Radioactivity in the marine environment

Volume 8/Number 6/June 1977

effects resulting from short-term, high-concentration exposure. Eurytemora, being adapted to an estuarine environment may be particularly resistant to the effects of petroleum hydrocarbons in comparison with oceanic species. However, it is unlikely that the concentrations used in the present work would occur in offshore areas. There is a need for studies to be made o f possible biological effects on oceanic copepods of low-level exposure over long periods of time. The techniques for cultivation o f a number o f species over multiple generations are available, but the maintenance and monitoring of hydrocarbons in such systems at environmental levels (< 5 pg 1.-l) remains a problem. We are indebted to Skipper Knott and the crew of R.L. Gammarus for supplying samples of Eurytemora. We are grateful to Dr E. D. S. Corner for his adviceand encouragementthroughout this work and for reviewing the manuscript. The work of one of us (V.B.) was supported by a UNESCO Fellowship, and by funds from the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, the Yad Hanadiv Foundation and the Israel Oceanographicand LimnologicalResearch Institute. Barnett, C. J. & Kontogiannes, J. E. (1975). The effect of crude oil fractionson the survivalof a tidepoolcopepod, Tigriopuscalifornicus. Environ. Pollut., 8, 45-54. Boylan, D. B. & Tripp, B. W. (1971). Determination of hydrocarbons in seawater extracts of crude oil and crude oil fractions. Nature, 230, 44-47. Brown, R. A., Searl, T. D., Elliot, J. J. Phillips, B. G. Brandon, D. E. & Monaghan, P. H. (1973). Distribution of heavy hydrocarbons in someAtlantic Ocean waters. In Proc. Joint Conf. on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills. pp. 505-519. Washington D.C.: American Petroleum Institute. Corner, E. D. S., Harris, R. P., Kilvington, C. C. & O'Hara, S. C. M.

Radioactivity in the Marine Environment Dr Goldberg's editorial comments (Mar. Pollut. BulL, 8, 49-50) are not without interest; they are however a less than complete account of events. They do not for instance acknowledge the continuing review of the significance of environmental radioactivity in the context of human radiation dose as carried out by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (Ionizing Radiation: Levels and Effects, Report of U N S C E A R to the General Assembly, with Annexes, 1: Levels, UN, New York, 1972 et seq.). They appear to ignore the fact that I C R P dose limits are for annual exposure throughout a lifetime, so that doses of the order of a few per cent of the recommended limits, whilst certainly not trivial, are equally certainly not of the order to place "urgency upon entering the global accounting m o d e " . The article is also less than fair to the International Atomic Energy Agency who, through the medium of the Brynielsson Panel report (Radioactive Waste Disposal into the Sea, Saf. Ser. int. atom. Energy Ag. No. 5, I A E A , Vienna, 1961) and its subsequent review (Slansky, C. M. (ed.), Principles for limiting the introduction of radioactive waste into the sea, A t o m .

