Naval Sonar

[Garibaldi]

On July 16 the US Navy got permission to go ahead with tests for using low frequency sonar in our oceans. The tests have begun. The high-powered submarine detection system will operate at noise levels billions of times more intense than those known to disturb the migration and communication of large whales. It has been known by scientists and the US Navy as well, that these tests injure marine life, including causing internal hemorrhaging.

* 60 false killer whales beached themselves off Australia.

* Hundreds of squid had beached themselves along the Californian coastline along with unusual numbers of (harmless)leopard sharks coming in close to shore disorientated.

* Twelve manatees have also been reported to have died on the Florida coast.

* Another 60 pilot whales have beached themselves off Cape Cod.

All of this within a week of the Navy's go ahead to use this low frequency sonar, Coincidence? I think not.

The sonar is equivalent in decibels to us standing next to a rocket being launched. It causes brain hemorrhaging & disorientation to cetaceans and other marine life. There are innumerable accounts of how dolphins and whales have helped us in life threatening situations...Now it is time for us to help them.

What can you do? Below are two very important, simple and quick actions.

1. Takes 3 minutes or less:
Send a letter (already written for you, although you may amend it as you like) to Hon. Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy at
You do not need to be a member of NRDC to send this letter.



3. Share your concern and your information with friends and family. If enough of us object to this unconscionable abuse below the surface of the sea, we can force them to stop.

 

[Uncle Pug]

Garibaldi once bubbled...
If enough of us object to this unconscionable abuse below the surface of the sea, we can force them to stop.

I hate to be a realist here Garibaldi... but if this worked we would have had peace on earth millennia ago.

The unconscionable abuse continues... above and below that surface of the sea.

 

[Rick Murchison]

This sort of unsubstantiated, exaggerated emotional conjecture doesn't do much for those who are trying to figure out the truth of the matter. For example:
Over the past several years, the Navy has held public meetings and sponsored scientific workshops to discuss the reactions of marine animals to a new sonar system: the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA). These discussions led to the widespread consensus that controlled tests of how whales responded to SURTASS LFA signals were urgently needed. The Navy agreed to make available for this scientific research the SURTASS LFA system (the equipment, consisting of a vertical array of underwater sound projectors that produce signals in the 100-500 Hz region, and the vessel that operates the equipment).
Between September 1997 and March 1998, the Navy supported a three-part "Low-Frequency Sound Scientific Research Program" to determine possible effects of SURTASS LFA on whales at two sites off the California coast, and one site off of Hawaii. The research team included leading marine mammal scientists and underwater acoustics experts from several research institutions.
Organizations participating in research on possible effects of SURTASS LFA on large whales:
Bioacoustics Research Program, Cornell University
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Cascadia Research Collective
University of California, Santa Cruz
Marine Acoustics, Inc.
Harvard University
University of Hawaii
University of Washington
Raytheon Corporation
Hughes Aircraft Corporation
US Navy
A three-phase approach -
Phase I of the research focused on possible responses of feeding fin and blue whales in the Southern California Bight in September and October 1997.
Phase II of the research focused on possible effects of SURTASS LFA on gray whales migrating past the central California coast in January 1998.
Phase III focused on responses of humpback whales wintering off the Kona Coast of the Big Island of Hawaii in February and March 1998.
In all three phases, the general approach of the experiments was to closely monitor the movements and behavior of whales before, during and after exposure to signals like those used by the operational SURTASS LFA system. The test signals, series of glissandos and hums similar to the sounds made by singing whales, were broadcast by the SURTASS LFA equipment. By a combination of extensive on-site measurements and sophisticated mathematical modelling of underwater sound propagation, the actual sound levels received by individual whales could be determined.
Monitoring whale responses to SURTASS LFA -
For each of the three research projects, an extensive set of observation techniques was employed to document responses of whales to playback of LFA signals. The following list briefly summarizes the techniques that were used in the Low-Frequency Sound Scientific Research Program to monitor the distribution and behavior of whales in the research area, before, during, and after a period of LFA transmissions:
Aerial surveys of whale distribution in the research area.
Visual scans of whale distribution conducted on the playback vessel.
Visual scans of whale distribution conducted on a separate observation vessel.
Visual behavioral observations of individual whales conducted from a separate observation vessel.
Acoustic recordings made to describe the underwater sound field (ambient and LFA generated) and the vocal behaviors of whales using:
towed hydrophone arrays on the playback vessel
towed hydrophone arrays on the observation vessel
autonomous bottom-mounted recording units
Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) arrays
Tagging and tracking of individual whales with radio transmitters and time-depth recorders to document diving histories and short-term movements.
Surveys of prey fields to measure the occurrence and characteristics of the whales' food resources within the research area.
Shore-based visual tracking of movements of whales.
Results of research thus far -
Although the analysis of data from the three studies is not yet complete, preliminary results do not suggest any biologically significant impact of exposure to the LFA test signal in the types of conditions where SURTASS LFA would actually be employed. Whales that were exposed to sound levels between 120 and 150 dB showed short-term behavioral responses that do not seem to jeopardize the goals of their activity (feeding, breeding, migrating). Some of the singing whales that were exposed to SURTASS LFA sounds appeared to respond to the sounds, either by avoiding the playback vessel or by ceasing to sing. However, an equal number of whales exposed to the same sound levels continued to sing throughout the playback.
-------------------------------------------------------
In the pre-sonar days there were groundings, large marine animal deaths and unusual behavior observed from time to time. It should be noted that since the first use of the Navy's new sonar, there has been no grounding incident, no large marine animal death, no unusual observed behavior that hasn't been blamed on it by some "expert," whether any such sonar was in use within two thousand miles or within two months of the occurance.
There are lots of responsible folks from responsible Universities and other institutions tracking this whole program. Let's dump the emotional baggage and try to get to the facts, ok? This sonar isn't harmless - few things are. But it isn't the doom and gloom its detractors are trying to portray either.
Rick

