Underwater Sonar Linked To Whale Deaths

That's it by jfdavis668 · 2013-09-29 06:01 · Score: 5, Funny

We can only use overwater sonar from now on.

Re:That's it by phantomfive · 2013-09-29 06:30 · Score: 5, Informative

It didn't destroy anything. From what I understand of the article, it scared them into shallow waters where they beached themselves and died.

The reason for the doubt is that melon-headed whales beach themselves anyway with surprising frequency.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:That's it by geogob · 2013-09-29 06:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

The reason for the doubt is that melon-headed whales beach themselves anyway with surprising frequency.
The interesting question is, how can you tell this surprisingly high frequency ist not due to sonars?
Re:That's it by phantomfive · 2013-09-29 06:49 · Score: 1

I don't know enough about whale beaching to answer that.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:That's it by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-29 06:51 · Score: 1

I don't know if you actually read TFA, I didn't, but from reading this news elsewhere they found that the creatures' hearing organs were damaged. They weren't just scared into beaching themselves.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:That's it by phantomfive · 2013-09-29 07:00 · Score: 3, Informative

There's no mention of damaged hearing organs in the article. The article is poorly written, but here is a relevant quote:

The five-member independent scientific review panel said the vessel's MBES was "the most plausible and likely behavioral trigger for the animals initially entering the lagoon system."

There have been reports of damaged hearing organs in other cases, so you are probably thinking about news that you read about Florida. In this case, the article has no mention of ear damage.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:That's it by jfdavis668 · 2013-09-29 07:20 · Score: 1

Not to mention NFL announcers and Jersey Shore alumni
Re:That's it by hairyfeet · 2013-09-29 07:40 · Score: 1, Interesting

Not to mention replace trailer park with ghetto and white trash with black and you'll see its just good old fashioned racism, pure and simple.
Although I have noticed that some on the left refuse to acknowledge racism if it is directed at whites, i don't know if it is the so called "white guilt" or some sort of perverse "getting even" thinking but I have noticed that they refuse to acknowledge racism if it comes from blacks or if it is directed at whites, see huffPo as the most obvious example but there are plenty of others.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:That's it by cusco · 2013-09-29 09:38 · Score: 1

I make fun of rednecks because I grew up with them. My co-worker makes fun of 'ghetto niggers' because he grew up with them. Is either one of those 'racism'? I suppose it depends on what definition you use.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:That's it by gd2shoe · 2013-09-29 10:41 · Score: 1

You're thinking too narrow. There is a glut of news anchors when you expand your search to all news outlets. You even get premium, high-volume ones if you include Fox and MSNBC. Just remember not to use them together, because the opposing biases would cancel themselves out.
The bias of all network news (at the moment) is conflict and irresponsible speculation (first to report). Thus, Fox and MSNBC don't cancel each other out, but feed off each other.

--
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Re:That's it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 12:12 · Score: 1

[M]aybe we can take this sonar [through] the nation's trailer parks and eliminate a future generation of white trash welfare recipients. Now that's crime prevention!

The poor receive a only tiny fraction of America's welfare assistance; take your sonar down Park Avenue and eliminate a future generation (or down Wall Street and eliminate a current generation) of criminal bankster welfare recipients — now that's significant crime prevention.
Re:That's it by hairyfeet · 2013-09-29 13:13 · Score: 1

That isn't what I am talking about, go to some place like HuffPo and you will see outright hatred directed at anybody with white skin, if a white were to say "I hate fucking niggers" they would be up in arms but if a black said "I hate fucking honkies" they would not only NOT be censored by the site as the first post would, you would probably be moderated up!

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:That's it by girlintraining · 2013-09-29 14:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's no mention of damaged hearing organs in the article.

If I expose you to infrasonic tones, something proven to cause anxiety and stress in people, over a period of time, and then you later commit suicide, an autopsy will not find anything wrong with your ears. Nonetheless, that's what killed you. Now it doesn't work on everyone, and it works to varying degrees on the people it does effect, but searching for physical signs of trauma isn't always the best way of determining a cause of death; An autopsy is only one component in a murder investigation. You still have to investigate their environment, question eyewitnesses, and gather additional information.
It's not that much different, from a methodology standpoint, investigating the death of whales. A lack of damaged hearing organs doesn't mean it wasn't the proximate cause of death.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:That's it by phantomfive · 2013-09-29 15:17 · Score: 1

That's a lot of speculation.