(1976a). Petroleum compounds in the marine food-web: short-term experiments on the fate of naphthalene in Calanus. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., 56, 121-133. Corner, E. D. S., Harris, R. P., Whittle, K. J. & Mackie, P. R. (1976b). Hydrocarbons in marine zooplankton and fish. In Effects o f PollutantsonAquaticOrganisms, (ed. Lockwood, A. P. M.), Vol. 2, pp. 71-105. Society for Experimental Biology Seminar Series, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frankenfeld, J. W. (1973). Factors governing the fate of oil at sea; variations in amounts and types of dissolved or dispersed materials during the weathering process. In Proc. Joint Conf. on Prevention and ControlofOil Spills. pp. 485--495. Washington D.C.: American Petroleum Institute. Harris, R. P., Berdugo, V., Corner, E. D. S., Kilvington, C. C. & O'Hara, S. C. M. (1977a). Factors affecting the retention of a petroleum hydrocarbon by marine planktonic copepods. In Fate and Effects o f Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Marine Ecosystems and Organisms. New York: Pergamon Press (in press). Harris, R. P., Berdugo, V., O'Hara, S. C. M. & Corner, E. D. S. (1977b). Accumulation of 14C-l-naphthalene by an estuarine and an oceanic copepod during long-term exposure to low-level concentrations. (submitted to Mar. BioL). Heinle, D. R. (1969). Culture of calanoid copepods in synthetic seawater. J. Fish Res. BdCan., 26, 150-153. Lee, R. F. (1975). Fate of petroleum hydrocarbons in marine zooplankton. In Proc. Conf. on Prevention and Control o f Oil Spills. pp. 549-553. Washington D.C.: American Petroleum Institute. Lee, R. F., Takahashi, M., Beers, J. R., Thomas, W. H., Seibert, D. L. R., KoeUer, P. & Green, D. R. (1977). Controlled ecosystems: their use in the study of the effects of petroleum hydrocarbons on plankton. In Pollution and Physiology o f Marine Organisms. (eds. J. Vernberg & A. Calabrese), New York: Academic Press (in press). Reeve, M. R., Grice, G. D., Gibson, V. R., Walter, M. A., Darcy, K. & Ikeda, T. (1976). A controlled environmental pollution experiment (CEPEX) and its usefulness in the study of larger marine zooplankton under toxic stress. In Effects o f Pollutants on Aquatic Organisms, (ed. A. P. M. Lockwood), Vol. 2, pp. 145-162. Society for Experimental Biology Seminar Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

E n e r g y R e v . , 9, 853, 1971) have twice called for an international register of marine disposals of radioactivity. Some countries, including the United Kingdom, have stood ready to submit their data, but others have shown remarkable reluctance to do so. Provided that countries continue to observe the application of the I C R P dose limits to environmental releases, as they have done now for three decades, there need be no concern that levels will reach proportions needing urgent action of any kind. The best demonstration of the observance of these limits will come about through the open presentation of relevant data on both discharges and estimates of environmental impact, and through the continuing review and evaluation procedures carried out by U N S C E A R . The compilation of data on discharges on their own, unsupported by any guidance as to their significance in environmental terms, may simply cause unwarranted alarm and provide yet another source of uninterpreted data to feed uninformed environmental discussion. Ample confirmation of these views is provided by commentary in N e w s in the same issue of the Bulletin where it is assumed that more processing means more discharge: not so, it will be the aim and duty of the regulatory authorities to ensure that, regardless of cost, the I C R P dose limits are not breached (The Disposal o f Radioactive Wastes, Cmnd 884. HMSO, London, 1959). There are also two factual errors in this "News" material; the annual authorization for alpha-emitting isotopes is 6000 Ci (not 8000) and that for beta-emitters 300 000 (not 30 000). Similar ill-informed observations and commentary are 143

Marine PollutionBulletin made in "Viewpoint" of January 1977 (Mar. Pollut. Bull., 8, 7-9) where it is again assumed that extra throughput of fuel for reprocessing will result in extra discharge to sea. Nor is the suggestion true in the same issue that no action has been taken in respect of research into the effect of plutonium discharges to the Irish Sea. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been prosecuting such a programme for several years (Preston, A., The radiological consequences of releases from nuclear facilities to the aquatic environment. In Impacts o f NuclearReleases into theA quaticEn vironment, pp. 3-23. IAEA, Vienna, 1975: Hetherington, J.A., Jeffries, D. F. & Lovell, M. B. Some investigations into the behaviour of plutonium in the marine environment. Ibid. pp. 193-212: Hetherington, J. A., The behaviour of plutonium nuclides in the Irish Sea. In Environmental toxicity o f Aquatic Radionuclides: Models and Mechanisms (eds. M. W. Miller & J. Newell Stannard) pp. 81-106. Ann Arbor, 1976), and is continuing its research actively in this area. It is not true to state that the implementation of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 only takes account of direct effects on man and ignores general environmental pollution effects. The subject of effects on aquatic organisms has been extensively reviewed by an IAEA expert group which concludes that at levels necessary to protect human populations no effect will be demonstrable in other organisms. Furthermore MAFF has maintained a research effort in this area for a long time and has published much material (Woodhead, D. S., Summary of the United Kingdom studies on the effects of radiation on marine organisms. In Seminar on Marine Radioecology, OECD/ENEA, Paris, 1969: The assessment of the radiation dose to developing fish embryos due to the accumulation of radioactivity by the egg. Radiation Res., 43, 582-597, 1970: The biological effects of radioactive waste. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., B, 177, 423-437, 1971: Levels of radioactivity in the marine environment and the dose commitment to marine organisms. In Interaction

