Slashdot Mirror
Underwater Sonar Linked To Whale Deaths
An anonymous reader writes "A group of scientists have confirmed a link between the sonar used by Exxon Mobil to map the ocean floor for oil and the death of melon-headed whales. From the article: 'A spokesman for ExxonMobil said the company disagrees with the findings. "ExxonMobil believes the panel's finding about the multi-beam echo sounder is unjustified due to the lack of certainty of information and observations recorded during the response efforts in 2008," spokesman Patrick McGinn told AFP in an email. He added that observers employed by the Madagascar government and the oil giant "were on board the vessel and did not observe any whales in the area."'"
We can only use overwater sonar from now on.
If I can't see whales, then they aren't there. Lame.
"ExxonMobil believes the panel's finding about the multi-beam echo sounder is unjustified due to the lack of certainty of information and observations recorded during the response efforts in 2008," spokesman Patrick McGinn told AFP in an email. He added that observers employed by the Madagascar government and the oil giant "were on board the vessel and did not observe any whales in the area."'"
Certainty of information: Nobody requires absolute certainty in science. In fact, even the court system, sad as it is, needs it -- it requires "beyond reasonable doubt", whereas science is similarily situated at "best model that fits the facts". Type of cognitive distortion ExxonMobile uses here: All-or-nothing thinking.
Out of date observations: It's 2013 now. By carefully hand picking your data set to be only, say, 2008, or pre-2008, you are discounting everything that came after. One supposes that an extra five years' worth of observations, we'd be able to narrow in on a cause. But let's humor them and take just 2008. In February of that year, before the incident in question, the US courts found there was enough evidence that high energy sonar was killing whales to ask the military to reduce its use in naval operations.
Impartial observers: Let me sum this one up real easy -- "Managment finds no problem with the management." The government was paid a lot of money to go along with Exxon, and employees of Exxon I think we can safely say aren't impartial observers. So one of the most basic things required for proper fact gathering went right out the window. This is, in effect, an admission that ExxonMobile has no valid data points from which to draw any conclusions whatsoever. It is, from a scientific perspective, pure speculation. "We're not wrong because, er, we saw ourselves doing nothing wrong." Okay... what about everyone else? "We didn't ask them."
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I'm not a fan of oil companies but this is just environmental whackjob propaganda. We know that Wind Energy is responsible for the deaths of lots of protected birds. I think they kill a few dozen bald eagles every year in the U.S. with windmills.
But the 'green' movement is working on getting legal protection for windmills killing flying animals. Even if they are endangered species. Got to protect your 'green' energy companies and stock value and profits. But big oil is the 'true evil' (because they compete with other energy companies).
If underwater sonar killed whales then WWII would have depopulated the entire ocean area where combat took place. Subs would ping anything and everything. Radar, sonar, passive sonar, anything you can do to either detect the enemy, an allied vessel, or just practice for the real thing.
"We're no worse than anyone else and you can't prove otherwise"
All in the subject.
Why don't we use sounds that are very similar to the sounds whales make?
Whale sounds seem to be used for echo location and travel far underwater.
"ExxonMobil believes the panel's finding about the multi-beam echo sounder is unjustified due to the lack of certainty of information and observations recorded during the response efforts in 2008"
This is a perfect example of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). Well done legal team!
Are dead whales less useful than live whales? For what?
If some enlightened alien race came to earth and wiped us out after having looked at the atrocious way we treat other humans and all life on this planet, I'd understand. We don't deserve to live here.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
When your stunningly sensitive hearing detects a large metal plate gong "BONG-BONG-BONG" at 120 decibels, not only does it hurt and you get away, but it ruins your navigation anywhere near the sonar vessel like staring at an oncoming row of trucks with all their high beams turned on will encourage you to get the heck out of the road.
Also, dead whales usually sink, not float, at least when they actually die.
If you read the actual report, you'll see these statements:
"There is no uneqiovocal and easily identifiable single cause of this event,"
"This is the first known such marine mammal mass stranding event closely associated with relatively high-frequency mapping sonar systems,"
"MBES systems (similar) to the 12 kHz source used in this case are in fact commonly used in hydrographic surveys around the world over large areas without such events being previously documented."
