Slashdot Mirror


Powerful Sonar Causes Deafness In Dolphins

Hugh Pickens writes "Mass strandings of dolphins and whales could be caused because the animals are rendered temporarily deaf by military sonar, experiments have shown. Tests on a captive dolphin have demonstrated that hearing can be lost for up to 40 minutes on exposure to sonar and may explain several strandings of dolphins and whales in the past decade. Most strandings are still thought to be natural events, but the tests strengthen fears that exercises by naval vessels equipped with sonar are responsible for at least some of them. For example, in the Bahamas in March, 2000, 16 Cuvier's beaked whales and Blainville's beaked whales and a spotted dolphin beached during a US navy exercise in which sonar was used intensively for 16 hours (PDF). 'The big question is what causes them to strand,' says Dr. Aran Mooney, of the University of Hawaii. 'What we are looking at are animals whose primary sense is hearing, like ours is seeing. Their ears are the most sensitive organ they have.' In the experiment, scientists fitted a harmless suction cup to the dolphin's head, with a sensor attached that monitored the animal's brainwaves, and when the pings reached 203 decibels and were repeated, the neurological data showed the mammal had become deaf, for its brain no longer responded to sound. 'We definitely showed that there are physiological and some behavioral effects [from repeated, loud sonar], but to extrapolate that into the wild, we don't really know,' said Mooney."

323 comments

  1. 203 decibels? by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow. I think if you expose me to a 203 decibel sonar, it's not just my ears that would go poof.

    --
    1. Re:203 decibels? by daem0n1x · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can sound get THAT loud? According to this, 115dB is the threshold of pain for humans. 203 dB is simply 33,000 times louder.

      If you account for the high sound sensitivity of dolphins and water being a better sound conductor, just imagine the damage! It's like dropping a bomb on your head.

      Couldn't the sonar be replaced by something less damaging? I guess water muffles radio waves, so a water radar is not a good idea. Maybe a very low frequency radar?

    2. Re:203 decibels? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Couldn't the sonar be replaced by something less damaging? I guess water muffles radio waves, so a water radar is not a good idea. Maybe a very low frequency radar?

      The problem with that theory is that you'd need such a low frequency that your wavelength would be hundreds to thousands of miles. The antenna requirements alone would make such a system impractical on a mobile basis. Some of the antennas used for ELF submarine communications systems were up to 20 miles long.

      Unless you can change the laws of physics I'm afraid we'll be stuck using sonar for the foreseeable feature. If you accept that then you have to accept the fact that the Navy needs to practice with it before they need it in an actual shooting war. Sucks that it apparently harms marine life but what can you do?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:203 decibels? by Macthorpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sucks that it apparently harms marine life but what can you do?

      Stop human beings from killing each other over nothing, obviating the need for submarines and therefore sonar?

      I like to start small and work up.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    4. Re:203 decibels? by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      if you heard something this loud, you'd want to get the hell away from it as well.

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    5. Re:203 decibels? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop human beings from killing each other over nothing, obviating the need for submarines and therefore sonar?

      Good luck with that.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:203 decibels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just going to mention that 203dB *in water* has gotta be some bone shattering power. I mean there are those ultra-loud car stereos that you can't be within 30 ft of or they'll kill you and they're not even close to 203dB.

      Also, isn't 203dB like 33000000000-ish times more powerful? I mean every 10dB is 10x power so the difference of 195dB and 115dB is 100000000, IIRC.

    7. Re:203 decibels? by geobeck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or passive sonar. Active sonar (pinging) is like standing in a dark field with a huge omnidirectional beacon. You'll probably see someone else standing around by the light reflected off them, but they'll certainly see you first.

      Passive sonar is like hiding in a dark corner of the field watching everyone else stumbling around with flashlights. Their lights may not be very bright (i.e., the ships' engines and hulls may be very quiet), but they always make some noise, which your super-sensitive passive sonar will pick up.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    8. Re:203 decibels? by Macthorpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks! All I need is a Universal Lobotomiser and some herring.

      You know, for the dolphins.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    9. Re:203 decibels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucks that it apparently harms marine life but what can you do?

      I'm guessing the problem is that the sonar ping is too infrequent so the dolphins are caught by surprise and can't get away from it.

      If they issued the ping day and night every minute or so, the dolphins would maybe understand to stay away from the dangerous areas.

    10. Re:203 decibels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop human beings from killing each other over nothing...

      What, with a war, perhaps?

    11. Re:203 decibels? by anonymousbob22 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong. 20dB is 10x the power.

    12. Re:203 decibels? by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they issued the ping day and night every minute or so, the dolphins would maybe understand to stay away from the dangerous areas.

      So would our enemies.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:203 decibels? by cthulu_mt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now that we possess the ultimate weapon dolphins won't dare to challenge our control of the planet.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    14. Re:203 decibels? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Humans never kill each other over nothing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:203 decibels? by Tiber · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new Mon Calamarian overlords.

    16. Re:203 decibels? by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      So for a submarine, the use of active sonar is useful to get a final target and bearing before firing a torpedo. Passive sonar is good for getting a ball park range track.

      Torpedos aren't perfect, so getting an accurate range and bearing is pretty imporant. Active sonar really doensn't give anything away since once you launch a torpedo, the target, or anyone else in the area, is going to know where the sub is anyway.

    17. Re:203 decibels? by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 2, Funny

      >Couldn't the sonar be replaced by something less damaging? I guess water muffles radio waves, so a water radar is not a good idea. Maybe a very low frequency radar?

      I say we replace the submarines with dolphins. We can make them effective by attaching laser beams to them. This has the added bonus of allowing us to stop worrying about the dolphins until some genius decides to mount laser beams on sharks. But no one here would ever dream of doing such a thing, so we'll be good to go!

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    18. Re:203 decibels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I spent 7 years in the Navy, and we could hear the sonars be tested in port on ships several piers down. The Navy need better listening equipment, not louder speakers. Whales communicate for several hundred miles with whatever their voice boxes can make, and the receiver can hear it and respond. Nature has done it, why can't we?

    19. Re:203 decibels? by geobeck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But considering how sensitive active sonar is, how strong does a ping need to be in order for its reflection to be received by the passive component of the targeting system?

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    20. Re:203 decibels? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      Active sonar really doensn't give anything away since once you launch a torpedo, the target, or anyone else in the area, is going to know where the sub is anyway.

      What are you basing that assumption on? Modern torpedoes can be programmed to run a lower (i.e: harder to detect) speed until they get close to the target and/or further away from the launch platform. The loudest part of a torpedo launch is the "launch transient", i.e: the sound of the compressed air that pushes it out of the torpedo tube. Some submarines (the Seawolf class) use larger torpedo tubes that allow the torpedo to "swim" out without requiring a blast of compressed air, thus negating most of the noise of a torpedo launch.

      Assuming that you are going to detect the launch is a very dangerous assumption in modern naval warfare. Your first indication of incoming "fish" is just as likely to be when they turn on their active seekers at close range and go to full speed. In that scenario you are virtually SOL and don't even have the means to retaliate.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:203 decibels? by hansamurai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Submarines and sonar is useful for a lot more than just wartime. Check out the wikipedia page for a ton of uses:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonar#Civilian_Applications
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonar#Scientific_applications

    22. Re:203 decibels? by actionbastard · · Score: 2, Informative

      At that sound level -and given the density of the transmission medium- it is most likely that the animal is experiencing actual physical damage to its brain if it is close enough to the transmitter. It was once postulated that Sperm Whales were capable of stunning their prey with a sonar 'blast' and it is known that the Pistol Shrimp, stuns its prey with a sonic 'click'. This page has a listing of SPLs in db and the associated physical effects at that level in air.

      --
      Sig this!
    23. Re:203 decibels? by Macgruder · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing of it is, submarines don't use, and don't need a super-powerful active sonar.

      This is for surface vessels ("targets" in bubblehead vernacular) searching for subs, not subs hunting each other.

      These hyper powerful sonar systems are for surface vessels to locate submarines that may be in the vicinity. When you get into costal areas, the noise of the surf, the temperature gradients (from the shallow bottoms) and the salinity gradients from the fresh water from the rivers, plays havoc with normal sound transmission.

      This massive system is used to plow through all that, and still return a signal clear enough to spotlight the sub lurking around the area.

      (former US Navy submarine Sonar Tech)

      --
      I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
    24. Re:203 decibels? by geobeck · · Score: 1

      Makes sense. Do surface vessels use passive sonar in the form of a towed array? If so, how much signal processing is possible to cut down extraneous noise?

      Also, I know American nuclear subs are pretty quiet, but how about subs operated by a likely enemy, like China, North Korea, Iran, etc.?

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    25. Re:203 decibels? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Ahhh somebody who's played the videogame Red Storm Rising! :-) In that game the best way to find an enemy's range is Not to use active sonar, but instead to aim the torpedo towards the enemy and use the torpedo's "ear" to more-specifically locate the enemy.

      The question is: Does the USN operate like the game, or does the USN use a different methodology requiring active pinging?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    26. Re:203 decibels? by Macgruder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Passive sonar, decent stuff at least, is ALWAYS a towed array. Gets the hydrophones away from the ships hull, reducing self noise. That said, I'm not sure exactly which types of vessels carry a towed passive array... destroyers, cruisers, frigates, but i think that's about it. Plus the helo-dropped sonar bouys.

      As for as potential enemy capabilities compared to ours, I'm not at liberty to comment one way or the other

      --
      I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
    27. Re:203 decibels? by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly. It's generally about confusion over things like how our oil got under their sand.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    28. Re:203 decibels? by geobeck · · Score: 1

      As for as potential enemy capabilities compared to ours, I'm not at liberty to comment one way or the other

      Well, I know you'll never hear a Canadian sub coming... what with them being permanently enclosed in the West Edmonton Mall. :D

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    29. Re:203 decibels? by pwfffff · · Score: 2, Informative

      Underwater sound uses a different reference for their decibels. Remember, decibel is not a unit.

      See the two tables at:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sound_pressure_and_sound_pressure_levels

    30. Re:203 decibels? by UncleTogie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. 20dB is 10x the power.

      Measuring from 0dB? Are you sure?

      From the link a few of us are too lazy to click:

      The threshold of hearing is assigned a sound level of 0 decibels (abbreviated 0 dB); this sound corresponds to an intensity of 1*10-12 W/m2. A sound which is 10 times more intense ( 1*10-11 W/m2) is assigned a sound level of 10 dB. A sound which is 10*10 or 100 times more intense ( 1*10-10 W/m2) is assigned a sound level of 20 db. A sound which is 10*10*10 or 1000 times more intense ( 1*10-9 W/m2) is assigned a sound level of 30 db.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    31. Re:203 decibels? by FiloEleven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > Whales communicate for several hundred miles

      That's a pretty lowball estimate (src):

      We now have evidence that they are communicating with each other over thousands of miles of ocean. Singing is part of their social system and community.

    32. Re:203 decibels? by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      Well, I know you'll never hear a Canadian sub coming... what with them being permanently enclosed in the West Edmonton Mall

      For the Canadian sub to get out of the mall and come for you, I'd imagine it would make quite a racket.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    33. Re:203 decibels? by geobeck · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would be the only submarine sneak attack to be covered by the news media as it cruised down Highway 16...

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    34. Re:203 decibels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to remember a news story in the last several months about a US sub and a Russian sub colliding. From what I recall, neither of them realized the other was there until it was too late. A Google search for "submarine collision" turns up several incidents of submarines hitting other vessels. That doesn't speak well for the ability of the sub operators to detect other subs/ships.

    35. Re:203 decibels? by falconwolf · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you accept that then you have to accept the fact that the Navy needs to practice with it before they need it in an actual shooting war. Sucks that it apparently harms marine life but what can you do?

      Not use it. I don't accept that it's needed.

      Falcon

    36. Re:203 decibels? by crkpot · · Score: 0

      As another former surface and sub sonar tech out of San Diego, you would probably have to agree this is a rediculous concern. Reason I say this is when on the CG, we used Dolphins for target practice qualifications. I would think that and others like throwing freon filled units off the side of the ship are much larger concerns than damaging dolphin or whale hearing. I just bet in the last ten years this has not changed one bit since I got out. My senior cheif used to encourage us to 'open up' when whales would slam upside the sub outside Alaska. You dont just make them deaf, you melt their insides when you do that. So make them deaf???!!! I think this should be peoples last concern.

    37. Re:203 decibels? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Well, I know you'll never hear a Canadian sub coming... what with them being permanently enclosed in the West Edmonton Mall. :D

      Canada only has 4 subs? Weren't the builders Persians?

      Falcon

    38. Re:203 decibels? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      The only one of those three I know anything about is China. They have had some really quiet diesel/electric subs for some years. When they are submerged on electric, they are tough to detect with passive sonar arrays. (not a bubblehead, but was friends with one that served on a Los Angeles class sub)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    39. Re:203 decibels? by crkpot · · Score: 0

      If my memory serves me correctly, the answer to this is not that straight forward. There are plenty of confidential reasons for search that require strong sonar on a sub. The greater the ocean depth the stronger the signal that is needed (as well as the ocean temperature). You also have other considerations such as the clarity of the water of marine life and strength and location of currents. We had to open open several times though I will be the first to admit it occurred about 10 times more often on the CG I was on. So do they need strong sonar - of course they do and you should know why. They just dont need it often.