of Radioactive Contamination of the Marine Environment, pp. 499-525. IAEA, Vienna, 1973: The radiation dose-rate received by plaice (Pieuronectesplatessa) in the north-east Irish Sea. Health Phys. 25, 115-121, 1973: The estimation of radiation dose-rates to fish in contaminated environments and the assessment of the possible consequences. In Population Dose Evaluation and Standards f o r Man and his Environment, pp. 555-575. IAEA, Vienna, 1974). ALAN PRESTON Ministry o f Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Prof. E. D. Goldberg replies: The inability of international organizations to assemble a registry of radioactive disposals to the marine environment, in spite of prior pronouncements by their representatives, prompted my editorial. I propose that concerned scientists combine their expertise both to gather such information and to assess its implications to marine resources. The possible misinterpretations of either the data or their evaluation is a small risk compared to the benefits to be gained from joint efforts by scientists of many nations to describe and predict possible jeopardies to the ocean system. 144

Under the Sea Progress in Underwater Science: Vol. 2. (New Series) Report of the Underwater Association. Edited by K. Hiscock and A. D. Baume. London, Plymouth: Pantech Press. 130 pp. Price: £7.50. Progress in Underwater Sciences is an annual series containing the principal papers submitted at the Annual and Regional Symposia of the Underwater Association, plus occasional invited specialist or review papers which have not been presented at Symposia. Volume 2 (New Series) contains those papers given at the Proceedings of the 10th Symposium of the Underwater Association in London on 26-27 March 1976. Collectively, as one might expect, the papers cover a wide range of underwater activities. Topics include laboratory and SCUBA studies on the behaviour of the freshwater crayfish; food and habitats of predatory gastropods on coral reefs; the distribution of two Tellina species; survey methods in the shallow sublittoral zone; marine wildlife conservation; interpretation of photographic and sonar surveys in Loch Ness; underwater surveys of archaeological sites in Carthage and United Kingdom; and the use of underwater television systems, mini-casette recorders and underwater sledges in surveys. From the biologist's standpoint, three papers deserve special comment. Earll's paper on methodology for primary surveys of the shallow sublittoral zone provides a sound and comprehensive review of underwater survey techniques. His advice should be of considerable value to those involved in similar work, particularly in this Underwater Conservation Year, when several projects of this nature are envisaged. Mitchell's contribution on 'Marine Wildlife Conservation' deals with the need for conservation in Great Britain. This is a well balanced paper with a clear account of requirements and international strategy needed to meet the overall objectives of nature conservation. Of the specialist biological papers Taylor's account of food and habitats of predatory gastropods on coral reefs provides an interesting insight into the partitioning of ecological resources on the reef at Aldabra. Mention must also be made of the useful contributions of Davidson et ai. and Muckelroy to the rapidly developing field of marine archaeology. The latter paper adopts a novel approach in listing 11 environmental variables that may affect the quality of archaeological remains on a wreck site and the level of archaeological significance contained in their distribution. The account concludes with a plea for greater interdisciplinary involvement by geomorphologists and sedimentologists in this field. This end is embodied in the general aims of the Underwater Association and this volume will provide a useful addition to the libraries of any underwater scientist, be he or she an archaeologist, biologist, geologist, or marine technologist. B. E. B R O W N