It's more likely they were trying to get away from the noise and tried to enter the lagoon (which was too shallow for them) to try to get away from it.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:That's it by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2013-09-29 15:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's because the n-word has strong historic links to black people being beaten, lynched, enslaved, regarded subhuman & treated like animals (not allowed to drink from the same fountain, eat in the same restrooms, etc.) -- and white people that use or used the term are conveying that they figure that those abuses were at least somewhat justified.
The word "honky" is effectively just another mean word to call someone, as it only really refers to a subgroup of whites (not the race as a whole), and doesn't have the same history or suggest that we should be treated that way. All of the historically nasty terms for white people target nationalities, were made up by other whites, and stopped being genuinely offensive long ago. Even then, they just suggested that the new immigrants were genetically inferior, not that they should be treated like blacks were.

--
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
Re:That's it by DigiShaman · 2013-09-29 15:23 · Score: 1

It's really quite overblown just how racism is in America (of all places) gets so much attention because of slavery in the past. Fact is, racism is global. It's a serious issue in India and Latin America and even among the African American community itself. In all three examples, each group breaks down into sub-groups depending on the "blackness" or "darkness" of ones skin color. With regards to skin color based racism, it's turtles all the way down.
Take a look at this http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/Racial-Dot-Map
Notice how in America we segregate ourselves by "race"?. I contend that we distance ourselves from other cultures that are quite different than the ones we wish to associate ourselves with. And that's the misunderstanding here. People conflate race and culture. They are in fact two entirely separate things.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:That's it by dargaud · 2013-09-29 23:19 · Score: 3, Informative

We can only use overwater sonar from now on.
It's called a Sodar, and I've written software for them.

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Re:That's it by delt0r · 2013-09-30 00:28 · Score: 1

If I expose you to infrasonic tones, something proven to cause anxiety and stress in people...
You won't have any issues providing a citation then.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:That's it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-30 04:14 · Score: 1

Is google hard for you? This is common knowledge anyways.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077192/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/infrasound-linked-spooky-effects/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound#Animal_reactions_to_infrasound
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/elephant/cyclotis/language/infrasound.html
Re:That's it by hairyfeet · 2013-09-30 04:52 · Score: 1, Interesting

Insightful? Really? Typical left wing bullshit, hate speech is hate speech pal, or is there even a word one can call a white person that would be considered hate speech to you?
I would also remind you that after the martin shooting there were more than 30 attacks, including one where a 14 year old was SET ON FIRE, where the attackers screamed "kill a whitey for trayvon!"...know how many were charged with a hate crime? Can you guess? If you said ZERO then you are correct, and if you thought that was justice then you should be an admin at HuffPo!
Racism is racism and the kind of political correct bullshit you are spewing is why we have an AG that says, and I quote "Black people can't be racist so they can't commit hate crimes". And THAT is what your refusing to call a spade a spade gets you, protected classes and double standards. Think about that next time you are gonna stand there and say racism is okay.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Peek-a-boo? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 06:02 · Score: 1

If I can't see whales, then they aren't there. Lame.

Cognitive Errors, Courtesy Exxon by girlintraining · 2013-09-29 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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

Re:Cognitive Errors, Courtesy Exxon by girlintraining · 2013-09-29 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

P.S. The lack of whales being observed in the area might be attributable to all the observers being in a boat, above the ocean, rather than in the ocean, where the whales live. And regardless, the piles of dead whales that started washing up on shore is a good indication that whatever methodology used was deeply flawed... Perhaps they were simply listening for the whales in between their exceptionally high power sonar tests... that may have already killed or incapacitated them.
So again, this is "cover my ass" commentary, not proper science. Proper science would note that corpses washed ashore in great number after, and conclude using indirect evidence, that observational methodology was flawed, then try to figure out why... not keep doing it for the next six years while continually saying ghosts and boogymen killed and then dragged the dead whales onto shore in the night, because otherwise wouldn't we have noticed them prior to us corpsifying them?