    40. Re:203 decibels? by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 2

      As a programmer for a sonar data processing application (largely focused on bathymetry and wildlife/stock assessment), I'm somewhat concerned by those that spread their misinformed perceptions that it is only useful for naval warfare.

      I've seen data from transducers sensitive and powerful enough to distinguish the size and species of a fish at 1500m (I can't remember the actual power level, off-hand) contain human divers at less than 40m. Sure as hell picking up an 80m long steel capsule is going to take less power, and work at longer range; and that if they were in any way affected by the sonar operating in the area, they'd be kicking up a fuss in the media. I'm not saying it doesn't affect dolphins - just that the humans are unlikely to have even noticed.

      Also - not sure what this may change in the debate here, just adding some facts; the typical data I see is from a 38kHz pulse. Some are as low as 18 (largely for working in very deep water, for lower attenuation, or to help classify krill/plankton), or as high as 120 or even 200kHz. Some short (tens to hundreds of meters) range transducers operate in the 1 to 1.5 mHz range. Sound speed under water is around 1500m/s - varying with temperature and salinity. Pulse duration varies from sub-millisecond to a few milliseconds.

    41. Re:203 decibels? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Just because you're naive doesn't mean you're right. We need sonar because people we don't implicitly trust (Iran, China, Russia, NKorea?) have submarines. Some carrying nukes. They are not under our control. So if we give up our ability to track them underwater, we have no reason to think they will either announce themselves out of the goodness of their hearts or get out of the water period. The fact is we have potential enemies. Wishing that it were not so does not, unfortunately make it not so.

    42. Re:203 decibels? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > I'm afraid we'll be stuck using sonar for the foreseeable feature

      Sure. But 203 decibels? I think the Navy needs better ears.

      I doubt most of us are objecting to the use of sonar. It just seems rather primitive to have to blast such high volumes of sound.

      The Navy should improve their equipment.

      At least that'll be a better reason to get military $$$$ than those disingenuous reports of "China/Russia/etc" warring with the USA over cyberspace (if it were really such a big deal you'd call their ambassadors over and tell them to "stop that or else").

      FWIW you can detect submarines if they get close to some areas because they will block the ambient sound (snapping shrimp etc), much like a sonic shadow. It's not so easy for a sub to hide by emitting fake ambient sound from just a few spots to mask its shadow, do it wrong and suddenly it becomes the way to find you ;).

      --
    43. Re:203 decibels? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Off the cuff idea. The navy should dump a shit ton of money into figuring out how whales can hear so well over so far, instead of just turning their sonar up to 11. But heh, I ain't no four star general, what do I know.

    44. Re:203 decibels? by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Actually that sounds similar to the night vision problem iraqi tanks had in the first iraq war I think it was. The Challenger tank has a system which allows the tank operator to be able to see the heat from the recent tracks left by a tank in a field with no need to illuminate anything. The iraqi's had an infrared system which essentially to the challenger tank crews looked like they were shining searchlights on the battle field. totally giving away the iraqi positions. This meant the night vision systems were useless in the iraqi tanks and left them blind or dead.

    45. Re:203 decibels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The loudest part of a torpedo launch is the "launch transient", i.e: the sound of the compressed air that pushes it out of the torpedo tube.

      Why even have that? Why not just give it mechanical push? Apart from anything else that means no air bubbles going to the surface.

    46. Re:203 decibels? by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      How about doing it the way fish and other aquatic life does? If the government were to throw a few million at a project to study the lateral lines of fish, I am sure they would find that fish are able to detect other aquatic objects and such via compression and displacement of water....No need to use high-decible sonic-blasts to detect water displacement caused by moving and stationary objects.

      -Oz

    47. Re:203 decibels? by Kagura · · Score: 1

      But considering how sensitive active sonar is, how strong does a ping need to be in order for its reflection to be received by the passive component of the targeting system?

      Due to a submarines' anechoic tiles, you will have a hard time detecting a submarine by active sonar unless you are within just a few miles of it. Really, that is an impressive detection radius, but not when compared to the size of the oceans.

    48. Re:203 decibels? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Just because you're naive doesn't mean you're right.

      I didn't say I was right. But someone's going to have to prove it to me active sonar is NEEDED!

      We need sonar because people we don't implicitly trust (Iran, China, Russia, NKorea?) have submarines.

      So? That doesn't prove it's needed.

      They are not under our control.

      Good! I don't want to control anyone and I don't believe we should act like an empire or bullies.

      The fact is we have potential enemies.

      And we are potential enemies to others. The US supported the invasion and overthrow of a number of other countries resulting on the death of a lot of people. After President Ford and Henry Kissinger supported Soharto's Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor 200,000 East Timerese were massacred. After they supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile tens of thousands disappeared. The US supported military in Guetmala massacred the Mayans. The US invaded Iraq supposedly to get rid of Saddam Hussein but originally the US supported him. Both Reagan and Bush Sr armed Saddam. The Shah of Iran was supported in his overthrow of another democratically elected government.

      Don't try to tell me the US is some angel in shining armor.

      Falcon

    49. Re:203 decibels? by kauttapiste · · Score: 1

      When did submarines or other naval vessels last participate in this killing? That's right, in WWII. Causing serious harm to marine life just for the sake of having war games.. Stop that nonsense I say.

    50. Re:203 decibels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's talking power.

      you're talking amplitude.

    51. Re:203 decibels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't the sonar be replaced by something less damaging? I guess water muffles radio waves, so a water radar is not a good idea. Maybe a very low frequency radar?

      I know there exists technology for sonars that deliver similar or better quality images than world-best at the moment are capable of using while using only a fraction of the power they do. I'm actually working on developing sonars using that technology right now and we are rapidly approaching the state where we can move from sticking the antennae into pool or river to attaching it to boat and drive around sea.

      I'm not quite sure about the actual power ours uses but I believe the output isn't anywhere close to 200 dB as the entire system together with processing HW and antennae takes 300W whereas those military stuff should take tens if not hundreds of kWs.

      Also, that 203 dB should be close to the limit of the sound one can make under water, go over that and you'll be boiling the water with the energy you send in it.

    52. Re:203 decibels? by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      We need sonar because people we don't implicitly trust (Iran, China, Russia, NKorea?) have submarines.

      And they have them because you have them, because they have them, because you have them, and so on.

    53. Re:203 decibels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but why use it in training and practices? use a simulation for that, and use a close lake for hardware/equipment testing. there is no need to have lots of rookie pinging around just for the sake of training.

      you don't need to detonate atom bombs to know they're working, do you? you don't need to launch missiles with FULL payload to know they're working, do you? and when you do, you do under the assumption of causing the least damage to the environment.
      if you need them to control borders, then use them but there is no need to use real pings in training and war games.

    54. Re:203 decibels? by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      This is a good idea, which means it has practically zero chance of being attempted =)

      I find it interesting that we invent all sorts of systems that mimic natural processes* (whether or not we know they existed before our inventions) and yet aside from the obvious counterexample of computing power it has been rare that the man-made system will be as efficient, effective, and minimally destructive to its surrounding environment as its corresponding natural system.

      I don't mean to imply that technology is inherently bad or that we ought to restore the Middle Ages from backup. In fact, those natural systems may have been destructive when they first appeared and we're only discovering them after they've stabilized. I do think that biology is underrated and that we've spent a significant amount of time reinventing wheels poorly instead of ferreting out the ones that have been refined over millennia. The fact that we have done so at such a fast pace is putting a lot of stress on the ecosystem at many levels, and it's smarter to try to reverse that through researching the natural world* instead of assuming that the best way to improve things is another layer of designed complexity.

      *Spare me the argument about human activity being natural. You know what I mean by the distinction, and on top of that the 20th century consisted almost entirely of being too ignorant to realize that we've been shitting where we eat in massive proportions. No other creature on Earth does this, making us a perverse race and unfit to survive (in the Darwinian sense) unless we change fast.

    55. Re:203 decibels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nice that you can identify a fish at 1500m. Was that before or after your sound killed it?

    56. Re:203 decibels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This meant the night vision systems were useless in the iraqi tanks and left them blind or dead.

      Mainly dead.

    57. Re:203 decibels? by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Tanks tend to fight in the dark or in smoke with no effective means of locating the enemy the iraqi tanks basically couldnt be used.

  2. That sucks for them by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Guess dolphins and whales can't go to concerts. Although, I hear The Pingers have quite the underwater following.

    In other news, when exposed to brilliant flashes of light, humans are rendered temporarily blind.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:That sucks for them by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      203dB goes waaaaaay beyond the level of the loudest heavy metal gig. Like tens of thousands more.

    2. Re:That sucks for them by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

      "This one goes to 203."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:That sucks for them by Camann · · Score: 1
      --
      I can't believe you don't know what a Hasemalphaginnojinglanaporphomism is.
    4. Re:That sucks for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, great idea, give the metalhead sound engineers a goal. "Dude, did you see that? We liqified the audience!"

    5. Re:That sucks for them by laughing+rabbit · · Score: 1

      What would they reconstitute as?

      --
      No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
      Vote them out every term.
    6. Re:That sucks for them by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I may have no idea what I'm talking about, but if this concert had 120 dB, it would have a sound pressure of 20 Pa.
      And 203 dB would then be ~282507.5 Pa.

      I think this would not only make us deaf, but literally rip us apart like a shock wave of an explosion.
      Poor dolphins. :(

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:That sucks for them by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      At 282507.5 Pa sound pressure, actually very probably yes. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:That sucks for them by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      For reference, 203 dB is approximately twice the noise your average convention hall. Or one fifth if it's that one hall where every single vendor had to hire a second-grade sound technician and a third-grade animator.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    9. Re:That sucks for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, when exposed to brilliant flashes of light, humans are rendered temporarily blind.

      Right, like a light bright enough to burn your head right off your shoulders in about a quarter of a second.

  3. Damd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'd better stay with laser sharks then!

  4. Experiments like these... by fprintf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Experiments like these are like putting people next to a jet engine to see if their hearing gets damaged. I am no PETA freak, but putting 200+ decibels is bound to do permanent damage. I know they said it is temporary, but that might be like my "temporary" hearing loss from the Boston show a few months back. Yes, I could hear fine afterward* but I wonder what incremental loss I might have had from all that loudness.

    *I have higher pitch loss that apparently came from shooting a lot many years ago without hearing protection.

    --
    This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    1. Re:Experiments like these... by esocid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your comparison isn't a good one. It would be like losing your vision for 40 minutes and wandering around with deep holes around for you to fall in. Once you're in those holes it's a fair chance you won't survive unless someone helps you out.
      Anything that is used for prolonged periods (16 hours) is going to have detrimental effects on the mammals' methods of navigation. Why is it such a terrible crime that the Navy consider what damage it does to its surroundings? Not implying you, it's just their stance is TeRRorisM! our actions can't be hindered.

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    2. Re:Experiments like these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am no PETA freak, but putting 200+ decibels is bound to do permanent damage.

      Perhaps the experiment was inhumane. Hypocrisy demonstrated. Point taken.
      That does not change the conclusion: military exercises that include sonar cause injury to advanced marine life.

      The ramifications should be obvious, but just in case they aren't...

      Harming endangered species is illegal, and for good reason...their extinction could have unwanted ecological consequences and will certainly have unwanted sociological consequences for us.
      Harming non-endangered, but advanced, animals should be avoided when possible (for moral reasons and also the sociological consequences...nobody wants a PETA riot).

    3. Re:Experiments like these... by aliquis · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, military, animal testers and consumers suck.

      It's fucking obvious and they shouldn't develop techniques doing as much damage.

    4. Re:Experiments like these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about for the purposes of hunting? We can use sonar to round up whales, and who cares if they're deaf when we are going to kill them anyway?

    5. Re:Experiments like these... by radtea · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am no PETA freak, but putting 200+ decibels is bound to do permanent damage.

      The document linked on the Bahamas stranding says that source levels were 223 - 235 dB and levels were less than 180 dB at 300 m horizontally and 200 m vertically, so unless the dolphins were EXTREMELY close to the ships when the sonar was turned on the odds of even temporary deafness due to the use of sonar in the wild are quite low. Remember: a 40 dB difference in signal is a factor of 10,000 in amplitude of the pressure wave, so unless the dolphins were within a few meters of the source they would be very unlikely to get anything close to 200 dB.

      This is a bit like dropping a 10 kg mass on a person and noticing it causes serious damage, and then arguing that you can say something about the effects of dropping 0.001 kg masses on people based on the 10 kg data.

      That's not to say that it isn't plausible that dolphin sonar can be screwed up by powerful sonar, but this experiment just doesn't seem relevant to the question.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    6. Re:Experiments like these... by fugue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sort of like dropping a nuke on Denver in order to kill a few deer? Is it okay if I promise to eat everything I kill?