 

[Edge]

You're talking about a country that 'encouraged' other countries to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty and later backed out.

You're talking about a country that refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty.

And closer to home, the same country that does not want to sign numerous legislations regarding the protection of the marine environment.

I think that hope is at an all time low in this case. Maybe they'll come to their senses or the sonar thing doesn't work.

 

[Northeastwrecks]

Edge once bubbled...
You're talking about a country that 'encouraged' other countries to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty and later backed out.

You're talking about a country that refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty.

And closer to home, the same country that does not want to sign numerous legislations regarding the protection of the marine environment.

I think that hope is at an all time low in this case. Maybe they'll come to their senses or the sonar thing doesn't work.

My initial reaction to this post is "so what?"

My more considered reaction and strong suggestion is that you provide some basis, however faint, for connecting the issues raised above to those in Garibaldi's post. My preference would be some hard data instead of the anticipated anti-US diatribe.

Turning to the original post, before you ask me to sign anything, how about a little data connecting those events to the Navy's activities. Even better, how about something that proves your claims of injury, along with the C.V's of the individuals who present the data.

Once I've read those, I'll consider your request. In the meantime, I believe that Mr. Murchison got it right. The U.S. has come forward with its evidence. Now its time for the opposition to do the same.

In what I anticipate will be resounding silence, I will consider effective ways of helping the marine environment, such as by helping to clean up beaches and dive locations. It's not much, but at the end of the day you can at least say that you did something measurable.

 

[Rickg]

Just a couple of points on this:

1) while it is true the USN just recently received approval to start using LFA again, this system HAS NOT been used since receiving the approval. Having worked with this system in the past I remain in close contact with people still associated with the program. Now that the Natural Resources Defense Council NRDC) has brought a lawsuit against the USN their is a good chance that the court will grant an injunction against use of LFA until it has time to further review the case.

2) these leopard sharks are not "disorientated" in any way. This is an annual occurence that is well known to people living in San Diego. The leopard sharks you refer to are definitely there for any one that wants to snorkel, or scuba or even wade among them at La Jolla Shores. I was there this past Saturday and there are hundreds of leopard sharks and also numerous guitar fish and bat rays to be seen. It is an amazing sight and quite a rush to snorkel among them. THe largest of the leopard sharks was 6-7 ft.

I think it best to have all the facts before jumping to conclusions.

