US Supreme Court Allows Sonar Use

Hoo-ray for common sense.

Morons.

Why am I not surprised.

Well that about covers it from both sides of the issue. Usually the best solution is one in which neither side is happy.

I'm sorry to hear this. Once again we have demonstrated the technical ability to do something which has consequences beyond our control. Unfortunately, the "brute force" approach is often used just because the power to do so exists. I wish that a general "precautionary principle" were to be a required guideline. It was enunciated in one form so many centuries ago in the Hippocratic Oath, in which one reads "First, do no harm." In this case, I would word it as "Do this only if the harm is significantly less than the benefit and no other way is known to gain the needed results." So many times, we find that alternative ways exist or can be found to get to the needed result.

Sadly,--JMM

Well said.

Unfortunately, the linked article is woefully short on information. You can read more about this here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/13/BALA1436Q5.DTL

More information, be sure to dig deep on this one, there is technical information after the first several paragraphs:

http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2008/01/deep-diving.html

NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/washington/13scotus.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

By the way, it's not just sonar open season marine mammals. The Navy still has guidelines to follow in its training exercises.

"The Navy agreed to four of the measures, but balked at two restrictions - one that requires the shutdown of sonar if a marine mammal is spotted within 2,200 yards of a vessel and another that limits the sonar's power by 75 percent when certain ocean conditions exist."

Also consider that not all sonars are equivalent. ASW sonars are of lower frequencies whereas many other sonars like side-scan and forward looking volumetric sonars are in ultrasonic ranges up into hundreds of kilohertz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonar

FWIW.

I would like to know, first off, just how many 'definitive studies' have been done to prove that sonar actually harms whales, dolphins and etc.

Apparently sonar opponents failed to come up with arguments with enough weight to sway the High Court in thier favor.

I suppose it's also possible the Navy was able to show a clear cut national security issue related to the continued use of sonar.

Shadetree,

I suspect that there is a very large number (even large majority) of people who would object to an in-vivo test of the mid-frequency sonar on various species of whales, in controlled settings.

Consider: When cholera outbreaks in London were linked to septic contamination of public drinking water wells, the research was conducted by mapping the cases and correlating this with which wells each household used for domestic water. There was no study in which the well waters were administered to groups of healthy townspeople and the incidence of cholera then measured to determine if the water was "causing" the disease or not.

Similarly, there are numerous published reports in the scientific community which link beachings and deaths of numbers of whales to known naval sonar activity in the near vicinity. The absence of such beachings when sonar is not in use leads to a highly probable direct link between the two. The whale species involved often dive to depths of 1500-2000 meters in dives which can last for over an hour, while they hunt for food. Autopsies performed on some carcasses show massive internal hemorrhaging. A 2001 study by Navy mathematicians showed that the frequencies in use can cause the formation of bubbles in the nitrogen-saturated tissues of a whale, and that these bubbles can be formed in sizes which do not reabsorb after the sonar pulse stops. This would directly cause such hemorrhagic damage to the tissues. Other studies by Navy personnel have shown that whale feeding and related activities cease after the use of military sonar (I do not know for how long or the distance involved).

It is true that actual direct studies have not been performed. But you might grant that the ability to design and conduct such an experiment in the ocean depths involved would be extremely difficult. Not to say, that many people and groups would oppose such studies.

I have not located the text of the actual decision nor the dissents to it, but have read enough comments to learn that the majority decision was based on fairly narrow points and overturned only some of the lower court's restricitons (2 of 6).

The sound intensity is severe--up to 235dB, compared to the 150-190dB whales use for echo-location. This is an intensity near 10,000 times louder!

I believe my earlier post is appropriate.

--JMM

"The absence of such beachings when sonar is not in use leads to a highly probable direct link between the two. "

False.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beached_whale

Whale beachings have been happening for all of recorded history.

I appreciate the correction to my overly-inclusive statement.

--JMM

Thank you. And I do recognize there are very valid concerns for marine life given the lower frequencies (audible as well as good propogation characteristics) and the high SPL's of the sonar. I hope for a suitable balance where the Navy can do its job while protecting the marine life to the extent possible.

Some have questioned why we have to do anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training at all given that no country in their right mind would attempt an attack on our coasts. But the point is if we take down that capability, that opens a window of opportunity for an aggressor. We can't do that. And besides, our ASW folks also protect our fleets at sea and in foreign ports as well.

On a light hearted note, a retired submarine skipper I know likes to call ASW, Awfully Slow Warfare because the pace of "battle" happens very slowly in this contest of cat and mouse.

Cheers !!