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    7. Re:Experiments like these... by INeededALogin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The document linked on the Bahamas stranding says that source levels were 223 - 235 dB and levels were less than 180 dB at 300 m horizontally and 200 m

      180 db is still extremely strong. Now, compound that with the fact that the Submarines are moving, pinging and that Dolphins are curious anmials and like to follow ships... and I think you will find that the chances for Dolphins being near one of these ships greatly increased.

      Also, I understand the need to defend the human race, military and blowing stuff up, but ask any blind person how much noise pollution hurts and then comment again.

    8. Re:Experiments like these... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      nobody wants a PETA riot

      Sure I do! That way DHS swoops in, rounds them up, and (based on all the left-wing whining and ravings you see in places like /. and dailykos) throws them in Gitmo with thousands, nay, billions of other domestic political prisoners and Belgians.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:Experiments like these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unfortunately, neither you nor I can assess what "203 decibels" means. That is because that is a meaningless phrase. Here is the information that the AFP left out:

      • Where was the 203 dB measured? Was it measured at a reference range relative to the transducer, as is common practice, or was it measured at the dolphin? This implies to me that they produced a sound equivalent to 203 dB as heard at a 40 m range, but I am just guessing.

        The difference between the reference range measurement and the receiver measurement, assuming spherical spreading (which we're likely to see at a 40m range), is 20 log r, where R is the ratio of the reference range and the receiver range. If the dolphin is 100 m away from a source emitting 203 dB at a 1 yard reference range, it will be hit with acoustic energy at 163 dB (203 - 20 log 100).

      • In what units are they working? Contrary to popular belief, decibels are not a unit, but rather a scale. Saying the dolphins were exposed to 203 dB is equivalent to saying they were exposed to 2 x 10^8. 2 x 10^8 whats? Watts? Micropascals? 20 Micropascals?

        By the way, the sound pressure levels you're accustomed to reading about as an land-lubber are probably dB//20 uPa -- i.e., measured in multiples of 20 micropascals. In underwater acoustics we almost always use dB//1 uPa -- i.e., measured in multiples of 1 micropascal. To convert from the in-air numbers to under-water numbers, add 26 dB. A 203 dB sound to an underwater physicist would be a 179 dB to an atmospheric physicist.

      Unfortunately I cannot find this article on the Biology Letters web site to check the facts.

    10. Re:Experiments like these... by thedonger · · Score: 1

      ...could have unwanted ecological consequences...

      The building of Navy vessels most certainly has greater unintended/unwanted consequences than occasional deafening of advanced marine life. But either of those compared to a lack of preparedness on the part of our military to defend against threats foreign and domestic...Well, I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    11. Re:Experiments like these... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is it such a terrible crime that the Navy consider what damage it does to its surroundings?

      What makes you think they don't already or that the damage to those surroundings is more important than our ability to keep the sea lanes open in the next shooting war?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Experiments like these... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sort of like dropping a nuke on Denver in order to kill a few deer? Is it okay if I promise to eat everything I kill?

      Well, if you go deer hunting with nukes you don't have to worry about cooking the meat afterwards ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Experiments like these... by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're both essentially right.

      If the dolphins were further away, the sonar would be far less damaging, but it could still interefere with their navigation.

      It's also very possible that the dolphins were following the ships and exposed to deafening decibel ranges.

      This study (like most studies) is just a stepping stone to narrow down criteria/goals for other studies...we need to A) Determine the effect of lesser decibel levels and B) Gather real observational data on how often dolphins and other marine life venture very near to naval vessels.

      Ultimately results of these studies should just regulate situations on when active sonar is used, where you can train with it, etc, because active sonar is necessary until something better is developed. Despite the very slim chances of nuclear war, as tragic as it is, I'm willing to sacrifice a few hundred sea critters (I wold hope it's a much smaller number though) just to know that we can effectively track and destroy nuclear missile subs (as well as the many other uses for sonar). That's just my opinion and you can call me a barbarian for it if you like.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    14. Re:Experiments like these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need to be blind to want to kill the fucking assholes who think they have the right to have 5000W subwoofers to hear their "boom boom boom" noise all day long.

    15. Re:Experiments like these... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      180 db is still extremely strong. Now, compound that with the fact that the Submarines are moving, pinging and that Dolphins are curious anmials and like to follow ships... and I think you will find that the chances for Dolphins being near one of these ships greatly increased.

      A couple of things: submarines don't use active sonar if they can possibly help it - active sonar is very helpful in locating someone, but it's even more helpful in announcing your presence to everyone out to well beyond the range the active sonar can detect someone.

      Dolphins don't spend a lot of time down where the subs routinely travel.

      And a dolphin might very well be curious about a ship, and head toward it. But unless they're dumb as posts, they'll turn away before the sonar reaches the "deafening" level.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    16. Re:Experiments like these... by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1
      I'm going to have to declare Offtopic here, and due to my lack of mod points, I will just declare it publicly here.

      Your comparison isn't a good one. It would be like losing your vision for 40 minutes and wandering around with deep holes around for you to fall in. Once you're in those holes it's a fair chance you won't survive unless someone helps you out.

      OP was examining the long term effects of this experiment on the dolphins being experimented on and not the short term effects of SONAR use in the wild. His comparison holds, as it does a better job illustrating the point OP was trying to make.

      Anything that is used for prolonged periods (16 hours) is going to have detrimental effects on the mammals' methods of navigation. Why is it such a terrible crime that the Navy consider what damage it does to its surroundings? Not implying you, it's just their stance is TeRRorisM! our actions can't be hindered.

      Again, I'm not quite sure how this is related to the OP whatsoever. The OP was denouncing the experiments not because he felt the Navy shouldn't be concerned, but rather because the unreasonably high dBs that the dolphins were being subjected to.

    17. Re:Experiments like these... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is it such a terrible crime that the Navy consider what damage it does to its surroundings?

      Because the design purpose of a Navy is to kill people and break things?

      Or are you really suggesting that they should spend more time finding ecologically friendly ways to sink ships and kill people?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    18. Re:Experiments like these... by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      In what units are they working? Contrary to popular belief, decibels are not a unit, but rather a scale.

      Let's see. From what I have seen from a large number of people who speak of electromagnetic radiation at ranges usable by human-kind: when they say dB, they often mean dBm. It's a typical usage, unless in an environment where both are used frequently. After all, most people try to say things as quickly and easily as possible.

      However(!!), there is this thing call Sound Pressure Level, or Intensity Level, which is what we are talking about here. For a quick ruler on such things: go here. I don't know if we have one of these things for dolphins, but it may be in the works by now.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    19. Re:Experiments like these... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I'd like someone to explain why active sonar is necessary, being that subs are most effective when their location is not known, and active sonar instantly gives away your location.

    20. Re:Experiments like these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those numbers don't seem right. Isn't the point of sonar to be able to detect other things at a distance, especially sonar that is pushing 220+ dB?

      And we all know sounds travels much faster and farther in water.

    21. Re:Experiments like these... by geekoid · · Score: 0, Troll

      Becasue a species must watch out for themselves first.

      I'd personally kill every Dolphin myself if it would save a human life.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:Experiments like these... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A ship is emitting a painful noise and you think dolphins will follow?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:Experiments like these... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You gotta catch up with the wingnuttery, dude. These days it's all right-wing whining about FEMA internment camps for Patriots, terror that the gubmint will take away their AK-47s, and the xenophobic "DEY TOOK OUR JAHBS!" ranting about immigrants.

      The left sounds positively sane by comparison.
      No, 9/11 truthers make everyone look sane by comaparison, and a new assault weapons ban would make obtaining AK-47s difficult, thus not an unrealistic concern. And the crowd yelling, "DEY TOOK OUR JAHBS and sent them oversez" loudest are the leftist/big labor(must pass card check) crowd.

      PS captcha=armament /. has become self aware!

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    24. Re:Experiments like these... by radtea · · Score: 1

      180 db is still extremely strong.

      Yes, but this experiment was concerned with levels 100 times higher, over 200 dB. The odds of dolphins being THAT close to ships doesn't seem likely.

      I'd expect that sound intensity drops off with at least a 1/r**2 dependency, and a factor of r1**2/r2**2 = 100 would mean the dolphins would have to be within 20-30 m of a ship when the sonar was turned on to get 200 dB if there's 180 db at 200-300 m. That's really not very likely, for very long--they're going to presumably get the hell out of there when the noise starts.

      Again: I'm not saying that sonar can't screw up dolphins. I'm saying that studying the effects of such intense sounds seems like looking in the wrong place, where the basic physiological response is deafness, not confusion etc.

      The blind-person analogy doesn't really work for me, but I'm losing my hearing, and can tell you want a huge difference just a bit of background noise can make. Rock concerts are deafening (I wear earplugs when I go) but even moderate background noise can make speech unintelligible to me, and the phenomenology at the two different scales is completely different. Therefore it seems to me unlikely that studying deafening sounds will teach us much about the means by which dolphins may be confused and disoriented by sounds that are much lower in intensity.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    25. Re:Experiments like these... by Loopy · · Score: 1

      When subs have to transition estuaries or port entrances, there's too much traffic to trust passive sonar as debris and/or non-moving ships don't generate sound. :P Would you rather these subs use active sonar in those narrow regions where "traffic" accidents are way more likely, thus disturbing in-shore fish pods or would you rather a sub have an accident, potentially spilling thousands of gallons of oil and/or nastier things into the waters and affecting a much larger portion of the ecosystem?

      Considering subs are rarely ever going to use sonar unless they have a known likely risk of collision or are already at a point where they don't care if they are located, this is a mountain out of a molehill situation, IMO.

    26. Re:Experiments like these... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Hey! I live in Denver, you insensitive clod! And as such, I can tell you with complete assurance you wouldn't *want* to eat some of the things you'd kill.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    27. Re:Experiments like these... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Thats mighty white of you, though genetic diversity is valuable too

      Nice way to play the race card. Something tells me that you won't get modded down though, whereas somebody who used a six letter word starting with 'N' to make the same point already would have been.

      I wonder if you would do anything to help dolphins if they saved [eurocbc.org] any human lives [guardian.co.uk] ?

      I think his point was that we usually prioritize human life above that of other animals. For example, your dog doesn't get to come into the lifeboat if we need the space for another human being.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    28. Re:Experiments like these... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      but this experiment just doesn't seem relevant to the question.

      One of the often asked questions is, does SONAR pose any risk to marine life. These studies make it absolutely clear the answer is yes.

      So while it may not directly answer the question we all want to know, it does establish a reasonable basis for concern. Likewise, just because the animal is not deaf does not mean they can not become confused or perhaps suffer a lessor, long term injury. The study does not attempt to answer that. Still, this research seems very relevant.

      Ultimately, I'm not sure what any of this research will change. Enemies of various nations are not suddenly going to stop using SONAR nor will they stop using subs. This is turn mandates the use of SONAR in kind for national security of just about every nation who has interests at sea and can afford to do so. This in turn drives a requirement to have trained personal which in turn requires the use of SONAR in environments which are representative of the most likely threats. Worse, these new threats are requiring higher powered SONAR systems because they need to probe the areas where these types of animals are known to exist.

      In short, I don't see how any nation concerned with national security can change anything they are currently doing; including training.

    29. Re:Experiments like these... by icebrain · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd like someone to explain why active sonar is necessary, being that subs are most effective when their location is not known, and active sonar instantly gives away your location.

      Err, active sonar isn't just the domain of submarines. Subs very rarely use it, but sub-hunting aircraft like the SH-60, P-3, Il-18, etc. use combinations of active and passive sonobuoys, as well as dipping sonars (for the helicopters) which have active and passive modes. Surface ships like destroyers will also use active sonar on occasion. Many modern submarines are quiet enough that they can't be heard at all on a passive set, particularly when operating in littoral areas or areas of mixed or disturbed water. If you're the side with the helicopters and destroyers trying to find that submarine, you might have no choice but to blast away on active.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    30. Re:Experiments like these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      were less than 180 dB at 300 m horizontally
      So a bit under 180 dB at over 1/4 a kilometer away. That's still ridiculously loud, and that's a helluva long ways off. There's no doubt in my mind that a dolphin may well get that "EXTREMELY close", as you so put it.

      What's your defintion of "only a little close" then? 20 km's away?

    31. Re:Experiments like these... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Would you really, outside of Philosophy 101 "Press button A to kill a human, press button B to kill all the dolphins" land?

      I ask because there are huge numbers of places where human lives could be saved with trivial effort and at trivial expense; but very, very few people actually follow through on many, or even any, of them.

      For instance, consider the thousands of children a year that die of trivial gastrointestinal complaints every year. Most of them could be saved by a course or two of oral rehydration therapy. That would cost about as much as a cup of mediocre coffee. And yet, nobody I know, even kind, generous humanitarian types, lets that stop them from going about their day as normal. Humans are, in effect, morally myopic. The problems of people not close to us just don't feel very big.