"There may well be a very low probability that the operation of such sources will induce marine mammal strandings,"
who in their right mind would believe an oil company? Out of all the sociopathic entities known as corporations, oil companies are the lying, destructive ringleaders.
This isn't really news. Or at least when I read it, I was not at all surprised. We've known for a long time that military sonar is very disruptive to whales and that the noise from boats in general is also disruptive. The sound carries so amazingly far in the ocean. And some of the sonar that the military uses is extremely loud when you compare it to the decibels of, say, being right next to a jet engine, gunshot, etc.
They use "air guns" or something to map underwater oil deposits. Basically make an extremely loud noise and listen for it to bounce back from *beneath* the bottom of the ocean. That's got to deafen the shit out of whales and all the other creatures in the ocean.
Sorry, whales. Really, really sorry. You're probably far more intelligent than we are, but we got thumbs and boats and appetites for meat and oil, so just die already.
Right. How did the report ignore the 240 decibel pings used to find stealth submarines?
I come here for the love
Maybe they already sound very similar to the sounds whales make, and maybe that's why the whales get disoriented and stranded.
c++;
/. forcing AC voice to be most robust with only one comment daily
Bouncing Highly active dipole extremely low radio frequencies off the ionosphere for communication with submarines around the world by several of the most aggressive governments are KILLING WHALES and WHY SHOULD THEY GIVE A SHIT
1. They wouldn't be loud enough, they need very powerful sound for this mapping, that's what damaged the whales' hearing.
2. Don't you think mimicking whale calls might confuse the whales?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
As much as you like to pretend wind energy has no cost, it very much in fact does kill birds, including eagles.
The problem for you and your fellow revisionists is that people can actually see wind farms killing birds. So you can bring up all the studies you like but it doesn't change what actually happens in real life.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Pretty much all of them do...looks like you'll have to become a voodoo witch-doctor. And avoid any of the natural cures they used that modern scientists have found to actually work.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Exxon asked a representative of the whales to come in for an interview and fill out a form detailing the effects --if any-- that the sonar had on their habitat and ecosystem. Exxon even sent out a 30 day compliance notice. Not one, --NOT ONE-- whale even bothered to show up for the information seminars. Clearly the whales are either not concerned, or are going about doing one of those 'Environmental Protests' that you hear about. Exxon gave the whales a chance, and they missed it, so now Exxon can do whatever they want. Oh, and science schmiance. Those whale scientists don't know anything about whales either, nor do they know anything about oil.
Exxon-Mobil's argument that saw no whales only fortifies the suspicion that they were driving the whales away.
Before anyone declares that we need to boycott the local Exxon / Mobil gas stations, let's remember that they usually are not owned by Exxon / Mobil and get their gasoline from the same source as the competition down the street.
Most people have no grounds of reference for sound underwater, which can mislead one to wayward conclusions. dB in water is not the same as dB in air. dB is always given relative to a reference pressure and distance, usually re 1 uPa 1 meter. The higher density of water means an equivalent sound volume (in terms of loudness, or amplitude) will have a much higher dB in water.
Typical sonars are about 160-200 dB re 1 uPa 1 m. The US Navy sonar which caused all the controversy years ago was 226 dB if I remember right. Yes these are loud, but remember it's measured at 1 meter. At 100 meters, it will have attenuated by -40 dB.
Yes those are loud, but I'm a little skeptical of all these claims of sonar harming whales because as most of you know, whales and dolphins use sonar themselves. It's typically 170-190 dB re 1 uPa 1m, with peaks over 220 dB. They're at different frequencies though (100+ kHz for dolphins, 10-25 kHz for most depth finders, 3 kHz for the Navy sonar), and higher frequencies attenuate more quickly in the water.
A bunch of "whale scientists" who's only interest is lining their own pockets via publishing "studies" that simply reinforce their own opinions in order to win yet more taxpayer funding or hard working people who are only trying to satisfy the worlds critical demand for oil? How many times do we have to be fooled by alarmist UNscientific acadmic pinheads before we stop listening to their idiocy?