Rick G

 

[Rickg]

Now that I'm at home I have had time to search the San Diego Union Tribune newspaper archives for a recent article about the squid that washed ashore at La Jolla. Here is the the link to the article for anyone interested.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20020720-9999_7m20squid.html

It appears this mass suicide of squid may have been nothing more than squid attempting to feed on grunion (a small smelt-like fish) as the grunnion were coming onto the beach to spawn and getting stranded on the beach.

Rick G

 

[JamesK]

Edge once bubbled...
You're talking about a country that 'encouraged' other countries to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty and later backed out.

You're talking about a country that refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty.

And closer to home, the same country that does not want to sign numerous legislations regarding the protection of the marine environment.

I think that hope is at an all time low in this case. Maybe they'll come to their senses or the sonar thing doesn't work.

What does this have to do with sonar? The Kyoto Treaty is flawed horribly. It does not even make countries that are larger polluters than America to take any responsibility for their actions. It is simply another attempt of the Anti-American UN to punish America. I am GLAD we did not sign it. We had to back out of the nuclear proliferation treaty. We had no choice if we wanted to produce systems to stop weapons of mass destruction from being shot at us. Sounds reasonable to me.

This whole sonar fiasco is the same. Their is NO proof that this actually harms any marine animals. Everything I have heard from the left is that it is bad, with no explanation or proof. Their is eveidence that no harm or changes in marine animals is present when using this sonar. This sonar is the only way we will be able to portect ourselves from new technology being used to build submarines. I do not feel like having another WWII German U-boat invasion, do you? How many human lives are worth 1 whale or squid? 30? 40? 1000? With no proof we must continue testing and development. Maybe it will not work, and maybe some new technology will allow us to detect the new subs, and still keep all of the animals happy.

Look, I am all for helping the environment, but the environmental movement has been hijacked by anti-American, and anti-capitalist groups. When socialism went out, they needed a new movement to latch on to. They chose the evironmental movement. We must weigh all sides of the issues first, and not jump ff with kneejerk reactions like many do.

 

[boomx5]

I could not have said it better myself!

 

[Garibaldi]

There is plenty of existing evidence that shows LFA can have a dramatic impact on sealife actually. The current evidence is disturbing, and given the range of science on this issue, the only prudent course of action would be for NMFS to deny the NAVY permits until additional studies and tests can be conducted and assessed. The ocean and marine mammals in it, out not ours, the US's or the Navy's to disturb.

While I am not going to spend the massvie amount of time required to research this topic (as many of you request proof) I short surf around the web will turn up plenty of evidence against LFA Sonar. Despite what you may say, this issue is not some hokey theory that a bunch of hippy PETA types just started throwing around one day as their next lame cause. There is indeed enough evidence to warrant a very close scrutinization of this issue.

And the leading opponents of this fight or not just the wackos to the "left" that one of you referred too. The two leading opponents to LFA Sonar are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") and the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"). They have done endless research on LFA Sonar and have found that it does indeed have a profound effect on marine life. National Geographic and several members of Congress support their concerns.

A NMFS review panel published a decision concerning the mass death of whales in the Bahamas in March of 2000. It was determined by the NMFS, that US NAVY Sonar was the most probable cause of the mass stranding.

So if the Navy themselves agreed that LFA was so harmless it is very ironic that they themselves follow the following protocals established by the NOAA:

- LFA Sonar to be shutdown whenever marine mammals and marine turtles are detected within a 1.1 nautical mile range of the sonar

- The US Navy is prohibted from using SURTASS LFA Sonar within 12 nautical miles of all coastlines

["NOAA measures" - source: July 15, 2002 Dept of Commerce Memo]

The evidence and proof you request is out there and I could fill a room with it. However, this post is already becoming long enough as it is. Just a very basic understanding of marine mammal echolocation and sound waves is enough to make anyone question the impact LFA can have on marine mammals. I am surprised that a group such as this, filled with divers, who love the ocean would be so quick to put down such a notion.

And if you do not believe me (just some "joe blow" on the Scuba BSS), here is a quote from U.S. Rep John Baldacci of Maine.

"A substantial body of convincing science exists points to the potential dangers of this system for whales and other marine animals"