      Given all the extraordinarily easy and cheap things that could be; but aren't, done to save human lives, I have a difficult time believing that anybody would actually kill dolphins to do so, unless the human in question was one that they cared about, or the situation was a contrived hypothetical.

    32. Re:Experiments like these... by onegear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Becasue a species must watch out for themselves first.

      I'd personally kill every Dolphin myself if it would save a human life.

      You're kidding, right? Or are you really that sick and disgusting?

    33. Re:Experiments like these... by Plunky · · Score: 1

      Nice way to play the race card. Something tells me that you won't get modded down though, whereas somebody who used a six letter word starting with 'N' to make the same point already would have been.

      Sigh, I confess that my use of "Thats mighty white of you" was sarcastic as it was reflecting the superiority affected by those who might utter the phrase in a heartfelt manner. Equating that with calling somebody a nigger is, I think, rather extreme.

      Killing all the dolphins to save a single human life would be ridiculously stupid. There are billions of humans and although its hard to define an exact limit, losing a billion humans in order to retain the genetic diversity (including dolphins) we have on the planet today would not be a bad trade for the future.

    34. Re:Experiments like these... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Harming endangered species is illegal, and for good reason...their extinction could have unwanted ecological consequences and will certainly have unwanted sociological consequences for us

      And what happens when a species is *not* endangered, but the local politicians use that power to block people from building homes? Confused? Watch this video: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=8917946

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    35. Re:Experiments like these... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      No, 9/11 truthers make everyone look sane by comaparison

      That does not diminish the fact that the Beck/Hannity branch of the right-wing have gone absolutely batshit since the election.

      And the crowd yelling, "DEY TOOK OUR JAHBS and sent them oversez" loudest are the leftist/big labor(must pass card check) crowd.

      Complaining about outsourcing is not a partisan issue, and that's entirely a separate issue from the people complaining about the immigrants taking all our jobs. I think you are not paying attention.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    36. Re:Experiments like these... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "What makes you think they don't already or that the damage to those surroundings is more important than our ability to keep the sea lanes open in the next shooting war?"

      There will be no naval conflict, for the current Administration will bring us peace in our time, peace with honor, and permanent global love.

      As for the proliferation of small, inexpensive, quiet diesel submarines, that couldn't possibly cause a problem...

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    37. Re:Experiments like these... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      So it's like playing ET with a blindfold.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    38. Re:Experiments like these... by conureman · · Score: 1

      I had no idea that was a racist saying, I too thought it was meant for sarcasm. Thanks to the all-knowing Wiki I guess now I know better. I'd better keep checking on another word some pseudo-literates seem to have trouble with, niggardly, as any day it could be edited in Wikipedia and become evil as well.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    39. Re:Experiments like these... by Orange+Crush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The goal of any military is to accomplish its missions with minimal collateral damage. At the very least, it's important to know the extent of damages that are being caused and if the cost is worth the benefit. Killing local marine wildlife every time they do a sub-hunting excercise might be cause to change their procedures a bit.

    40. Re:Experiments like these... by Andoman78 · · Score: 1

      People are assuming dolphins are brain dead creature that would just sit there and listen to 200 db pings and pongs. Since I'm a dolphin expert since watching discovery channel, I understand that dolphins are intelligent creatures and would swim away from the annoying sound, unlike intercity youth with the bass speakers.

    41. Re:Experiments like these... by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      On the flip side: would you sacrifice yourself to save all the dolphins? I don't doubt that you would; I don't believe yours is a widely held opinion, however.

    42. Re:Experiments like these... by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      180db is about what a blue whale can do. I say we slaughter all whales. Y'know, for the dolphins.

      See:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sound_pressure_and_sound_pressure_levels

    43. Re:Experiments like these... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Would you really, outside of Philosophy 101 "Press button A to kill a human, press button B to kill all the dolphins" land?

      I seem to recall that the greatest competition that any individual is likely to encounter comes from members of its own species (which have the exactly same habitat and related requirements). Since dolphins live in the sea and have only slightly-overlapping resource requirements, it seems that the Game Theory 101 solution is to press button A.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    44. Re:Experiments like these... by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      Becasue a species must watch out for themselves first.

      That's exactly why we need to develop weapons like the ones mentioned in the article. Don't think for a second that dolphins don't hate humanity. We passively and innocently shoot some sonar in the water and hours later the sea creatures are fruitlessly attempting a land invasion. No attempts to communicate, no negotiate peace. Just throw themselves on our beaches to try to take a chunk out of us. Thank goodness that's all they've ever gotten.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    45. Re:Experiments like these... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      From what I have seen from a large number of people who speak of electromagnetic radiation at ranges usable by human-kind: when they say dB, they often mean dBm.

      For WiFi, yeah. For most licensed applications (satellite, military, point to point licensed microwave shots), they use dBW. Unless talking about antennas, in which case it's dBi or dBd, mostly dBi, but many industries still use dBd nearly exclusively.

    46. Re:Experiments like these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "so unless the dolphins were EXTREMELY close to the ships when the sonar was turned on"

      The thing is... dolphins -are- known to swim alongside ships. Its not as unlikely as you might think.

    47. Re:Experiments like these... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      And the crowd yelling, "DEY TOOK OUR JAHBS and sent them oversez" loudest are the leftist/big labor(must pass card check) crowd.

      Check about half way down, Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. Both conservatives and pseudo-liberals support immigrants, their approach and limits are different though. "Conservatives and Liberals agree: Immigration is not a bad word."

    48. Re:Experiments like these... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this experiment was concerned with levels 100 times higher, over 200 dB. The odds of dolphins being THAT close to ships doesn't seem likely.

      You don't think dolphins get that close to ships? Dolphins literally swim along side ships within feet. Flickr has some photos of this.

      Falcon

    49. Re:Experiments like these... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      And a dolphin might very well be curious about a ship, and head toward it. But unless they're dumb as posts, they'll turn away before the sonar reaches the "deafening" level.

      I may be wrong but I think active sonar sends a loud blast all at once and doesn't slowly build up. Dolphins are not given the chance to get out of the way.

      Falcon

    50. Re:Experiments like these... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's like how the human ear can protect itself if the decibel level increases quickly. It *can't* protect itself if there's no time to react. Large populations of American Indians lost their hearing in Alaska because they switched to using guns for hunting fish (seriously). Because of little to no background noise before the instant gunfire, their eardrums had to time to react to protect themselves.

    51. Re:Experiments like these... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I may be wrong but I think active sonar sends a loud blast all at once and doesn't slowly build up. Dolphins are not given the chance to get out of the way.

      If you're pinging at all, you don't ping just the once. Usually. And when you're in continuous ping, the pings are coming way too fast for a dolphin to get to you without hearing at least a few thousand first.

      Yes, there's a small chance a dolphin is in front of your sonar dome when you begin pinging. Think of it as evolution in action....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    52. Re:Experiments like these... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The goal of any military is to accomplish its missions with minimal collateral damage. At the very least, it's important to know the extent of damages that are being caused and if the cost is worth the benefit. Killing local marine wildlife every time they do a sub-hunting excercise might be cause to change their procedures a bit.

      You have an intriguing idea of the history of the military. I can think of a couple of militaries in history that tried to minimize collateral damage. But the overwhelming majority of them haven't given a flying fig for collateral damage.

      Killing local marine wildlife isn't enough reason to stop a sub-hunting exercise. Because you have to know how to hunt subs BEFORE you need to do it for real. And the only way to do that is practice.

      And contrary to popular rumour, simulators are not enough. There's a reason why ships and subs practice on each other, and drill more or less constantly - so that you don't fumble when it hits the fan for real.

      About the only thing you don't do regularly is actually let fly with warshot. And that's only because they're expensive as hell.

      Note a bit of history: before WW2, we didn't practice with live torpedoes, ever. During WW2, it was found that our torpedoes didn't explode when they hit their targets, and didn't maintain proper depth control. Which meant that subs and destroyers going in harm's way were effectively firing blanks at people who were firing back for real.

      Even the infrequent live fire exercises we do now, if done then, would have revealed that little problem before we lost men and boats....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    53. Re:Experiments like these... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      there's a small chance a dolphin is in front of your sonar dome when you begin pinging

      Small chance? HAHA! Dolphins swim alongside, in front of, and in the wake of ships all the tyme. Here's some photos of dolphins doing just that.

      Falcon

    54. Re:Experiments like these... by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      I'm am no expert at underwater audiology (IANEAUA), but doesn't water transmit sound waves differently than air? I remember experiments in high school physics, where sound levels were compared passing through steel, wood, water and air, and recall air being the weakest conductor of sound waves.

      Is an air-based decibel measurement comparable to water-based?

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    55. Re:Experiments like these... by kauttapiste · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I heard people can die of food poisoning. Let's destroy all the food in the world and our species will be safe!

    56. Re:Experiments like these... by kauttapiste · · Score: 1

      Apparently, the Soviets had the US navy communications code for the most part of the Cold War. If shit had hit the fan, the US navy would have been as successful as defending Pearl Harbor. It's just the same if they practiced in simulators and not fck up yet another ecosystem. Or you could sleep your nights just as well with a soviet-repelling rock under your pillow ;-)

    57. Re:Experiments like these... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I assumed dBA, since that's what I usually hear used when talking about noise and noise is what non-telecommunications people usually mean with "decibels": A-weighted sound pressure (dB re 20 Pa emphasized around 3-6 KHz).

      A-weighting is probably relatively useless in this scenario as it models loudness to the human ear under normal conditions, but without further knowledge I'd expect the 20 Pa thing to hold. We are talking about noise, after all.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    58. Re:Experiments like these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, when you 'defended yourself' enough times over enough years to decimate the ocean floors, and carpet bomb the worlds wild-life, I hope you enjoy the sterile, irradiated piece of desert you will call home - im sure it was worth 'defending at ALL costs'.

    59. Re:Experiments like these... by Grundalizer · · Score: 1

      You do realize that sound waves can travel much much further in water than in air right? That is one of the reasons cetaceans can communicate over hundreds-thousands of miles of ocean. I don't think I could shout loud enough for you to hear me 1000 miles away in the atmosphere.

    60. Re:Experiments like these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the flip side: would you sacrifice yourself to save all the dolphins? I don't doubt that you would; I don't believe yours is a widely held opinion, however.

      I wouldn't count on him sacrificing himself either. He could easily sacrifice his current career and time to devote to helping save the dolphins. Doesn't even require dying. Might take him to some nice places too. Seriously doubt he's gone that route though.

    61. Re:Experiments like these... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Small chance? HAHA! Dolphins swim alongside, in front of, and in the wake of ships all the tyme.

      Small chance.

      The sonar dome is on the bottom of the ship.

      Yes, it pings forward, but something swimming on the surface is going to be protected by the hull of the ship from the worst of the noise.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    62. Re:Experiments like these... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Yes, it pings forward, but something swimming on the surface is going to be protected by the hull of the ship from the worst of the noise.

      Something is front will be protected by the hull but the hull does not offer much protection on the side does it?. Regarding the side, doesn't sonar ping all around ships? If not that's a big black void.

      Falcon

    63. Re:Experiments like these... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Something is front will be protected by the hull but the hull does not offer much protection on the side does it?. Regarding the side, doesn't sonar ping all around ships? If not that's a big black void.

      Yes, actually it does. Depends, of course, on how close to the side you are. But if you're not close, the ping isn't going to be particularly deafening either.

      Sonar has a limited arc that it will ping, or even hear. How limited, you can either look up on the web (and take the answer with the appropriate grain of salt), or join the Navy as a sonarman. I won't tell you.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    64. Re:Experiments like these... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Chalk one up for the GP, I'm thinking the same thing.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  5. We can't stop or the terrorists will win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The US Navy absolutely must continue these vital SONAR experiments! This news is undermining our national security! These scientists are out of control. Are we sure this "dolphin" isn't a Qaeda sympathizer? Was it even vetted?

    If we stop experimenting in high-power SONAR, the terrorists and their submarines win!

    1. Re:We can't stop or the terrorists will win! by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe not Terrorists, but our Naval Superiority, , does play a lot into our relationship with China.

      Our Military superiority, (or inferiority,) dictates how much economic pressure we can apply.

    2. Re:We can't stop or the terrorists will win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. It is better to slaughter every animal on the planet (except the ones we eat) to keep us a little safer. Who cares about the animals if we save even one American life! /end sarcasm/

    3. Re:We can't stop or the terrorists will win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Maybe not Terrorists, but our Naval Superiority, , does play a lot into our relationship with China."

      Not anymore it doesn't.

      http://www.exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/

  6. F Dolphins by scubamage · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seriously, everyone knows that human wants and needs are more important than some stupid fish being able to hear. Its not like they need sound for anything.

    1. Re:F Dolphins by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      roflmcwaffle,
      At first the parent post was modded troll, then funny, then troll then funny again.

      I think you've broken slashdot.

      Congratulations sir. Well played, well played indeed.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    2. Re:F Dolphins by y86 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, everyone knows that human wants and needs are more important than some stupid fish being able to hear. Its not like they need sound for anything.

