US/NATO navy exercises... and more dead whales

[mstudley]

It still doesn't suggest how the whales died, just that they were dead for several days before washing up on shore.

As someone else said, it appears as though they are trying to say that the sonar (if that's what it was) disoriented the whales causing them to surface too quickly and... get bent? What?

Oh well... this is CNN in all their glory...

 

[Boogie711]

Unfortunately most Governments and Corporations have given us good reason to distrust them.

You want good science and experimental practice?
For any new activity or material you ASSUME it is dangerous and PROVE that it is safe.

When you assume things are safe until proven dangerous, someone (usually LOTS of someones) has to die before things change.

I'm sorry Michael, but I can't disagree more.

If you force new technologies to PROVE that they are safe, you will never develop a new technology. What you can do is prove that the risk associated with that new technology is an acceptable risk - but then you have 14 groups arguing over what is acceptable.

For example - the keyboard I'm typing on will contribute to tendinitis and finger ailments. So does that mean I should stop typing? Some groups would argue we need to use voice controlled computers now in order to preserve the health of our wrists.

Everything in life has risk associated with it. The discussion should be focused on risk vs. benefit, not proven claims of safety... because from a scientific perspective, you will never ever find something 100% safe.

 

[pipedope]

Im sorry but I disagree, nice soundbite, esp the last paragraph but whatever happened to having an open scientific mind? Sadly an unqualified environmentalist can get all the coverage they like making spurious claims that grab the media spotlight. This is the whole problem with the 'x-file' believers whom seem to see a conspiracy everywhere. It's far easier and gets far more attention to go round making spurious claims than to do REAL science and then get your ideas published in a real journal where they can be scrutinised by other scientists who actually have a real qualification in the field they talk about.

One problem is that "Real Science" rarely has any impact on public policy at all and is almost never reported in the press.

What is this big AUTOMATIC slam against environmentalists? How is that ANY different than the radicals who blame EVERYTHING on the government and military?

BTW Where is the good science on the subject?
Has anybody here seen any? I mean real studies, peer reviewed and published so that ordinary people can get a copy and read it.

Claiming that the military is NOT to blame is just as strong claim as saying the military IS to blame. Without evidence both positions are BS.

In the same light EVERY news story on TV or in print these days is suspect. Even if there is not a problem of bias there is the problem that the reporters rarely understand what they are reporting and I don't recall ever seeing a real citation of a research study that is misquoted in a story.

Most of these studies are pretty much meaningless without actually reading the report including the way the experiment was conducted and how the conclusions were reached. Often what is reported is not even the subject of the study but only a sidenote that seemed to be more likely to get good ratings for the 'news' reporter or outlet.

 

[pipedope]

I'm sorry Michael, but I can't disagree more.

If you force new technologies to PROVE that they are safe, you will never develop a new technology. What you can do is prove that the risk associated with that new technology is an acceptable risk - but then you have 14 groups arguing over what is acceptable.

How long do you think you would survive if you went into a chemistry lab and started smelling and tasting the chemicals?

If there were not required standards for cars and trucks what do you thing the situation on the roads would be?

Even you keyboard requires some testing before wide deployment. What would you think if one day they found that the plastic used would poison you after a few weeks of use, but didn't find this out (because they didn't do any testing) untill after you (and thousands of other people) had been using their keyboards for a month or two?

Is it OK to kill people (and animals and plants) just to facilitate the advance of technology? How many deaths are OK and when does it become too much? Do you pick and choose who it is OK to let die and who should be protected?
Actually we do all of this all of the time, the best we can do it try to be fair and be more productive than destructive.

There has to be a balance.

I don't know about anybody else here but I don't trust anybody when they tell me something is perfectly safe.

 

[wolf eel]

The funny thing here is how so many of you seem to think the military is some how never going to do anything bad and how rude some of the people get when they think they are right.

The fact that whales washed up on shore and the aluet people used bones say's nothing at all. They die and float with the best of us. Fact we do not know for sure.

PS my side line job when not diving is a logger. So no tree hugger here and I wear a hat and drive a truck with a closed back window so no red neck iether.

Cheers

 

[O2BBubbleFree]

Since I currently work for a company that's been developing SONAR systems since the mid '40's I thought I'd add a little to the discussion.