Exxon-Mobil's argument that saw no whales only fortifies the suspicion that they were driving the whales away.
Dude, stop using basic deductive reasoning. It'll get you into trouble on this website. Judging by the moderation on this thread, you need to swear more, use exclaimation points, and call everyone a moron -- this is apparently how you win arguments now.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
even if they don't believe their sonar affects the whales, is there a reason they continue to use sonar and not some kind of laser based system instead?
possibly deployed on some kind of shark array?
it's not like they can't afford it...
Exxon-Mobil's argument that saw no whales only fortifies the suspicion that they were driving the whales away.
I have this rock that keeps bears away that I'm willing to sell you. It works because I don't see any bears around here.
Whales weren't dying with hemorrages in their ears/heads before the new fangled sonar came out - and now they are.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Exxon seem confident. Then they should go for a dive in the same water and be subject to Sonar. What's not harmful to whales and other sea life could hardly be bad for humans.
The whales are already having a tough time of it, what with the dying. There's no need to insult them as well.
A 12 khz signal cannot travel 65 kilometers underwater with enough amplitude to cause that. The power would dissipate through absorption (ie turned to heat of vibrating the water, etc molecules) and through cylindrical spreading losses.
A signal with enough power to overcome those losses would boil away the water in which it was placed and cavitate resulting in power loss at the source.
A spokesman for ExxonMobil said the company disagrees with the findings.
When is the last time you heard a corporation agree with any kind of information that threatens its profits? Did it ever happen? Is there a recorded case in the history of mankind of a corporation agreeing with some kind of new information without having to be pressured into doing so?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Thanks. In trade, I offer a grizzly bear that has never bitten a human.
Thanks from a fellow moron for the #*&@ing tip!
Exxon is not requiring absolute certainty. I don't see a reviewed paper anywhere, just a report that says Exxon was "the most plausible and likely behavioral trigger". That is far from certainty. The court system is irrelevant, no sense talking about that since 1) I don't know the legal requirements of Madagascar, where the whales got beached and 2) there is no court case.
You are guilty of the "all or nothing" here, not Exxon.
This was a report on a particular set of events that happened in 2008. There is no data past 2008 on those events. The report did not investigate data outside of those events.
I can't tell based on your link if it is discussing the same 12 kilohertz multibeam echosounder system, since it just says "sonar blasts". The article also does not say whether sonar blasts by the US military could be responsible for whale behavior lagoons in Madagascar based on Exxon's technology, which was the point of this research. Following the related links, I see only references to "235 decibels" and "sonar", so there is no certain relevance
Not saying they are different, I'm just saying that there is not enough information to conclude, even with uncertainty, that these are remotely the same technology.
If you want to deal with impartiality, you didn't mention that this report was done by the International Whaling Commission. It's hard to whale when your product ends up as the equivalent of roadkill. When a whale beaches itself, it may be illness, even if you can get there before rot starts. Are they impartial? We also have a quote from "the advocacy group Oceana." Advocacy groups have an agenda, so you can disregard that. And look who compiled the evidence - lots of room for bias all over the place.
But, if we go with your conspiracy theory, then Exxon is vindicated in its lack of certainty of observations (or if you want to read it this way, lack of observations).
For the record, what little news I remember of similar incidents makes me think the report is a reasonable explanation. That makes it "the best model that fits" because it's the only model I know of, hence the only model that fits. I see no other statistics on how often whales get stranded there. "Highly unusual" is very different from "unprecedented", meaning it has happened before. If Exxon was not the cause for a separate event, the what is? Not having an answer to that is the doubt that keeps me from going with my gut instinct to agree completely.
Leftists have long used the sonar argument to try to deprive the US Navy of [a] nuclear submarines, and [b] the ability of surface ships to spot non-American submarines. They mysteriously never seem to use the environmental cause to stop Russian or Chinese Sonar...
Leftists using the sonar argument against "big oil"? Is anybody shocked?
Amazingly, leftists will use the methane argument against frakking and as an argument for vegitarianism, but just cannot see anything wrong with methane when somebody uses it as a "green" "renewable" fuel...