      I actually sort of agree with this to an extent(human life/nation interests trump animal rights), however there has to be a better solution.

      Shark use EM fields to detect life. Maybe we can strap sharks with sensor pods reading their brainstems.

      After all, no one cares about sharks.

    3. Re:F Dolphins by xonar · · Score: 1

      +1 Inside Joke

    4. Re:F Dolphins by barocco · · Score: 1

      So long and thanks for all the ... wait...

    5. Re:F Dolphins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, everyone knows that human wants and needs are more important than some stupid fish being able to hear. Its not like they need sound for anything.

      In related news, the RIAA is filing a lawsuit against the US military. According to court filings, the deafened dolphins are not purchasing music. They have calculated that this lack of revenue accounts for nearly $100 billion in lost sales annually.

  7. Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I can't believe the military is still playing dumb and pretending they aren't aware their sonars are affecting marine life.

    Must be nice to be in a permanent state of denial.

    1. Re:Retarded by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reality is that they don't particularly care. They have to, for purposes of public relations, act like there's no problem, like what they're doing is perfectly fine, but the reality is that they could care less if every cetacean in the ocean died tomorrow.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Must be nice to be in a permanent state of denial.

      No it isn't.

    3. Re:Retarded by fugue · · Score: 1

      Must be nice to be in a permanent state of denial.

      It sure is! ...assuming that if someone tries to call you on it you happen to have a powerful army at your disposal...

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    4. Re:Retarded by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      They're playing dumb, because it works. Look at the global warming "debate."

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    5. Re:Retarded by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Isn't it great being able to demonize an entire organization? In other news, geeks don't particularly care about bathing.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    6. Re:Retarded by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can demonize an organization, while recognizing that it is made up of diverse elements.

      Now go take a bath.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by DragonTHC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't need to actually make dolphins deaf to know if they will be deaf! Not only is that cruel, it's unnecessary.

    It's common knowledge that exposure to 200+ decibels will make anything deaf. And this Dr. Mooney is an idiot.

    If it makes them deaf in a lab, it fucking works outside the lab!

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by causality · · Score: 1

      It's common knowledge that exposure to 200+ decibels will make anything deaf.

      It's common knowledge but now he's done a STUDY ("Oooooooh, Aaaaaaaah"). That means that what everybody already knew has somehow become more official!

      I think this is a new plan.

      1. Find some obvious thing that everyone already knows.
      2. Get funding to have a "study" on it.
      3. ???
      4. Profit!

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      Hello, McFly! How the heck is he supposed to get more funding if he doesn't test his theories in the wild?

      *sigh*

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    3. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > it's unnecessary.
      I'd say ears are unnecessary to navies to about the same extent that eyes are unnecessary for armies.

    4. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by xenolion · · Score: 1

      Um he is a doctor he doesn't know there is an outside world to his lab..

    5. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1, Troll

      If that can help regulate the use of military sonars who seem to not care about mass-killing dolphins, I say it is worth it.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    6. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by SpuriousLogic · · Score: 1

      I agree. This experiment is like stabbing someone with a big knife to see if they bleed. I am for sure no PETA freak - I love to hunt and 100% realize that killing animals causes them pain. But I ALREADY KNOW that shooting them with an arrow or bullet will kill them - I don't need an experiment to prove something I already know. The only thing I can think of that came out of this experiment was a dolphins threshold for hearing loss, but I have to think there are other ways to gain that knowledge.

    7. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree with the validity of the statement that this carries over into the wild. Yeah, sure, if you have a dolphin tied to the side of your boat and you're sitting their blasting it with 203 decibels it'll go deaf. But do we know how quickly it drops off in strength or whether the dolphins would swim away before any lasting damage was done? Have they heard it in the past and learned to avoid naval vessels as a result? Couldn't they theoretically swim along the surface and avoid the sound altogether?

      Re: Your Sig - Nazis of the world unite!

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    8. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      But was the results statisticly significant? Better test on a bunch of more dolphins to make sure!

    9. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by robthebloke · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's common knowledge that exposure to 200+ decibels will make anything deaf.

      Apart from deaf people.

    10. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's common knowledge that exposure to 200+ decibels will make anything deaf.

      Not true; rocks are not deafened by 200+ dB sounds.

    11. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Actually, it hasn't been proven that the Navy's use of sonar damages these organisms, if you read the dissenting opinion from the recent supreme court decision ruling in favor of the Navy versus environmentalists, they say as much:

      Dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice David Souter, said Cooper had properly used her authority under the environmental law after finding that unrestricted sonar use could harm thousands of creatures. Instead of conducting an environmental study as the law required, or asking Congress to change the law, Ginsburg said, the Navy undermined the law with a "self-serving resort to an office in the White House" for an exemption.

      This study represents a "nail in the coffin" type of study, where it is now known unequivocally that 203 decibels will harm wildlife. To logical people, this is what's known as "proof". Knowing this, you can now measure the sound level of the Navy's sonar tests and if it's above 203 decibels, you have direct evidence that the Navy IS harming marine animals. It sounds silly and trivial, but this is how logic works sometimes, you have to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt, and past a shadow if you want to change society.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    12. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by apokruphos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please, cite to me the journal of "Common Knowledge". Because, as we all know, all those folksy truths always have a huge bearing on reality.

      --
      "I defy the second law of thermodynamics."
      "The hell you do. Get back in the box."
    13. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by INeededALogin · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they theoretically swim along the surface and avoid the sound altogether?

      Have you ever seen a Dolphin? They aren't boats. The ability to keep their ears above water for an extended period of time would consume a lot of energy if they could even do it. Also, why is it that the dolphins have to change their million years of instincts and evolution so that we can search and destroy enemy ships. On that note, when was the last time we actually had to destroy a submarine?

    14. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by geekboy642 · · Score: 1

      You don't only care about the u-boats you want to destroy. You also care about the ones that pop up into the middle of a carrier group to say "Hi! Naval superiority? Yeah, you're OUR bitch now." China has the superiority. It'd be real nice if we could take it back, seeing as how likely a shooting war on that side of the world is.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    15. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds silly and trivial, but this is how logic works sometimes, you have to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt, and past a shadow if you want to change society.

      Sounds like society is rather dense.

    16. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by causality · · Score: 1

      I see your joke post and raise you one serious reply.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    17. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      On that note, when was the last time we actually had to destroy a submarine?

      Officially? 1945.

      Note that if we stop using sonar, or stop practicing with sonar, that the next time we need to sink a submarine may be a lot like the last one - we lost 1700 or so merchant ships that go-round, before we got a handle on enemy submarines.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    18. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "It's common knowledge that exposure to 200+ decibels will make anything deaf. "

      no it is not. Humans, yes but different species are, well, different.

      "If it makes them deaf in a lab, it fucking works outside the lab!"

      A common mistake of amateur scientists.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by modecx · · Score: 1

      But do we know how quickly it drops off in strength or whether the dolphins would swim away before any lasting damage was done?

      I'm sure that the real power of sonar systems roughly follow the inverse square law. So, if you know how intense it is at the source, yes, you can calculate with some degree of precision sound intensity at any given distance from the source.

      If this useless study turns out to be useful for something (anything), I hope it's for limiting the power of military sonar during peace time. It's almost certainly not needed anyway.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    20. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who seem to not care about mass-killing dolphins,

      Citation needed.

      Both for the part about not caring, but especially the part saying that there has been mass-killing of dolphins. (there have been no mass-killings of dolphins by military craft)

      Oh, and last time I checked, sonar was a mechanical device; so yes, I would assume that sonar doesn't care about killing dolphins, or care about anything at all for that matter.

      Or perhaps you are confusing military vessels using sonar with fishing boats using nets?

    21. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's common knowledge that exposure to 200+ decibels will make anything deaf.

      It's common knowledge but now he's done a STUDY ("Oooooooh, Aaaaaaaah"). That means that what everybody already knew has somehow become more official! I think this is a new plan. 1. Find some obvious thing that everyone already knows. 2. Get funding to have a "study" on it. 3. ??? 4. Profit!

      are you a fucking moron? if we acepted "common sense" we wouldnt know half of what we do now about the world. seriously, try to stfu next time before posting. i cant believe that there are idiots out there who think that scientific verification is bad. Dang...

    22. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by purpleque · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure that if you expose a deaf person to 200+ decibels that they will indeed be deaf afterwards...

    23. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Destroying a submarine isn't nearly as important as ensuring that your submarines can navigate without being destroyed. Submarines are a vital part of the second-strike capability of all of the nuclear powers, and are the thing that really guarantees the 'assured' part of MAD.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      It's common knowledge that exposure to 200+ decibels will make anything deaf. And this Dr. Mooney is an idiot.

      It's not common knowledge to the US Navy. That, or they just don't care.

      Falcon

    25. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your nickname is perfect.

    26. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're wrong on that one. Scientists attached a harmless suction cup to a deaf guy's head and measured his brainwaves. Then they blasted him with 203 dB of noise. The brainwave measurements showed that afterwards he couldn't hear a thing.

      Other tests showed that flashbangs do an admirable job of keeping blind people from seeing and that shooting a wheelchair-less paraplegic in the leg keeps him from running away. Also, that the police is not easily amused and that it's surprisingly hard to write a scientific paper in jail.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    27. Re:you dont' need to make dolphins deaf. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Ok, my sentence was badly worded. But you got it. So here are some older sources :
      400 dolphins stranded at zanzibar in 2006
      Another one in UK in 2008.
      Other cases are mentioned. About the Military not caring, well, in the first article you can read the navy spoke person stating : "In the U.S. alone, a person is 10 times more likely to be struck by lightning than for sonar to cause a marine mammal stranding,". Such experiments help understanding what happens and help confront deniers.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  9. This probably causes permanent damage. by TerranFury · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Loud noises tear the cilia in your cochlea out by the roots. In humans, and, as far as I know, other higher mammals, they don't grow back (Can someone who knows confirm that this is true in dolphins as well?).

    So the word "temporary" might make this sound less bad than it is: Our sonar may only temporarily cause total deafness, but I suspect it permanently degrades hearing.

    Sucks to be a dolphin. Reminds me of Douglas Adams' sympathy for whales, whose songs no longer can be heard across the ocean. (I think Douglas talked about this in Last Chance to See.)

    1. Re:This probably causes permanent damage. by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Even if it is temporary, isn't this the equivalent of temporary blindness while on the highway?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    2. Re:This probably causes permanent damage. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      These methods are definitely cruel. On the other hand, if the research actually led to a reduction in the power of sonar systems used, then it would be worth harming a few dolphins. The problem is that if anything the research will be used to figure out the minimum sonar power required to paralyse dolphins for capture so they can be trained as mine sweepers or something.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:This probably causes permanent damage. by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no - that's like asking what the minimum amount of light to stun a person is because you want a tac-light to use as a primary weapon. It doesn't work like that -- the answer to my question is "bright enough to ionize a thin layer of skin/clothing into an EMP-emitting plasma" and I suspect the answer to your question is "Loud enough to pulverize bone and tear nerve fibers". Problem is, both kinda cause permanent injury. Phasers don't have a magical stun setting, and you can't cause complete temporary incapacitation without at leastrisking permanent damage, making yield (captured healthy dolphins that can be trained up into useful minesweepers) low and unit cost prohibitively high, making swarms of drones the cheap and easy option.

    4. Re:This probably causes permanent damage. by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Plus if whale song isn't happening for a while, a space probe will come by and wreck everything.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  10. Only military? by ravster · · Score: 1
    So why only military sonar? Couldn't this happen even with regular sonar? Or is the military using more sound than is necessary?

    Or is the Times just military-bashing?

    1. Re:Only military? by Walpurgiss · · Score: 1

      My thinking is that most civilian craft employ only passive sonar, whereas military is much more likely to use both passive and active sonar. Active pings being what causes the damage.

      Or maybe all craft have both active and passive capability, but the civvy crafts are less likely to need active for anything, and certainly military craft are more likely to test their active sonar more often.

    2. Re:Only military? by EdipisReks · · Score: 2, Informative

      So why only military sonar? Couldn't this happen even with regular sonar?

      not a lot of high powered sonar use in the civilian world, i would guess.

    3. Re:Only military? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Contradicition:
      http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=48723961015

      Not that I personally believe it don't effect them, though we may not know how to tell.

      Anyway, I guess the military may use more power to get more details / find objects not revealed on regular sonar / ..

    4. Re:Only military? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      The most common type of sonar found on "civvy" craft would be a depth finder. Which would be a low power active sonar device. There's very little use in passive sonar (or high power active sonar) on civilian vessels outside of oceanographic research.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    5. Re:Only military? by initdeep · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what do you think?

      the military probably uses less sonar in day to day operations than the rest of the scientific community does.

      after all, how can you plot out that wreck without side scanning sonar?
      how can you map those undersea ridges and trenches without using some sort of down firing sonar?

      the truth of the matter is, sonar as used by the military is mostly a passive system.

      it's kinda like sitting out in the woods while hunting. you don't go around making a lot of noise because it can be heard further away than you can hear the animals you're hunting.

      which, depending on the animal, either allows them to flee undetected or allows them to hone in on your location and find you and kill you.

      it's the same reason military jets don't just fly around with their search radar on, because it can be detected a long way off, and with some simple geometry and two reception points, they know where the jet now is.....

      and then they can use a less detectable method to eliminate that jet.

      like say an infra-red heat seeking missle instead of one that requires radar guidance.