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Cognitive Errors, Courtesy Exxon by westlake · 2013-09-29 07:21 · Score: 1

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".
"Proven beyond any reasonable doubt" is the standard for conviction in a US criminal court, where the jury is expected to come to a decision based on the weight of the evidence, not their opinion of the defendant. You can never be certain, you can only go with what you have.

The charge did at one point instruct that to convict, guilt must be found beyond a reasonable doubt; but it then equated a reasonable doubt with a ''grave uncertainty'' and an ''actual substantial doubt,'' and stated that what was required was a ''moral certainty' 'that the defendant was guilty. It is plain to us that the words ''substantial'' and ''grave,'' as they are commonly understood, suggest a higher degree of doubt than is required for acquittal under the reasonable doubt standard. When those statements are then considered with the reference to ''moral certainty,'' rather than evidentiary certainty, it becomes clear that a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction to allow a finding of guilt based on a degree of proof below that required by the Due Process Clause.
Tommy CAGE v. LOUISIANA.
Re:Cognitive Errors, Courtesy Exxon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 07:28 · Score: 2, Informative

Just to be clear, you are saying this entire section is wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_sounding#Hydrography
Although I couldn't find anything definitive on the hearing ranges for this type of whale, it is reasonable that that can hear up to 50 or 60 kHx:
http://www.hmmc.org/MarMammSpp/Peponcephala/Peponcephala.html
Beluga whales can hear double that at the high end, and both are well within the range for some of the lower frequencies used for multibeam sounders.
Re:Cognitive Errors, Courtesy Exxon by pupsocket · 2013-09-29 07:50 · Score: 3, Informative

From the article: "The culprit was named as a high-power 12 kilohertz multibeam echosounder system, or MBES, operated by an ExxonMobil vessel on May 29 about 65 kilometers offshore from the first known stranding......The sounds would have been 'clearly audible over many hundreds of square kilometers of melon headed whale deep water habitat areas.'"
Re:Cognitive Errors, Courtesy Exxon by girlintraining · 2013-09-29 08:11 · Score: 4, Informative

Look, as somebody who actually works in this industry
... And whose identity is "Anonymous"

, multibeam sounders operate on very high frequencies, way over what whales can perceive.
And yet, I can take away your hearing by emitting ultrasound if it's powerful enough. You won't hear yourself going deaf, you'll just go deaf. Actually, I can even kill you with exposure of 180dB of ultrasound. But, working (anonymously) in the industry, you'd know that frequency is only part of the equation.

What's hilarious here is that the Slashdot circle-jerkers are already screaming EXXON...BAAAAD!
Statements like these definately add to your credibility. By making juvenile sexual jokes, it's immediately obvious to everyone that this is a man who makes six figures in the field of Oceanography.

But do you know what kind of sonar does make whales' ears bleed?
Yes: The very loud kind. Just like any other animal's ears. In fact, whale's ears are more suseptible to damage due to high decibel emissions than humans because in the human ear, air waves hit a membrane behind which there is a liquid-filled area, thus the energy of the wave can be dissipated; Pressure waves travelling through air are much less powerful than underwater, because of the density of the medium. Whales, unfortunately, have inner ears filled with the same liquid is its surrounding environment, and at the same pressure... meaning there is no transitive barrier to protect them.

The big fucking' spherical and cylindrical arrays you find in the tips of the bulbous dicks of ships and submarines.
Well, without knowing which ship was involved in a 6 year old incident, it's impossible to know whether any phallic-shaped devices were mounted to the ship. However, while lacking your literary ability in the many uses of the word 'fuck', an independent science team, perhaps with less impressive credentials than yours, found the ships' activities were the likely cause of the sudden displacement and eventual death of the whales. Oh, and the names of the members of that scientific team were the International Whaling Commission, the US Marine Mammal Commission, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, ExxonMobil Exploration and Production (Northern Madagascar) Ltd, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Government of Madagascar. They all think you're full of crap, but what would over a hundred scientists know compared to someone who swears like a sailor anonymously on slashdot?