The left used lawsuit after lawsuit to shut down much of America's logging industry (thus driving-up the cost of home construction, furniture, etc) to supposedly "save" the spotted owl, and they have used federal regulations to throw hunters (evil gun owners) in jail for killing a single hawk or eagle (not necessarily the "bald" national-mascot sort) but then they go into court and insist it's A-OK for wind farms to massacre the same birds by the thousands (for the "greater good" of course...)
This is exactly what "global warming" is about: Control and left-wing priorities. Jet travel is EVIL and it's killing the planet if it is corporate executives doing business, but it's wonderful and "for the greater good" if it's Al Gore on a Gulfstream going to give a talk (or make a business deal, or hook-up with somebody at a resort...) or if it's a hundred climate scientists and/or UN bureaucrats, on 30 different jets, traveling to a resort to talk about evil jet emissions. If these people were truly serious and really believed the planet was dying, they (being self-annointed as the world's most informed and responsible experts) would do all their communicating over the intertubes and NONE would fly, or travel in individual cars...
Have you dissected all the melon head whales that have ever died anywhere on Earth and personally verified that none have ever died this way?
Most whales that have died have never even been seen by any human - and only a tiny sample of those seen have been dissected, and of those, VERY few (if any) have their entire lives documented so that one can definitively say what they have and have not been exposed to during their lives.
You know, a group of scientists have "confirmed" "cold fusion". Another group have "confirmed" alien life. Other actual scientists with valid science degrees have "confirmed" the Bible's account of the creation of the world. My personal favorite was the group of scientists who, in the mid-80's in Russia announced that they had discovered a talking elephant...
If you do not know the scientists involved and have not scrutinized their work, then you need to be just as cautious about their "confirmations" as you would be were they "high priests" of some religion. We have plenty of scientists who will go into court and certify nearly anything (in their "expert opinion") under oath for a bit of cash; having a science degree does not confer any proof of objectivity and/or honesty
I spent three years sailing on the Scripps Institution of Oceanography research vessels, mostly the Revelle, and the Melville. One of my primary responsibilities was operating the multibeam sonar and other acoustic instruments. Working on ship is interesting, it's sort of like college, where you live in one small floating building housing the dorms, labs, cafeteria, and plant, with 40 people, except you cannot leave the building for 50 days at a stretch. It's like being on a reality show living and working with scientists of all types, and some other colorful characters.
None of the 50 or so marine biologists that I ever sailed with ever had the slightest concern about the multibeam's impact on marine life. And belive me they were very interested in sonar's effects on marine mammals. Anytime we would perform SEISMIC survey ops we were required by law to have a marine mammal observer on watch. If they sighted any whales in the area, we shut down the air guns. In the old days they used sticks of dynamite, now they use 3000psi air guns. Loud.
Bear in mind our ship cost up to $50,000 per DAY to operate. And that's just for the ship, crew, and technicians, not the scientists and who or what ever they bring. Commercial vessels probably cost much more to operate; the greatest cost is diesel; ships burn thousands of gallons per day; we bought ours from the Navy. But the MMO's were professional scientists and took their jobs seriously and we respected them and I would call them my friends. The idea that any of the other acoustic instruments could harm marine mammels was never broached. Another time I sailed with a large group of marine biologists who were basically pinging whales with high powered sonar to see what would happen because they were concerned with high powered sonars effects on whales. They never brought up any of the ships other acoustic instruments.
It's possible that MB has an effect. You could hear our MB all over the ship. We ran a Simrad EM-120 at 12khz, which I can hear pretty well. It sounded like a really loud bird chirping. And sometimes you could even hear the tinkling echos off the seabed. I can see how it MIGHT annoy whales. And I bet the commercial ships run a much higher-power sonar. They drag like 12 airguns when we drag one or two. I think a lot of it also depends on where you're operating. Most of the ocean is surprisingly empty and devoid of higher life forms. Perhaps greater percautions are needed close to whale populations. It's just surprising because as a member of the oceanographic community I for one was not aware that this issue was even on the radar (no pun intended).