    6. Re:Only military? by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Civilian craft rarely have passive sonar.

      Civilian active sonar tend to be very low power.

      Civilian craft tend to rely on radar for finding stuff they want to not run into. Microwaves are strongly absorbed by water. Therefore, marine life is strongly shielded from such emissions by water. For this reason, civilian ships detection systems pose minimal threat to sea life. (Their engine noise, however...)

    7. Re:Only military? by mshannon78660 · · Score: 1

      Not a contradiction at all - the article you linked to only mentions testing with rainbow trout - and the study's author points out that he would hesitate to generalize his results even to other types of fish - let alone to marine mammals like dolphins and whales.

    8. Re:Only military? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      So why only military sonar? Couldn't this happen even with regular sonar?

      The military uses loud bursts of sound.

      Or is the military using more sound than is necessary?

      Some think so.

      Falcon

  11. please don't tap on the glass by Bobtree · · Score: 1

    Maybe they beached just to get away from the awful noise?

    1. Re:please don't tap on the glass by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Nah, they are probably just out after the sex:
      http://sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html

  12. Temporary damage and singing under water... by yogibaer · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The deafness, though, was only temporary and the dolphin was not hurt in the experiment, said Mooney." So the experiment is still cruel but obviously no permanent damage. Deafness aside: Loud noise causes disorientation and nausea in humans, so why not in dolphins. BTW: A "singing" Whale produces a sound pressure level of up to 185 dB under water! (s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure_level#Examples_of_sound_pressure_and_sound_pressure_levels) So 200 sounds extreme but remember its not air we are talking about, but water. For comparison the hearing threshhold of a diver is 67dB at 1khz. The auditory threshhold through the air at 1khz is 0 dB.

    1. Re:Temporary damage and singing under water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound waves, or sonar waves, or 2.4Ghz 802.11x waves, or light waves, will all have more trouble traveling through (insert any material here) than through air. As a simple test, try putting your wireless access point on the opposite side of a few inches or feet of concrete and look at what happens to your SNR (dB). 203dB at the source may be significantly less dB by the time it reaches whatever living creature under the water. The Parent raises a good point about hearing thresholds under the water, it seems significantly more dB is needed for any creature to "hear" anything while submerged. Can the scientists tell if the animals are really losing their hearing or if they are being jammed by the sonar frequency and they simply require quite a bit of time to re-attenuate after the jamming has ceased?

    2. Re:Temporary damage and singing under water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sounds travels better in water than in air. It's both faster and less attenuating in water. It's a strange thing, but sounds travels faster in denser media while RF travels slower in denser media. Spreading loss is the same, of course.

    3. Re:Temporary damage and singing under water... by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So 200 sounds extreme

      Well yeah, it is. Comparing it to 185 is pointless since decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale.

    4. Re:Temporary damage and singing under water... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Slashdot needs a mod option "incorrect" for stuff like this. Sound isn't the same thing as light and it isn't the same thing as 2.4 GHz microwaves. Sound travels better through water than air. Sound doesn't travel at all through vacuum.

    5. Re:Temporary damage and singing under water... by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      From the same page, we get the alpheidae or 'pistol shrimp', whose snapping claws produce cavitation, sonoluminescence, and temperatures as high as 5000K. This generates sound levels as high as 218dB, or 190dB from 1m.

    6. Re:Temporary damage and singing under water... by santiago · · Score: 1

      Exactly. 200 dB is just over 31 times more powerful than 185 dB.

  13. Humans rule! Dolphins can suck it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvoCojrj4qw

  14. And how does 203 dB compare to sonar levels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, if the sonar levels the dolphins hear during the exercise is only, say, 180 dB then this was a dumb experiment, akin to testing whether someone could be hurt by a 1/2 oz plastic toy car to running around naked on the 405 at rush hour in LA.

    Anyone know the sound levels sonar generates?

    1. Re:And how does 203 dB compare to sonar levels? by Morlark · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well if you're really so pressed for time...

      According to the very first result, a sonar source of 240dB will result in a perceived intensity of 180dB at a distance of 1km, and 150-160dB at a distance of 160km. However, this does not mean that the experiment was "dumb", and your attempt to dismiss what was in fact an entirely rigorous scientific experiment solely on the basis of your own failure to read the damned summary (let alone TFA) is more than a little grating.

      In actual fact, prior research (albeit conducted "in the wild" rather than in the strict laboratory conditions that this recent article was) has shown that whales and dolphins will actively avoid, and even show obvious physical distress at sonar at intensities as "low" (relatively speaking - in fact it's actually not very low at all) as 120dB. Yes, that does mean that marine life over 100 miles away from the actual source of the sonar will be suffering negative effects.

      Going back to this recent experiment, however, and your oh so obligatory /. car analogy, allow me to correct the analogy to something more suitable. This experiment was like testing whether someone would be hurt by having a car run into you at 50 mph, and discovering that, yep, that's gonna hurt. Then they gradually ramped up the speed, and brought in bigger cars, until they discovered that when you get hit by an SUV going at 90 mph, you're going to be dead before you hit the ground. That's what the 203dB figure represents. They increased the intensity of the sonar pings until they discovered the point at which the dolphin became totally deaf. The experiment was totally methodical and rigorous, and about as far from "dumb" as you can possibly get.

      --
      Santa's suicide mission go!
  15. 203 decibels!? by Spazmania · · Score: 0, Troll

    You make a 203 decibel noise next to *anything* and it'll become deaf, including human beings. A vacuum cleaner is only 80 dB and the front rows of a rock concert only 110 dB.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:203 decibels!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah well I doubt that same vacuum cleaner is 80 dB underwater my friend. Think about it. How do sound waves work.

    2. Re:203 decibels!? by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      How do sound waves work.

      It's a pressure wave in a physical media. Travels about 300m/s in air, 1500m/s in seawater. Damps out slower in dense media than sparse media, so it travels much further in water and retains its amplitude for longer.

      When I played Phil Collins' Another Day In Paradise through a 1000-watt underwater speaker during an acoustics experiment near the Hudson Canyon a decade and a half ago, it was still readily audible to the hydrophone arrays towed by the other ships miles away.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    3. Re:203 decibels!? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      really, it makes a tree deaf? how about ants? whales?
      You do know that whales emit a sound that approaches 200 dB, right?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. to the "wellduh" taggers by dAzED1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My wife is a wildlife conservation researcher, and specifically works with animals in the Delphinidae family (which include dolphins). There's a lot of stuff she, and others, have to - must - verify, even if it seems to be a "wellduh."

    The alternative would be that science just thinks correlation = causation. Is that what we want? "Well, Navy ships used sonar, and these whales stranded themselves...must be related. Case closed." Instead, someone did actual science showing that sonar causes real deafness in these animals. And someone wants to harsh that?

    I say instead that there should be a tag, "abouttimetheyverified"

    1. Re:to the "wellduh" taggers by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Science is only useful to some people when it aligns with their sensibilities. That goes for pretty much all sides of whatever debate you are in.

      In this case, the point is that they would rather not risk any dolphin be hurt to get a scientific answer. That's actually a fair position, as it is the one we take with humans.

      That said, the Navy isn't just testing SONAR for shits and giggles, and you can be certain that the Chinese and Russians don't give a shit about dolphins. That means that it's necessary for science to step in to tell us just how far we can go before we start doing things to wildlife that are not outweighed by the national security risks.

      "Common sense" is not going to be sufficient in this case, nor should it be.

    2. Re:to the "wellduh" taggers by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      I was in the USMC, and my little bro is in the USNavy; I'm far from a military-basher. And I agree that very few other world powers will give a rat's ass whether or not their harming anything. I also do actual animal welfare work (I don't do protests), I'm vegan, and I make efforts to not buy products from companies that do animal testing; I certainly appreciate the "don't hurt dolphins to do the testing" angle, too.

      However, it doesn't change the fact that "wellduh" mocks the scientific value of actually doing research versus merely guessing through correlation. Science is a cold, heartless creature - one that cares not. It is the scientist who must care. Science, though, requires that something actually be studied.

      It would be a lot easier if the dolphin could have volunteered for the task, but...err...we're not to the point of communicating that sort of thing, yet.

    3. Re:to the "wellduh" taggers by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      to be clear - "abouttimetheyverified" if they were, on a scientific level, going to make the claim. I do understand the "don't harm" point. I, however, think that has nothing to do with the "wellduh" tagging (see subject line).

      my first reply to you made absolutely none of that clear. lol

  17. Re:Disarmament by initdeep · · Score: 5, Interesting

    you do realize that 99%+ of the time, these terrible nuclear submarines don't even use ANY form of sonar other than underwater microphones don't you?
    To a similar (though not as high degree) neither do surface ships.

    I didnt think so.

    yet another example of a slashtard talking out of their ass with absolutely NO idea what they are talking about.

    And yes, I did happen to serve on one of these terrible nuclear submarines.

    and in the case of missle subs, it's probably closer to three nines or more.

    ssbn subs are holes in the water that strive to make absolutely no noise.

    you can hear the original sound wave a lot further off than you can hear the return echo which is always weaker.

    and that's before you even throw in the effect of temperature gradients and convergence zones.

    another thing to ponder is what was the frequency used?
    and does this matter.

    the reason i say this is that MOST sonar is low frequency or extremely low frequency, with the exception being high frequency sonar used to search for underwater mines and to penetrate ice fields.

    of course, why mention these type things as they will just muddy the waters and potentially invalidate the test.........

    (I said potentially, not that they do, i have no idea and based on the report, neither does anyone else)

  18. Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by ericferris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Classic Greek authors tell us that in the ancient Greece, dolphins and whales were already found stranded on the shore. This was a windfall for the locals, who were not eating meat very often. They saw it as a divine gift and thanked Poseidon for it.

    So considering that the Greek galleys didn't use sonar, we need to stop barking at the wrong tree and find the cause of this phenomenon. My money is on a parasitic disease that affects the brain.

    --
    Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 2, Funny

      Classic Greek authors tell us that in the ancient Greece, dolphins and whales were already found stranded on the shore. This was a windfall for the locals, who were not eating meat very often. They saw it as a divine gift and thanked Poseidon for it. So considering that the Greek galleys didn't use sonar, we need to stop barking at the wrong tree and find the cause of this phenomenon.

      Unless, of course, there was a sonar-equipped sub from Atlantis somewhere nearby... Or submerged alien vessels.

    2. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang, you tin-foil hat folks beat me to it!

    3. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by raddan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or maybe the causes of stranding are a many-to-one relation, i.e., that there is more than one cause, and that use of sonar is only one of them. E.g., you find dead birds with broken necks all the time. It is disingenuous to say that windows are the cause of all broken bird necks, and we can point out that people have found dead birds with broken necks even in antiquity. But it is equally disingenuous to say that windows have nothing to do with it.

    4. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by ericferris · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, that's the kind of assumptions you need to make if you want to keep blaming the sonar of the *EVIL MILITARY* (thunder rolls).

      The arrogance of every young generations is to believe all problems on Earth are created by their parents' incompetence. Get a haircut and a bath, you hippies!

      --
      Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    5. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by qw0ntum · · Score: 1

      From the summary:

      Most strandings are still thought to be natural events, but the tests strengthen fears that exercises by naval vessels equipped with sonar are responsible for at least some of them.

      No one said that strandings aren't a natural phenomenon. They have multiple causes! You didn't even have to click a link to see that!

      --
      'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
    6. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless, of course, the submerged, sonar-equipped alien city of Atlantis was nearby.

      There, fixed that for you.

    7. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by OolimPhon · · Score: 2, Funny

      So considering that the Greek galleys didn't use sonar

      [Citation needed]

    8. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      What.The.Fuck. There can only be one cause for a particular behavior? So you're telling me that because people died years ago from stab wounds, they can't possibly die from bullet wounds? Let me guess - you also think that anthropogenic Climate Change is a hoax because the weather changed before humans were around?

      Yes, it could well be a parasitic disease that causes SOME dolphins to beach themselves. Doesn't mean it's the ONLY reason ALL dolphins beach themselves.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by ericferris · · Score: 1

      Your logic is flawless. Clearly no further discussion is needed, you provided us enlightenment.

      --
      Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    10. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      You're only partially right. The discussion was over when you brought Ancient Greeks into a discussion about whether sonar can deafen dolphins and whales.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    11. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by ericferris · · Score: 1

      I am disappointed. By now, my bringing up of the ancient Greeks should have degenerated into a discussion about homosexuality and why the average slashdotter is a bloody queer. Must be slow today.