Have you even seen a fucking multibeam? The transducer array is roughly the size of a shoebox.
You must have very big feet then. That's a picture of the NOAA's multibeam echosounder, an ER60. It is a low-power model, and in this case is being used to track the migratory movements of fish, and is of limited range. The kind that several sources have indicated were used by ExxonMobile inject high pressure air into the water; These are considerably larger, and more powerful, than these systems, which modulate a diaphram. It's the difference between your laptop's speakers, and a pneumatically-driven organ like those seen at older churches. Needless to say, the organ is much louder.

Idiots. I'm surrounded by goddamn idiots!
Yeah... I know this feeling well. Look at how often I get downmodded for providing factual and relevant commentary, instead of simp

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Cognitive Errors, Courtesy Exxon by fred911 · 2013-09-29 08:13 · Score: 1

In a civil matters the burden is weighed by the preponderance of the evidence.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Cognitive Errors, Courtesy Exxon by d18c7db · 2013-09-29 08:31 · Score: 1

Wow, interesting choice of words, "some rich, filthy Arab" has an entirely different meaning from "some filthy rich Arab" yet is close enough to slip under the radar. I bet when you talk you're actually calling them "those filthy A - rabs".
Re:Cognitive Errors, Courtesy Exxon by girlintraining · 2013-09-29 10:52 · Score: 1

The ltibeam you link and the exxon one are considerably different. A 12kHz transducer is on the order of inches in size.
Er, go look at that picture again. The lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength. Which means, it'll be bigger, not smaller. Unless of course you build a transducer that, er, doesn't work. In which case sure, "inches in size" works great.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Exxon Mobile's new mission statement by djupedal · 2013-09-29 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

"We're no worse than anyone else and you can't prove otherwise"

Re:Exxon Mobile's new mission statement by girlintraining · 2013-09-29 06:08 · Score: 2

"We're no worse than anyone else and you can't prove otherwise"
It is perhaps fortunate then that we use different standards of evidence in the courts and in science than self-rating one's behavior. Because if we did that, we'd all be above average drivers. It's always the other guy's fault.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Exxon Mobile's new mission statement by Hognoxious · 2013-09-29 07:48 · Score: 1

More like "We can get away with it - we're not limeys!".

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Exxon's Response by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 06:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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!

Re:Exxon's Response by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-29 06:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Is this real or a joke? I'm looking forward to finding out how simple of a cause-effect relationship can be denied. This is basically the equivalent of finding that the neighbor's eardrums were blown out due to you setting off explosions in your back yard, so it's pretty straightforward.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Exxon's Response by Gavagai80 · 2013-09-29 07:19 · Score: 1

I see the uncertainty and doubt, but where's the fear? Have they suggested that the whale deaths may have been caused by murderous mutant whales who will soon turn to eating human babies?

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Exxon's Response by GarethIwanFairclough · 2013-09-29 07:38 · Score: 1

The way I look at FUD is "Fear AND/OR uncertainty AND/OR doubt" rather than "Fear AND uncertainty AND doubt". All 3 are not required to nuke the chances of something happening (in this case, Exxonmobil being held to account for those melon headed whales).
On another note, I like melons as do many other people I'm sure. But why in the hell are those whales heading for melons?!
Re:Exxon's Response by JustOK · 2013-09-29 08:58 · Score: 1

Because they canteloupe

--
rewriting history since 2109
Re:Exxon's Response by hazem · 2013-09-29 09:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except there's a solid causal mechanism in play here. Whales are known to have particularly sensitive sound-receiving organs that also also known to be sensitive to extremely loud sounds like explosions and sonar. And it just so happens that someone was using a highly focused sonar in the time and space these whales turned up dead.
By your logic, a guy going into an auditorium and shooting a bunch of bullets isn't necessarily the cause of all the people found dead there with bullet-holes in them. There's just not a cause and effect relationship... sure, it's a plausible explanation, but that's far from being 'cause and effect'.
Re:Exxon's Response by grcumb · 2013-09-29 10:44 · Score: 1

On another note, I like melons as do many other people I'm sure. But why in the hell are those whales heading for melons?!
Clearly, they were watermelons.

