off Bermuda seven years ago is leaking radioactive material.

The sub was releasing radioactivity into an area of strong currents, raising the threat of environmental contamination, the New York Times reported this week.

Russian and American scientists have agreed that the site, 500 miles east of Bermuda in three-mile-deep waters should be monitored, the Times said.

"It's hard to say this is an enormous ecological disaster, but it's equally hard to say we should forget about it,'' Dr. Charles Hollister, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod, told the Times.

Local marine experts, however, believe the chance of any harmful affect on the Island is "about zero''.

"There is no way that something in the water 5,000 metres deep, 500 miles east of here could affect the water around the Island,'' Bermuda Biological Station for Research scientist Dr. Tony Michaels said yesterday.

Government Environment Officer Dr. Tom Sleeter agreed. "I don't think we'll see any radioactive fish popping up around Bermuda. The sub is too far and too deep,'' he said.

Nevertheless, the Opposition yesterday called on Government to use the Deputy Governor's office to get more information on the matter from overseas governments.

"Armed with such information, the Bermuda Government will then be able to respond intelligently to the concerns its residents and potential visitors might have in light of the extensive news coverage this matter has received overseas,'' PLP Environment spokesman Mr. Trevor Woolridge said in a statement.

"Government will also be able to prepare to take any appropriate action, if at all necessary, to protect our fragile environment and prevent any potential economic loss.'' The sub sank east of the Island after an explosion and fire that killed four crew members.

And of the many Soviet subs that sank in the Cold War, it carried the largest compliment of nuclear equipment.

It was "an environmental time bomb'' in the eyes of many analysts, the New York Times said.

When it went down in early October 1986, a US Department of Defence spokesman told The Royal Gazette the likelihood of a radiation leak was "minimal''.

The spokesman also said corrosion of the sub's nuclear equipment would be "very slow . . . in spaces of thousands of years''.

And Premier the Hon. Sir John Swan had stated: "We have been in touch with British authorities and have been assured there is absolutely no danger of a radioactive leak.'' But Greenpeace environmentalists, calling the sinking a "maritime Chernobyl'', challenged the Government assurances there'd be no radiation contamination.

An official said it was impossible to estimate accurately how long the process of corrosion would take.

Dr. Hollister and a colleague confirmed to The New York Times this week that the sub had broken up.

There were no major fisheries were near the site, they said. And at worst, the radiation had probably moved a few miles toward Bermuda, Dr. Hollister said.

Dr. Hollister learned about the sub last week in Russia at an international symposium at a government agency where most of Moscow's submarines are designed.

Discussions were underway to have possible East-West monitoring to try and learn whether radiation was moving towards fisheries or Bermuda, the Times said.

Though hundreds of miles from the sinking site, the Island lies in the direction of the deep current flow.

Dr. Hollister believed there was no way out of damage to the environment immediately surrounding the sunken sub.

"The question is whether the radiation is spreading horizontally or vertically,'' he told the Times. "I suspect it's not gone very far yet.'' Dr.

Hollister and Dr. William N. Lange told the Times the Russians had reported in private conversations that the missiles and warheads on board the sub were "badly damaged and scattered on the sea floor'' in waters three miles deep.

They quoted Nikolai A. Nosov, the deputy chief designer at the agency, known as the Rubin bureau, as saying it was "certain that the warheads are badly corroded and leaking plutonium and uranium''.

It was agreed by participants at the meeting that the accident site should be monitored, Dr. Hollister said.

The sinking was widely publicised at the time, internationally and in the local media, but the current state of the wreck had not been widely known.

Western experts said the Yankee-class sub probably carried two nuclear reactors, two nuclear-tipped torpedoes and 16 long-range missiles, each topped with two nuclear warheads.

The symposium was called to discuss another lost Soviet sub, the Komsomolets, which sank in 1989 about 300 miles (480 kms) off Norway. Woods Hole scientists have said the potential hazard from that wreck is slight.

But Dr. Hollister told the Times he was "less sanguine'' about the Yankee sub, because it had been under three years longer than the sub off Norway, was probably more corroded, carried far more nuclear gear and was in an area of faster currents.

"I don't see any way out of damage to the local environment (immediately surrounding the sub),'' Dr. Hollister was quoted as saying.

Bermuda's Dr. Tony Michaels, who has been testing local waters for radiation for years as part of his research projects, said: "It's not a problem. There is no way it is going to have an effect on Bermuda.

"We actually take regular radiation measurements and if there was something we would have picked it up.'' Dr. Michaels is the assistant research scientist in Global Change Oceanography Research at the Bio Station. He said there were two basic issues involved.

If the radioactive core is plutonium, which is a "long-lived, deadly substance'', it is normally insoluble in sea water and will fall apart on the ocean bottom, impacting only on organisms in the immediate vicinity.

Other substances like strontium-90, would get diluted by the water but would not live long.

"The basic issue is that in 5,000 metres of water, 500 miles away, it (strontium-90) will move around with large scale circulation of the oceans, so it will not come to the surface for 100 to 200 years, and most of it will be in the Pacific. By that time it will not be dangerous anyway,'' Dr. Michaels said.

He added: "It would be dangerous if someone went down there, brought it back to Bermuda and put it in their back yard, or if it was grounded on the reef.'' Dr. Sleeter said he concurred with Dr. Michaels.

"The chances of any impact locally are about zero,'' the former Bio Station scientist said.

However, former environmentalist MP Mr. Stuart Hayward felt there was cause for concern -- and a lesson to be learned. Government should be doing everything possible to keep ships with nuclear equipment or waste on board out of local waters.

At the time of the Russian sub accident, he had warned against allowing nuclear ships near Bermuda again, he said.

But only a few years ago a ship carrying nuclear waste was spotted passing by the Island, he asserted.

"Who knows what radiation does,'' he said. "Nuclear accidents are not like oil spills which you can try and clean up. We can only talk about preventing them. We need to be far more aware of the crazy things that are going on out there.'' SINKING -- US Navy P3-C Orions based in Bermuda photographed the Russian nuclear sub before it sank after catching fire off the Island in October 1986.

Attempts to rescue it failed and it plunged to a depth of three miles.