Quite the contrary, in fact. The U.S. Navy has performed the most comprehensive study of this by far. Its endorsed by NOAA and their NMFS subsidiary. Their results put a stopper over a lot of the media rhetoric. Oddly, I have found that hardly anyone (including marine mammalogists) is even aware of these NMFS-approved studies, much less have read them. They have a lovely website too, but nobody ever visits it.
http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/
Despite all the hooplah, there is very little quantifiable data to support most of the claims from environmentalists. It's primarily ancedotal reporting and coincidental conjecture. I've been keeping close tabs on this for a few years, now. On three occasions I've actually had to forward these studies to colleagues who actually WORK in this field. They were blissfully ignorant, which is... highly unprofessional.
The NOAA 2002 final ruling report can be accessed from this link
The comments and response sections starting on p. 46719 are a great read.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/readingrm/MMSURTASS/lfasonar_fr02.pdf
Heres a graphic summary of the original study. Also ignored by most anti-sonar websites.
http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/Research/index.htm
This Q&A dispenses most of the commonly regurgitated sonar myths seen online and in magazines.
http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/FAQ/index.htm
Heres a listing of most of the public outreach work performed by the Navy, from which many of the 2002 final ruling questions originated.
http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/EIA/index.htm
People can always argue the merits of a study sponsored by the Navy, but I ask such critics to read the reports and back up their claims first.