--
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Re:Exxon's Response by sjames · 2013-09-29 10:51 · Score: 1

Except that sonar is by far the loudest thing in the ocean. Your neighbor's ears are bleeding. You set off a few pounds of explosives in that back yard. You claim his child clapping must be what blew out the windows and his eardrums. San people say yeah, suuuuuuure.
Re:Exxon's Response by LynnwoodRooster · 2013-09-29 12:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Not even close. Blue whales alone generate pressure levels around the same level as modern SONAR systems, and the pressures generated from propeller cavitation can easily exceed that of SONAR. And yes, I was a SONAR engineer.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Exxon's Response by Gwarsbane · 2013-09-29 13:00 · Score: 2

There are very low and high sound frequencies that humans can not hear, but yet we can be affected by them.
Re:Exxon's Response by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 15:03 · Score: 1

Despite what the article implies it's not actually electro-transducer SONAR as you know it, it's air gun arrays which is a much more powerful source.
Re:Exxon's Response by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 16:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

same ac here. you sound like a navy guy so some further explaination since you're in a position to understand it: air guns work much like a depth charge or cavitation. it's the shockwave from the collapse of the compressed air bubble which is what does all the damage. and large arrays of airguns are the tool of choice for these surveys.
Re:Exxon's Response by hawkinspeter · 2013-09-29 20:16 · Score: 1

Any examples that you know of?

--
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Re:Exxon's Response by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-30 00:08 · Score: 1

No. The article states clearly that "The report said that seismic airguns, long opposed by environmental groups for the potential harm they can cause to marine life, were not to blame for the event." They used a "sonar", or an echosounder, to map the sea floor before the seismic study started; that echosounder is said to have scared the whales. Note that this is used very often, all around the world and not only for seismic surveys; and this is the first possible link between an echosounder and any disturbance in marine life.
Echosounders work at a few kiloherts; airguns work at a few tens of hertz. Those have completely properties and completely different effects on anything, by the way. And both have been used millions of times without any effect on marine life.
Re:Exxon's Response by madsci1016 · 2013-09-30 06:47 · Score: 2

Correct, oil surveys are not performed using the same electro-transducer SONAR you find on Subs, they use high pressure air gun arrays which are an order of magnitude louder than SONAR. I've stood near a single air gun transducer fire on its lowest pressure setting and it was disturbing. I'm not surprised there could be a link.

Disgusted at humans :-( by MrL0G1C · 2013-09-29 06:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Disgusted at humans :-( by Trepidity · 2013-09-29 06:16 · Score: 1

What about your fellow humans, and their kids, you psychopathic nut?

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:Disgusted at humans :-( by Kohath · 2013-09-29 06:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why are these hypothetical aliens always so judgmental and intolerant? What did they ever do for anyone? They have the energy to get here from other planets, but they've left us here, alone, digging in the sand for something to burn to keep from freezing in the winter. And now they want to sit on their thrones and second-guess our choices? Fuck them.
Re:Disgusted at humans :-( by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-29 07:05 · Score: 1

Please learn the meaning of tolerance in the political context, it's not the same as in the mechanical context.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Disgusted at humans :-( by niftydude · 2013-09-29 08:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

In the past the whales had been able to sing to each other across whole oceans, even from one ocean to another because sound travels such huge distances underwater. But now, again because of the way in which sound travels, there is no part of the ocean that is not constantly jangling with the hubbub of ships’ motors, through which it is now virtually impossible for the whales to hear each other’s songs or messages.
So fucking what, is pretty much the way that people tend to view this problem, and understandably so, thought Dirk. After all, who wants to hear a bunch of fat fish, oh all right, mammals, burping at each other?
But for a moment Dirk had a sense of infinite loss and sadness that somewhere amongst the frenzy of information noise that daily rattled the lives of men he thought he might have heard a few notes that denoted the movements of gods.
Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, 1988

--
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Re:Disgusted at humans :-( by Oligonicella · 2013-09-29 08:44 · Score: 1

Webster's Unabridged

Tolerance:
a permissive or liberal attitude toward beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own : sympathy or indulgence for diversity in thought or conduct : breadth of spirit or of viewpoint

Please explain how he used the word incorrectly.
Re:Disgusted at humans :-( by argStyopa · 2013-09-30 00:15 · Score: 1

And this is precisely the sort of preciously absurd statement that would make me agree with you.
Why would you assume humans are special? We're naked apes that have learned some clever tricks with tools so we can build Lamborghinis and rocket ships.
Aside from that, our behaviors aren't demonstrably different. EVERY SPECIES THAT EVER EXISTED breeds to overpopulation, if possible. Every one will cheerfully out-compete and annihilate neighboring competitor or prey species without a second glance. Alligators don't politely consider the rarity of the creature they're about to eat. Lions cheerfully murder hyenas.
Personally, I find environmentalists the most ethnocentric people around: they assume that humans are somehow capable of being more than the animals we are, on the basis of no visible evidence.

