Navy Admits Sonar Use

[archman]

Renpirate, thanks for the link. It's pretty interesting, at least for me to look further into it (I've been out of the loop the last few years). Here's a short media piece I particularly like:

http://www.earthwatch.org/pubaffairs/news/balcomb_3.html

The new active sonars really ARE a lot more powerful. Gads, they're just plain scary! If I were the Navy I wouldn't want to place restrictions on such a powerful sensor either.

There now ARE better data available on mammal beachings during sonar exercises (using the new systems I might add). Some bright folks started to take tissue and organ samples, which was not done last time I was current on this.

The "better" studies (acceptable to me as a scientist anyway) are:
1. showing whales with massive hemorrhaging in the ear spaces.
2. whales suffering from nasty DCS symptoms.

I like the DCS study. As far as I was taught whales weren't supposed to ever get bent; guess that's thrown out the window now. The scientists' theory is that loud sonar racket by a military exercise off Spain freaked out a bunch of whales so much that they bolted for the surface far too quickly, and got nasty DCS. Pretty logical sounding to me.

Next time I see a marine mammal biologist, I'll see if I can eke some cogent, unbiased data out of them. It's pretty hard for me to sift out facts through internet articles, however well written or intentioned.

 

[glbirch]

You are using up good air. I want no harm to be done to whales or any other creature due to sonar, but this is junk science. Whales and dolphins have been beaching themselves for longer than sonar. Ask somebody from Hawaii. Stop theblame America first, IT IS GETTING OLD.

Is it 'junk science' becase you don't agree with it? IMO it's that phrase that is getting old. At times in our history that phrase could have been to describe the work of such people as Galilao, Copernicus, and anyone who said that smoking was bad for you. Heck, there are groups of seriously overweight people right now that claim studies showing that fatty food is bad for you is 'junk science'. In my mind there is enough evidence to warrant serious independant study of the possibility that the new sonar systems (which are different in many respects from the earlier, older systems being referenced) are causing problems in marine life. If the US Navy believes this is not the case they should be happy to see such studies be done.

 

[RIDIVER501]

Oh there is plenty of evidence to support that sonars are harmful at close range. Heck and tactic to defeat commandos try to attach limpet mines to you hull is to bang away with active sonar. Even with the power output increases in the newer midrange sonars, water and all the other things suspended in the water column all act to attenuate that power.

Another question not to get off subject: what about the other countries that use active sonars in sub hunting? All the things I have read all clearly mention the US and only a few graze the fact that NATO ships might have been using these sonars. What about the other guys? Oh that's right no one wants to sue anyone but the US becuase we have the money to give...Silly me.

 

[renpirate]

Another question not to get off subject: what about the other countries that use active sonars in sub hunting? All the things I have read all clearly mention the US and only a few graze the fact that NATO ships might have been using these sonars. What about the other guys? Oh that's right no one wants to sue anyone but the US becuase we have the money to give...Silly me.[/QUOTE]

You have an excellent point, it is not just the U.S. We(as in the whole world) need to come up with some ground rules on this issue. It's not fair if other countries are doing it as well. I do share the sentiment that our country is too often singled out and condemned on similar issues that are widespread.

 

[renpirate]

Next time I see a marine mammal biologist, I'll see if I can eke some cogent, unbiased data out of them. It's pretty hard for me to sift out facts through internet articles, however well written or intentioned.

Yes, there is a lot of bias and hidden agendas out there. I would be interested to here what you find out. It does sound like it warrants more study.

P.S. Thanks for the link

 

[RIDIVER501]

It's McDonald's Burger box Syndrome.

Due to at the environmental pressure and lawsuits McDonalds switch to cardboard boxes from their old polystyrene containers that were destroying the O-zone. So McDonalds capitualted and the environmental community did thier victory dance....What victory. we still have the same polystyrene containes out there. many resturaunts use them for take out or your to-go packaging. So was anything really done for the environment. I don't think so. Something was done to line someones pockets..the lawyers involved the activist group that brough the lawsuit but little was done to "SAVE" the environment. McDonalds was a target becuase they had big pockets. Joe's Deli-rama and the local Woks-r-us weren't targeted becuase there was no financial upside to challenging their business practice of using these atmosphere destroying containers.
Noone files a class action lawsuit against the little guy. What is to be gained?....no the targets are always the corporate giants...the global super powers...Hey they got money to burn and it is probably to their benefit to just settle the lawsuit then to be hasseled by it....

Anybody ever wonder or find out what happened to Japan when all those Japanese fishermen willfully herded hundreds maybe even thousands of dolphins and poroises ashore and killed them back in the 80's? The photos in the national geographic showed a blood slick that could vary well be seen from space...Whatever happend with that?

here is an article on it with some of the scaled down pictures.

dolphin slaughter

 

[Quarrior]

I wish I could remember where I saw the article, Popular Science I think. But, I do remember reading a few years ago before the sonar/mamal issue was raised that the Navy had developed a new ultra high frequency and very powerful sonar. Perhaps that is what is at issue here.

As the saying goes, memory is the second thing that goes with age. lol Honestly wish I could be more specific.

 

[RIDIVER501]

No that is a Low frequency sonar. very long distance. totally differnt animal from the ship and sub mounted sonars. it is like and ELF or ULF sonar used from shore based facilities.

 

[RIDIVER501]

Here are some LFAS articles located on one link:

LFAS Articles

 

[dlndavid]

Is it 'junk science' becase you don't agree with it? IMO it's that phrase that is getting old. At times in our history that phrase could have been to describe the work of such people as Galilao, Copernicus, and anyone who said that smoking was bad for you. Heck, there are groups of seriously overweight people right now that claim studies showing that fatty food is bad for you is 'junk science'. In my mind there is enough evidence to warrant serious independant study of the possibility that the new sonar systems (which are different in many respects from the earlier, older systems being referenced) are causing problems in marine life. If the US Navy believes this is not the case they should be happy to see such studies be done.

Junk science?

"Junk science" is faulty scientific data and analysis used to used to further a special agenda. The junk science "mob" includes:

The MEDIA may use junk science for sensational headlines and programming. Some members of the media use junk science to advance their and their employers' social and political agendas.
PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS may use junk science to bamboozle juries into awarding huge verdicts. Large verdicts may then be used to extort even greater sums from deep-pocket businesses that may be fearful of future jury verdicts.
SOCIAL ACTIVISTS, such as the "food police," environmental extremists, and gun-control advocates, may use junk science to achieve social and political change.
GOVERNMENT REGULATORS may use junk science to expand their authority and to increase their budgets.
BUSINESSES may use junk science to bad-mouth competitors' products or to make bogus claims about their own products.
POLITICIANS may use junk science to curry favor with special interest groups or to be "politically correct."
INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS may use junk science to achieve fame and fortune.
INDIVIDUALS who are ill (real or imagined) may use junk science to blame others for causing their illness.