Some systems developed during WWII used low-frequency, high power SONAR that is suspected to have caused some whale deaths.

One problem is that "Real Science" rarely has any impact on public policy

While inconclusive, assumptions drawn from those whale deaths did impact the US Government's policies, as well as the policies of the companies doing the development work. Modern SONAR is much higher frequency and lower power. Of course, there are many countries that may not have the funds to upgrade to newer technology.

at all and is almost never reported in the press.

Unless it is sensational. Do you really think the press would report on a study that concluded that everything was safe, and no human or animal was in danger?

BTW Where is the good science on the subject?
Has anybody here seen any?

Yup.

I mean real studies, peer reviewed and published so that ordinary people can get a copy and read it.

All modern SONAR systems are subjected to environmental impact studies that are probably more stringent than for any commercial products.

Unless I'm wrong, environmental impact studies are always a matter of public record.

In the same light EVERY news story on TV or in print these days is suspect. Even if there is not a problem of bias there is the problem that the reporters rarely understand what they are reporting and I don't recall ever seeing a real citation of a research study that is misquoted in a story.

Most of these studies are pretty much meaningless without actually reading the report including the way the experiment was conducted and how the conclusions were reached. Often what is reported is not even the subject of the study but only a sidenote that seemed to be more likely to get good ratings for the 'news' reporter or outlet.

I agree, whatever happened to 'fair and impartial reporting of the news?' I read an interview with *a prominent news anchor* where he stated that reporters are not supposed to be impartial, but 'interpret' the events for their audience. Like we can't make up our own minds.

I would like to add that most studies are also tainted by the researchers. When considering the conclusions of any study, keep in mind who's funding the study. Researchers always need funding, and often will slant the conclusions in favor of the source of the funding, in case further research is required.

Trust me, the US Navy is sensitive to environmental issues. Primarily (and this is an assumption on my part) because of public image. The Navy always has trouble recruiting good people, and must watch their public image closely.

And wrt to the company I work for, almost all of us are divers, and do all we can to ensure that marine life is preserved.

 

[TCDiver1]

The funny thing here is how so many of you seem to think the military is some how never going to do anything bad ...

Cheers

Few who were in the US military are ever going to think that. However, it is usually nice that one prove something before jumping to conclusions about it.

 

[Longhorn]

Can someone provide a reference with an overview of the effect of sonar on whales.

On another topic: Pipedope commented that real science doesn't make it into public policy. This is changing, possilble due in part to G. W. Scientists are getting bent that the Bush administration is making policy decisions while ignoring or distorting scientific studies that do not support thier objective. Check out the Union of concerned scientist report.

http://www.ucsusa.org/index.cfm

The full report is a PDF file and you need to search around the site to find it. I expecially liked the halt on studies linking cattle feed lots to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Also, the scientific journal "Physics Today" has been running articles ove the last few months, maybe longer and I haven't been reading them, on current politcal issues. Remember when G. W. wanted to pull us out of the nuclear test ban treaty so he could test nuclear bunker busters. In May or June Physics Today ran an article outlining the problems. In short, an earth penetrating bomb will penetrate around 5 feet into a concrete hardened bunker. A nuke detenated 5 feet under the ground is not a whole lot different from a nuke detenating on the ground. In a dense urban setting a nuke capable of destroying a deeply burried hardened bunker would result in 100,00's civilian deaths. Since that article came out, I haven't heard a lot of talk about nuclear bunker busters. It's a very intreesting read that gives a few hints on the worlds nuclear capabilities.

 

[DORSETBOY]

Mike, what Im suggesting is that we dont know whether the millitary is to blame but that poorly qualified experts touting themselves as enviromentalists (Im not saying all enviromentalists are poorly qualified) do not help by automatically assuming the blame for any enviromental prob lies with big business / governments or the millitary.

Im not in the millitary, dont work for big business and dont have an axe to grind. what I do have is a university qual in marine biology (diploma cos Im lazy and dropped out lol) and an open mind to these things.

 

[Rick Murchison]

LFA is used all around the world. It may not have been the US.

Nope.
Hasn't been used anywhere in over a year.
Rick