--
-Styopa
Re:Disgusted at humans :-( by delt0r · 2013-09-30 00:33 · Score: 1

What makes you think we bad in comparison to the rest of the universe? We certainly are not bad compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:Disgusted at humans :-( by SleazyRidr · 2013-09-30 03:10 · Score: 1

Tolerance of intolerance is just pandering.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Re:Disgusted at humans :-( by GameboyRMH · 2013-10-01 01:35 · Score: 1

That definition is correct but oversimplified. Tolerance in the political context is closer to the meaning of anti-discrimination - it involves disallowing prejudice, not simply allowance as the dictionary definition might suggest. This is why tolerating intolerance is anti-tolerance - otherwise the concept could indeed be made to collapse with a simple logic trick as many seem to think.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Of course there were no whales nearby by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 06:11 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Of course there were no whales nearby by Solandri · 2013-09-29 07:49 · Score: 2

1. "120 decibels" is meaningless. Sound waves vary with the type of medium, and attenuates with distance. dB are always measured with respect to a certain pressure and distance, usually 1 uPa and 1 meter from the sound source. Further than that, the dB will be lower (-40 dB at 100 meters).

2. A typical sonar will be about 180-200 dB re 1 uPa 1 m, with the powerful one the US Navy was using being about 226 dB. That isn't because the sound is louder (measured as how much your eardrum moves). It's because water is a denser medium than air, and thus requires more energy to create a wave of the same pressure as in air. The sonar the whales themselves emit is about 170-190 dB re 1 uPa 1 m, with peaks exceeding 220 dB .

3. Dead whales float. The same bacteria which decompose human bodies and make them float do the same in whales. In a body as large as a whale, the buildup of these gases can be so great it causes the corpse to explode. It will eventually sink, but usually only after scavengers like sharks have stripped away most of the low-density tissue, leaving mostly high-density bones.
Re:Of course there were no whales nearby by Arker · 2013-09-29 12:12 · Score: 1

You are actually both right - corpses left alone in the sea will first sink, then rise again hours later due to those gases you mention. I dont have any data on how long it takes for a whale to go through that process, IIRC it's generally around a day for a human, depending on the weather (warm weather faster, cooler weather slower.)

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Of course there were no whales nearby by Bremic · 2013-09-29 12:25 · Score: 1

The local teenagers setup a mobile rave outside your house and start pumping out One Direction and Ke$ha at 120db.
Unable to do anything to get them to move you decide to pack your family in your car and get out of the area for a while.
While driving you get lost in the rain and trying to find out where you are you lose control of the car and crash into a pole killing your kids and putting your wife in hospital.
Obviously the teenagers driving you out of your home are in no way to blame.

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-29 06:11 · Score: 1

Even if wind turbines do kill birds, they are still far less damaging than coal or gas.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by MrL0G1C · 2013-09-29 06:12 · Score: 3, Informative

We know that Wind Energy is responsible for the deaths of lots of protected birds.

Wrong.

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

No! Not At All. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 06:15 · Score: 5, Informative

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,"

Regardless of the case... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 06:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Already knew this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 06:32 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Already knew this. by Rising+Ape · 2013-09-29 07:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Indeed they do, but it's standard practice to "soft start", i.e. start with low intensity pulses and gradually increase in order to give marine mammals chance to keep enough distance. Also there are observers on the ships to look out for any creatures that might be affected and stop if necessary.
Re:Already knew this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 07:36 · Score: 1

Do you have any idea how well sound travels through water? Because of the much higher density it travels much further, much faster than it does through air. There is no way an observer on the ship could possible see whales, even if they were breaching the surface, at the 'still dangerous' range due to the curvature of the Earth. Do some research if you don't believe me.
Re:Already knew this. by Rising+Ape · 2013-09-29 08:45 · Score: 1

Do you have any idea how well sound travels through water? Because of the much higher density it travels much further, much faster than it does through air.
That is true, but doesn't change the inverse square law (or just inverse law if we're talking about amplitude). And the energy is mostly directed downwards due to interference with the reflection from the water surface and the design of the airgun array. It could travel a long way by repeatedly reflecting off the water bottom and the surface, but again this will weaken it considerably. The net result is that is only very loud close to the source.

