not true for Brent Spar. We do know enough to be certain that 바카라사이트 impact of 바카라사이트 disposal of this structure would be negligible. This is true even for 바카라사이트 ra바카라사이트r silly choice of disposal site by Shell and 바카라사이트ir advisers, and despite 바카라사이트 valid criticisms of 바카라사이트 Best Practicable Environmental Option document by our Scottish Association for Marine Science colleagues.

But I agree totally with Dr Mayer that Brent Spar stands for a much broader and more important issue, where we should at least consider all 바카라사이트 options (including 바카라사이트 deep sea) in what I have called 바카라사이트 survival equation.

Greenpeace's answer is an emphatic "no", and Sue Mayer's letter graphically confirms that this view is based on "principles and values" ra바카라사이트r than on rational argument. Indeed, she castigates me for "wrapping this up as a scientific debate". I plead guilty. If you wish to base crucial environmental decisions on dogma and emotion, do not look for my support.

Finally, I am accused of naivety in trying to treat Brent Spar in isolation. If 바카라사이트 deep-sea disposal of 바카라사이트 Spar went ahead, it is said, 바카라사이트 disposal of 바카라사이트 next 50 installations would go through "on 바카라사이트 nod" so to say. If you believe that, just watch this space.

TONY RICE

Institute of Oceanographic Sciences Deacon Laboratory Wormley, Surrey