      --
      Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    12. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see:

      Dolphin stranding occurred in ancient Greece.
      Dolphin stranding occurred recently near sonar-using vessels.

      Your conclusion: Dolphin stranding has nothing to do with sonar-using vessels.

      People died in ancient Greece.
      People died near nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      So your conclusion would be: People dying has nothing to do with nuclear explosions.

      Maybe your logic is explained by parasitic disease of the brain.

    13. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Fag. Better?

      On a different topic - your blog seems to illustrate the fact that people tend to view the world through the lens of their existing specializations. It wouldn't be unexpected for an avid historian to bring Ancient Greece into a discussion about sonars.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    14. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by Pandrake · · Score: 1

      Ancient Greece had some incidents where dolphins and whales were found stranded on the shore. Ancient Greece did not have sonar. Therefore, sonar today does not strand dolphins and whales on todays shore, it's something else.

      Is that what you're claiming is a logical conclusion?

    15. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by ericferris · · Score: 1

      > Fag. Better?

      Thank you for restauring cosmic equilibrium. This is now an average Slashdot discussion. :-)

      And you are absolutely right, I am a history buff.

      You are also right about multiple causation and the fact that a known cause A for a given observation doesn't preclude the existence of an unknown cause B.

      Here, scientific prudence recommends that we correlate an observation with historical occurrences before we attribute it to a new factor. If there was any obvious inner ear damage in stranded mammals, the obvious cause would be sonar. To the best of my knowledge, no such damage was found in stranded mammals. This seems to go against the man-made sound explanation.

      On the other hand, some dolphin autopsies showed evidence of bacterial infection of nervous tissue. Now that is an interesting finding. I also read an interesting hypothesis about cerebral amoeba infection. I'd like to see these plausible causes eliminated before going after a less-than-obvious possible cause. Occam's razor and all that.

      --
      Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    16. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      So considering that the Greek galleys didn't use sonar, we need to stop barking at the wrong tree and find the cause of this phenomenon. My money is on the drummer.
      Ba boom ba boom, ba boom ba boom
      Ramming speed! ; )

      That or the burning Greek oil.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    17. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by MRe_nl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember: this is /.
      So please stop making complete and utter sense.
      But continue blaming Windows.

      And it's bark "UP" the wrong tree, not "AT", OP.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    18. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by ericferris · · Score: 1

      If the drummer's noise is your hypothetic cause then you need to be consistent. To be consistent, you should blame boom boxes in the Navy ships' mess, not sonar.

      See, outlandish hypothesis are OK, provided you are consistent with them. Remember: a good hypothesis supplies a theory which explains the observed facts, predicts more facts yet to be observed, and can be falsified by an experiment. Otherwise it's not science, it's slashdot.

      --
      Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    19. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by quetzalblue · · Score: 1

      OK, so maybe they didnt have SONAR on those galleys, but given that Greece is in an active volcanic zone and that an underwater earthquake occurs underwater, the resulting shocks might prove to be interesting. Maybe even low frequency rumbling conducted thru the water might be enough to stun or confuse them. As someone else pointed out, there didnt seem to be any importance associated to the frequency of the sonar used for the tests.

    20. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      If there was any obvious inner ear damage in stranded mammals, the obvious cause would be sonar. To the best of my knowledge, no such damage was found in stranded mammals.

      Such evidence is there, for Low Frequency Active Sonar. There is also evidence for something else. "Research on whale carcasses show hemorrhages in the lungs.

      I also read an interesting hypothesis about cerebral amoeba infection. I'd like to see these plausible causes eliminated before going after a less-than-obvious possible cause.

      Less than obvious? It's quite obvious to me, because of an ear infection I got as a child I can't take loud sounds very well. In two cases one of my ears started to bleed. I once blacked out when someone yelled in my ear. I was in the army when it happened. And whenever we target practiced we wore ear plugs, so the army knew it could be bad. I used to also scuba dive, I haven't in years though, and know how loud noises can affect ears underwater as well.

      Falcon

    21. Re:Dolphin stranding in ancient Greece by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Your logic seems to be implying that there is only one cause of dolphin strandings. Is that what you're saying?

  19. Excellent by proxy318 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now we have a new weapon for the inevitable dolphin uprising.

    --
    Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
    1. Re:Excellent by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new Deaf Dolphin Overloards..

  20. Not all decibels are the same! by Reverberant · · Score: 5, Informative

    WRT to all of the "203 decibels, OMG!" comments: water decibels aren't the same as SPL decibels.

    A decibel is the logarithmic relationship between one quantity and a reference quantity. For sound pressure level, we use the RMS pressure of the sound wave compared to a reference pressure that represents the threshold of human hearing (20 microPa): 20*Log10(P/20e-6)

    Other types of decibels use different reference quantities. For example, vibration velocity in the USA uses a reference quantify of 10^-6 in/sec. Sound intensity (sound power through a unit area) uses a reference quantity of 10^-12 W/m2. So comparing sad sound intensity decibels to vibration velocity decibels is meaningless without normalizing the units.

    In the case of water decibels, we use pressure as we do for SPL in air, but the reference quantity is different: for water, the reference quantity is typically 1 microPa. Therefore the 203 dB in water is approximately equivalent to about 170 dB SPL in air. Of course you still can't directly compare water dB to SPL because the wavelengths of sound in water are so much longer than wavelengths of sound in air.

    In any event, 203 dB in water is very loud (and obviously harmful to aquatic life as demonstrated in the articles), but not necessarily in the same way that 173 dB SPL is loud/harmful to us.

    1. Re:Not all decibels are the same! by Ginsu2000 · · Score: 1

      Regarding dolphin and whale strandings - Theories I have heard range from magnetic disturbances (when navigating the earth's fields) to shallow sandy bottom transitions not being as well detected under stress (as when being chased by Orcas) to very/extremely low frequency sonar which impairs not only Sonar but neuron function. For a poor analogy imagine sitting next to a large humming vibrating transformer for hours on end. Research suggests the very/extremely low frequencies in the Schumann cavity (wikipedia) effect all terrestrial life on earth via neuron resonance (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJJ-4MG1MP5-J&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e71c8fcb3aac09b4a452f7c815ba6bc5)

    2. Re:Not all decibels are the same! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. For example 1.21GW is equal to 120.828dBm.

  21. Re:Disarmament by peragrin · · Score: 1

    You do know that subs very rarely use active sonar? It is giving away your position. Surface ships tend to use active sonar to assit in finding subs that are trying to hide. First strike weapons hide. That is their first goal. If you use active sonar you tell everyone within a couple hundred miles of exactly whereyour hiding.

    Then again your an AC you probably don't know such basic things.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  22. Re:Disarmament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Random unstructured Tourette's-style musings rarely translate well in a written medium (even on Slashdot).

    There's no doubt something valuable in your post, but unless you write out your thoughts in a coherent form, we won't know what it is.

  23. It's the "Brown Note" for dolphins and whales . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    . . . I don't think it's the decibels, but the frequency. Obviously military sonar frequency is the "Brown Note" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note for dolphins and whales.

    The sound is not just making them deaf, it's scaring the poor critters shit-less.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  24. Re:Disarmament by tarius8105 · · Score: 2, Informative

    people use sonar trying to FIND subs, moron. If the subs aren't there, no sonar.

    God, no wonder you went into the military. no other options.

    You are the moron. Subs dont use active sonar unless there is no other choice because it reveals their location. Subs use passive sonar 98% of the time. Calling him a moron and having no choice is an assumption based on that you are the moron. Any member on a submarine is not your normal enlisted seaman, they actually have to screen candidates so they can get the job done. Its not some infantry man throwing on some headphones and listening. Also if submarines used active sonar, we would never have news about two subs colliding as they could easily see each other.

  25. Re:Disarmament by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    Oh, yeah, slashdot is a conservative hotspot!

            Brett

  26. Worst Case Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they beach?

    Well, in the worst case, I guess it could be that they'd rather be stuck on a beach than continue to endure the sonar.

  27. Good thing by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing this affects dolphins instead of sharks. What platform would we use for our lasers if sharks were this easy to mess up?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  28. Re:Disarmament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure the neo-cons that have infested /. in the last couple years will disagree

    This isn't your own little private sandbox.

    BTW SLBMs aren't really intended as first strike weapons although they could be used that way. They're meant to be counterstrike weapons because they're hidden away and cannot be reliably taken out in a first strike.

  29. screw defense by logjon · · Score: 1

    what we really need is dolphins. delicious dolphins.

    --
    The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
    Only fools would take it as fact.
  30. Shallow Water by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Maybe shallow water very near the beach is less affected by sonar. Perhaps that's why a lot of these critters don't seem too interested in being chucked back into the noise by helpful humans.

  31. Re:Disarmament by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 0, Troll

    Unless the military are doing drills, which is why people have been campaigning for the drills to be done further out where there are less dolphins. But people like fox news, take offense to the idea of caring about anything when national security is involved!

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  32. Good... by EddyPearson · · Score: 1

    ...now when they come for us, we'll be ready.

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  33. Re:Disarmament by Chrontius · · Score: 2, Informative

    Submarines are sneaky little bitches. 200+ dB sonar is painting a glowing "Shoot me!" sign on your hull for enemy torpedoes to follow. The "Shoot me!" effect goes (much) further than the effective range of your sonar, meaning that turning on active sonar is giving away a large advantage, and essentially a panic button. It is a thing to be avoided, so unless in times of war, active sonar is rarely used.

  34. Wrong solution by PPH · · Score: 1

    It seems that the Navy may be pursuing the wrong solution to increasing sonar range and resolution. Rather than increasing the transmit power to such levels, perhaps more sensitive receivers are needed. Whales and dolphins echo location capabilities exceed the current capabilities of Navy equipment and they don't need any 200db or more power outputs.

    It is believed that whales can communicate over hundreds of miles. Such levels of sensitivity also lend themselves to passive detection (for the Navy) which is a far better strategy than banging away, letting the enemy know you are looking and where you are.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Wrong solution by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Don't you think they're working on that as fast and hard as reasonably practical?

    2. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whales are also amazingly loud. It's not like they are listening for whispering from hundreds of miles away. Whale calls can be used for stunning prey as large as giant squid.

    3. Re:Wrong solution by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yes, at close range. But whales can hear prey (passively) from the surface when its over a mile deep.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  35. Someone Call the Superfriends by dhermann · · Score: 1

    And thus began Aquaman's cruel campaign of dominance over the feeble human race. Only decades later, put to work as slaves at the endless seaweed farms, did the puny nautical scientists determine that deafening dolphins was probably not a smart idea.

  36. Looks like Bill Belichick.... by tsnorquist · · Score: 1

    Is up to his sneaky antics again.

  37. Re:Disarmament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you do realize that 99%+ of the time, these terrible nuclear submarines don't even use ANY form of sonar other than underwater microphones don't you?
    To a similar (though not as high degree) neither do surface ships.

    I didnt think so.

    Uh, you do realize that 99%+ of the time, serial killers are not killing ANY people don't you?
    To a similar (though not as high degree) neither do ninjas.

    I didnt think so.

  38. A small problem with the conclusion by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To induce deafness in the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, the sonar device would have to be loud, close and would need to last for at least two minutes.

    To the best of my knowledge, SONAR is short bursts of loud noise broken by longer periods of quiet to receive and process the return echos. Two minutes of continuous sound is not going to happen. Even if the effect is cumulative, a cetacean would have to travel with the source for over five minutes which it is unlikely to do if the SONAR is injurious. Would you hang out in an excruciatingly loud environment?

    Now, some will point to this:Sound can become trapped if a layer of warm water lies over cold water. When sound created in the warm zone reaches the cold water it can bounce back instead of travelling though it. This, Dr Mooney said, would have the effect of trapping the sound in the warm layer, where it would bounce around "like a ping-pong ball", giving whales and dolphins little chance of escaping it.

    But, the thing is, dolphins and whales are mammals. The would leave the noisy layer when they surfaced. Therefore, they would quickly learn how to escape the sound: surface or dive.

    The conclusions seem specious to me.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:A small problem with the conclusion by Reverberant · · Score: 1

      To the best of my knowledge, SONAR is short bursts of loud noise broken by longer periods of quiet to receive and process the return echos.

      You don't need quiet to receive and process the return echo, you can use cross-correlation/cross-spectral techniques to process the return pulse even if it's buried in noise. If that wasn't the case, you could defeat sonar simply by blasting noise into the water to bury the sonar pulses.

    2. Re:A small problem with the conclusion by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      When I say quiet, I am referring to the SONAR system itself. The system broadcasts a sound then becomes quiet and listens for echos. The system does not broadcast a continuous sound because it could not determine distance to target for the echo.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    3. Re:A small problem with the conclusion by Reverberant · · Score: 1

      Yes you can determine the distance by broadcasting a continuous sound by if the sonar signal is known (which it is) and running a cross-correlation on the return signal even in the process of continuing to broadcast your signal (or other vessels continuing to broadcast their signals. In fact you're liable to get a much better signal-to-noise ratio by running a long pulse train and cross-correlating the results than by using simple pulses (see MLS).