MB sonar is generally a "good thing". We can only get very coarse bathymetry via satellite. MB is necessary to map the seabed in any detail and seabed maps are critical to earth science. I just hope this doesn't turn into some sort of sonar hysteria where we are unecessarily restricting good scence based on bad science.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Dude, like, cowabunga, dude! Surf's up!
The poster above posted anonmymously because...
Because you're incredibly new here and don't know who Ethanol-fueled is? C'mon, he signs all of his damn AC posts for cryin' out loud.
And if we ever feel bad about whales dying, we can blame it on Japan because politics is always that way. Shift the tides slightly so it's no longer your problem and blame the ones that are currently holding the torch. It's what we've been doing in the US for a long time now after all.
Well, the crew and oil employee did not observe any "whales"....You see, the sonar causes the Melon headed whale to go through a process known as instantaneous inversion, or in other words, its insides are immediately flipped inside-out, due to water pressure and being hit by the pulse. What they did see was a new species of whale sized jelly fish...they called her Exxo...and they believe using this sonar will help increase their population.
"There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
They were 65km away from the stranding. It's not surprising they saw no whales. There isn't decent evidence they were anywhere in the neighborhood of the echosounding survey, and sound attenuates pretty fast at those high frequencies (12kHz). I'm sure they could probably hear it at those distances, but I doubt it was particularly noticeable compared to closer sound sources.
They do?
Sounds like a climate scientist at MIT has called the IPCC report a joke, and he used to be on the UN IPCC panel. So I guess you'll have to ignore that little fact and continue on with name calling because once again you have lost the debate.
Hit it with the sonar if it dies put the company out of business forever bust up all its assets and sell them in a bankruptcy court. Ask them if they still feel smug.
YES.
Bacteria can be broken up by ultrasound powerful enough to disrupt the cell walls. Cell walls also made the same way OUR cell walls are.
But, no, this is a result that stops a fossil fuel company from doing its unhindered business, so there cannot be anything to the cause and effect, can it? Science just doesn't happen if it gets in the way of "progress".
We don't NEED the fucking oil. We NEED to keep the fucking stuff where it is.
"That is true, but doesn't change the inverse square law "
Easily done.
Waveguides do this.
Refraction leads to convergence zones.
Reflection leads to focussing.
What libertarian idiocy leads to is this: defending a corporation no matter what, attacking the sciecnce if it may interfere with a corporation no matter what. Leading to complete idiot break-down.
Once upon a time I would have assumed that the claims of whales dying were made in good faith.
Not anymore.
The environmental movement is so overrun with watermelon-marxists (green on the outside, red on the inside) that any claims have to be carefully screened to ensure that they are not an anti-capitalist scam masquerading as environmental concern.
That the target of this claim is an oil company looking for new sources of petroleum, makes me highly suspicious.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
1) Tether ExxonMobile executives (VP and up) 27 metres under water, in scuba gear.
2) Position sonar emitters 8 metres away.
3) Full blast for 90 minutes
4) Buy the survivors an ice cream.
I have this rock that keeps bears away that I'm willing to sell you. It works because I don't see any bears around here.
Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter & buy your rock.
If you want a demonstration of how unlikely it is that multibeam sonar would cause problems for whales, take a look at The Gully marine protected area off the coast of Canada, where one of the main concerns was the possible effect of oil and gas exploration activities on whales. The area was set aside as a marine protected zone because whales seem to spend a lot of time in that area. The first thing marine scientists did before making the case for setting it aside was to survey the sea floor with multibeam sonar (that's what makes the pretty picture on that web page). Why on Earth would they do that if it was at all likely that multibeam sonar could have a negative effect on them?
for about 70 years.
Didn't you stay awake through your MMO (Marine Mammal Observer) course? Evidently not.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Explain what a professional observer does that adds credibility to the company's explanation. Enlighten the reader about something that otherwise will never be an essential element of education.
On the other hand, the failure to notice that particular species of whale does not fortify the company's case. It weakens it, logically. Logic is an essential element of education.
It is also now logical, since you've introduced the topic, to add that certified Marine Mammal Observers are not reliable, as this case shows.