      I don't know if this is how sonar was used in this case, but it can be used that way.

    4. Re:A small problem with the conclusion by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      But, the thing is, dolphins and whales are mammals. The would leave the noisy layer when they surfaced. Therefore, they would quickly learn how to escape the sound: surface or dive.

      Perhaps you need to reread the paragraph above this in your post. The sound gets trapped in the warm layer which is on top. To escape the sound they would have to dive.

      Falcon

    5. Re:A small problem with the conclusion by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      But, the thing is, dolphins and whales are mammals. The would leave the noisy layer when they surfaced. Therefore, they would quickly learn how to escape the sound: surface or dive.

      This assumes that they have surfaced during an event enough times to learn the correlation, and that no matter what they are doing, whenever they hear the sound, they will quickly surface. It also seems to assume that the dolphins know they should do this because they somehow know the sound may cause temporary or permanent hearing lose, rather than just experiencing an annoying or intolerable sound.

    6. Re:A small problem with the conclusion by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you saw an animal purposely stay in or enter an "intolerable" situation?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    7. Re:A small problem with the conclusion by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      Would you hang out in an excruciatingly loud environment?

      People do every day... they're called concerts. Particularly Rock and Heavy Metal genres known for being loud loud LOUD.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    8. Re:A small problem with the conclusion by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      So, we are to assume that dolphins and whales find a single loud tone to be enjoyable?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    9. Re:A small problem with the conclusion by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      When they didn't know what was going on? When they didn't realise they had entered something they don't understand?

  39. phew by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    I, for one, am glad that the military is working on weapons to defend ourselves from the upcoming dolphin invasion. I know (from various sources) that the dolphinkind have been planning their move for dominance for a long time, but their efforts have been thwarted yet again by that intelligence and heroism of the US navy.

    Go Humanity!

    1. Re:phew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So long and thanks for all the fish!

  40. Temporary by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    Experiments like these are like putting people next to a jet engine to see if their hearing gets damaged. I am no PETA freak, but putting 200+ decibels is bound to do permanent damage. I know they said it is temporary, but that might be like my "temporary" hearing loss from the Boston show a few months back. Yes, I could hear fine afterward* but I wonder what incremental loss I might have had from all that loudness.

    ...

    Probably much of what people claim as 'recovered' hearing is probably just getting used to the hearing loss.

    I'm not sure how they spin the "temporary" aspect of the dolphin's hearing loss. Do the spinmeisters mean that some hearing is lost, temporarily when measured in the grand scheme of things? Or that on an absolute scale that although the hearing loss lasts for the rest of the dolphins' lives, that only amounts to just a few days and thus the hearing loss is 'just temporary'.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  41. Why doesn't someone tag this as "failwhale"? by Robotbeat · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't anyone tag this as "failwhale"? Is it because of the technicality that dolphins aren't whales? Still, it's such a good opportunity!

    1. Re:Why doesn't someone tag this as "failwhale"? by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      Calling it a technicality makes it seem trivial. Imagine, after surgery: "Oh, you were the tonsil removal, not the sex change? Oh well, just a technicality."

  42. Sounds like BS by Sheik+Yerbouti · · Score: 1

    I was in the navy and trained extensively in ASW operations. They don't use active sonar that is sonar that emits sound much if at all because it gives away your position like putting a giant bullseye on your sub or ship.

    They generally use towed array passive sonar which is an array of sensitive acoustic listening devices towed well behind the sub to be separated from the cavitation of the prop. And it does not emit sound. So this whole oh noes the evil Military is buttfucking sweet mother Gaia sounds like BS in this case.

    They do dump a lot of trash in the ocean though as I understand it they are incinerating much of that now.

    1. Re:Sounds like BS by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I was in the navy and trained extensively in ASW operations. They don't use active sonar that is sonar that emits sound much

      The US Navy doesn't use active sonar? "Spr08_Training With Active Sonar While Protecting Marine Life [pdf]".

      Falcon

  43. 203 decibels? by Kynde · · Score: 1

    If they'd played that loud on land at me I'd jump to the ocean. qed.

    --
    1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
  44. awwwww! by blondie.xo · · Score: 1

    This is terrible! These poor dolphins. Stupid researchers should just leave them alone!

  45. Re:Disarmament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, having the the gp and your post now a couple of times (which could've done wonders for you,too) I feel quite confident saying "no, you are the moron".

  46. They want to believe. by Nebeline · · Score: 1

    I wonder if dolphins have alien abduction experiences? The aural equivalent of a blinding light, a sensation of disorientation, shadowy figures inserting implants into their brains, powerful military technology and tacit government involvement... The truth is out there.

  47. EER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explosive Echo Ranging used by the U.S. Navy for long distance sonar. They use actual explosives to generate a shock wave. It kills and deafens these poor creatures. You can hear them scream in the headphones.

  48. how humane... by alxkit · · Score: 0

    Tests on a captive dolphin have demonstrated

    why don't we test out some mustard gas on them too? i will never understand some people.

    1. Re:how humane... by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      You'll never understand because you'll never undertake the effort. Try taking a good look around the very page you're on; you'll find several explanations as to why this isn't really as bad as what you're thinking in your knee-jerk response.

      Actually no, don't. Go ahead and keep whatever worldview you have that makes you think all them there scientists are just beatin' up dolphins all day.

    2. Re:how humane... by Nebeline · · Score: 1

      dude, jokefail.

  49. Duh?! by __aajoqa250 · · Score: 1

    This is about the oldest news I've seen on /.

  50. It is the torpedos and depth charges more likely by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Sonar isn't nearly as loud as a torpedo or depth charge exploding under water.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  51. Not all ears are the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While you are mathematically correct, "only 170 decibals" to a human is still deafening, and dolphins have a far more sensitive hearing system than humans (actually, humans have pretty awful earing, being primarily visually oriented). Furthermore, whales and dolphins are mammals, so they are breathing at surface pressure and equalizing as they change depths. That means the increased pressure at depth is no protection.

    1. Re:Not all ears are the same by Reverberant · · Score: 1

      "Far more sensitive hearing" depends on the frequency range. If you look at the curves on this page you can see that while dolphins are indeed far more sensitive to (aquatic) sounds in the higher frequencies than humans are, their low-frequency thresholds are pretty high.

  52. Could someone explain why I should care? by tjstork · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't mean to be callous... but I just can't help it. Why should I care if Dolphins die or not.

    If I'm religious, then God gave me and not they a soul, so its ok to whack them.

    If I'm not religious, then, it's just a popularity contest to be nice to dolphins, but, may I like the fish that dolphins eat... dolphins heard those little fish with their sonar and just gobble them up.

    Little fish, I have come to liberate you!

    Dolphins, you suck. P I N G....

    --
    This is my sig.
  53. taste by Andoman78 · · Score: 1

    Honestly I kind of miss the taste of the 50/50 tuna to dolphin blend in starkist tuna cans. Gave it a little bit of a zing.

  54. Re:Sonar, Neocons, /. and such by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dumbshit.

    That may be true for other subs, but surface ships have no practical way to mask their noise.

    Also, sonar buoys used by aircraft have no need to conceal its position.

    That's what morons get for relying on the steaming pile of inaccurate crap that is Wikipedia.

    The only thing baffling here is how you managed to figure out how to start a computer and post on Slashdot.

  55. Why do they beach? by NoRefill · · Score: 1

    Maybe since the water is the medium for the sound that is causing them pain, they are trying to leave that medium to stop the pain. I don't know, but makes sense to me.

  56. Except the didn't test that... by the_raptor · · Score: 1

    This would be a very interesting study if they had of tested how the effect of military sonar on dolphin and whale hearing can cause beaching. All they did was show that yes dolphins are affected by sonar. Something that could pretty much be inferred from biology and physics. We don't need to shoot dolphins to prove they are vulnerable to bullets.

    The problem with this study is that a follow up to show a how much military sonar effects beachings probably won't happen for years, if it ever happens. And in the mean time we will have PETA and the like demanding that sonar not be used because of the "scientific proof" that it causes most beachings, or something equally stupid.

    I wonder when they will find out what high power radar used to do to birds? Of course Dolphins are higher up the cute scaleâ of animal compassion.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  57. Re:Disarmament by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Assuming your ping comes from the sub, of course, and not something that the sub dropped five minutes ago...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  58. Oh, good... harmless... by johnshirley · · Score: 1

    "...scientists fitted a harmless suction cup to the dolphin's head..." Okay, harmless is good... "... when the pings reached 203 decibels and were repeated, the neurological data showed the mammal had become deaf..." Hmm... not so harmless. 203db would to some pretty significant and permanent damage to human ears and ours aren't even as sensitive as dolphins'. How is this surprising?

  59. Comtemplating Our Navy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when the pings reached 203 decibels and were repeated ...

    I would pay $1000 to be able to press and hold a button for as long as I wanted that exposed an officer of the US Navy who is a proponent of the continuation of sonar testing to 203 decibels of sound, and then to videotape him trying to stand up and find the door after I was finished.

  60. Dolphins Can Swim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since dolphins can swim, if they don't like the sound, volume, water temperature, or whatever, they can just swim away.

    The ocean is pretty big.

  61. WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    click clik? Click click click clik! Click click click. :-(

  62. saving humans by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd personally kill every Dolphin myself if it would save a human life.

    Ah, if you kill every dolphin, you'll also be killing humans. Though rare, dolphins have saved humans, especially from sharks.

    Falcon

  63. Contradicition: by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=48723961015

    That study used fish. Fish are not mammals but dolphins, porpoises, and whales are.

    Not that I personally believe it don't effect them, though we may not know how to tell.

    Marine mammals are shown to hemorrhage from sonar.

    Falcon

  64. music on sonar by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    When I played Phil Collins' Another Day In Paradise through a 1000-watt underwater speaker during an acoustics experiment near the Hudson Canyon a decade and a half ago, it was still readily audible to the hydrophone arrays towed by the other ships miles away.

    Jonesy, is that you? That can be heard all the way down to Pearl Harbor.

    Falcon

  65. They get stranded to run away from the pain. by SebastianPY · · Score: 1
    From the article:
    "Their ears are the most sensitive organ they have"
    "The big question is what causes them to strand"

    Here's an idea: if you overload their "most sensitive organ" to a point of leaving it numb for 40 minutes, that is pretty much torture.

    Imagine that happening to you: a loud noise powerful enough to leave you deaf.

    The answer: you run!

    In the beaches, where they are stranded, these noises probably are not perceived (their ears are out of the water).

    I'd rather die than continue listening to you!

  66. Re:Disarmament by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's not panicky if you want 1 ping only ;)

  67. Really? Nuh uh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No shit! Loud noises make animals go deaf, who woulda thunk it? I'm shocked and amazed, I really am! What a revelation! Loud noises cause deafness. WOW! Thank you to whoever made this discovery because most of us are just too dumb to realize that loud noises cause deafness. That is not completely and totally obvious to most of us! Really, I mean it. Just as soon as I get done eating rocks and finger painting with my poop I'm gonna turn up my MP3 player as loud as it will go and see if I eventually go deaf because I am so utterly shocked by your claim that I am not sure I believe that loud noises cause deafness. Where would we be without brilliant people studying the big questions like whether or not loud noises cause deafness?

    Damn whoever was involved in this study and damn whoever wrote about it. You are jackasses. Next time why don't you try to find out how many teeth are in the mouth of a horse!

  68. Rudimentary Instinct by Dr.+Hok · · Score: 1

    Maybe since the water is the medium for the sound that is causing them pain, they are trying to leave that medium to stop the pain. I don't know, but makes sense to me.

    Yes, and maybe it's simply a rudimentary (leftover) instinct. AFAIK their ancestors were land-dwellers before entering the oceans. In the transition period it would have been essential for survival to evade some unbearable pain (or generally a situation they can't parse) by returning to land.

    As they got more and more used to living in the oceans, the situations where this instinct was triggered became less frequent. And when they finally became unable to return to land, the (now fatal) escape-to-land alerts had become so rare that they didn't hurt the population as a whole, so the instinct never fully went away.

    --
    Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
  69. Well this is a tough one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had no hearing protection and the sound levels in the environment you were in reached the "threshold of pain", you would try to leave the offending environment. Since sound travels for miles underwater, it only makes sense, "get out of the water" to avoid the sound.

  70. Stealth implications by Limburgher · · Score: 1

    You'd think the Navy would pay attention to this. I can't imagine that leaving a trail of oddly-behaving animals would be good for keeping their boat's whereabouts under wraps. "Your sub was in my harbor!" "No, it wasn't" "The trail of deaf and confused dolphins suggests otherwise!"

    --

    You are not the customer.

  71. Remember Bubba clapping your ears? Twas brief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The deafness, though, was only temporary and the dolphin was not hurt in the experiment, said Mooney." So the experiment is still cruel but obviously no permanent damage.

    There is too much left out of the report to come to your conclusion. The deafness was temporary and dolphin not hurt for unknown gradations of deafness, temporary, and hurt.