Right by justthinkit · 2013-09-29 06:33 · Score: 1

Right. How did the report ignore the 240 decibel pings used to find stealth submarines?

--
I come here for the love

Re:Right by justthinkit · 2013-09-29 16:06 · Score: 2

LFAS can still approach 160 dB hundreds of miles from the deploying vessel

--
I come here for the love
Re:Right by justthinkit · 2013-09-29 23:56 · Score: 1

Nice of you to reply. Again. If I understand your reply, military sonar is ruled out if (1) I am not part of the military using this sonar, (2) anyone else had sonar active, or (3) the two types of sonar are not the same thing.
.
Can you see how whack your reply is?
Yes, a group was using their sonar. Yes, whales were injured. No, we do not know what caused it. Why? Because BOTH sonar systems could be active at the same time. Because a third factor could be active. Because someone could be lying.
Not all the facts are in. I tried adding to them. You're welcome.

--
I come here for the love

Re:Why don't we shape our sounds to be like whales by pipatron · 2013-09-29 06:35 · Score: 1

Maybe they already sound very similar to the sounds whales make, and maybe that's why the whales get disoriented and stranded.

--
c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by fafaforza · 2013-09-29 06:41 · Score: 1

My liberal educators taught me that the ends don't justify the means. You can't be for killing one species of animal, and against killing another.

Re:Why don't we shape our sounds to be like whales by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-29 06:54 · Score: 1

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

Sorry, but you are wrong... by SuperKendall · 2013-09-29 07:00 · Score: 1, Informative

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

Re:Sorry, but you are wrong... by MrL0G1C · 2013-09-29 10:57 · Score: 4, Informative

There are now approx' 200,000 bald eagles.
"Only nine bald eagle collisions with turbine blades have been recorded nationally" Ever?
So, what is your point?
"Of 1,428 individuals from across the range necropsied by National Wildlife Health Center from 1963 to 1984, 329 (23%) eagles died from trauma, primarily impact with wires and vehicles; 309 (22%) died from gunshot; 158 (11%) died from poisoning; 130 (9%) died from electrocution; 68 (5%) died from trapping; 110 (8%) from emaciation; and 31 (2%) from disease; cause of death was undetermined in 293 (20%) of cases."
Windmills are the least of their problems.
Man-made structure/technology Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.) :-
Feral and domestic cats : Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
Power lines : 130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]
Windows (residential and commercial) : 100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
Pesticides : 70 million [source: AWEA]
Automobiles : 60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]
Lighted communication towers : 40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]
Wind turbines : 10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Re:Sorry, but you are wrong... by gd2shoe · 2013-09-29 11:20 · Score: 1

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's obvious you didn't follow his links. The argument there isn't that windmills never kill birds. The argument is that windmills kill several orders of magnitude fewer birds than windows or power lines, etc.
Now you can claim that's false (or point to national structure density), but you should at least address the response as he framed it. That would lead to intelligent discussion, and not merely angry retorts.

--
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.

Re:From the same scientist by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-29 07:03 · Score: 2

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 the whales... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 07:21 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by mcgrew · 2013-09-29 07:24 · Score: 1

You can't be for killing one species of animal, and against killing another.

Whales don't poop on my car! And... and... STAR TREK IV!!!

More seriously, I agree with your educators... but then, I love education so...

--
Free Martian Whores!

We saw none, therefore we did not drive them away. by pupsocket · 2013-09-29 07:47 · Score: 2

Exxon-Mobil's argument that saw no whales only fortifies the suspicion that they were driving the whales away.

Pause Before Pitchforks and Torches by Oysterville · 2013-09-29 07:51 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Pause Before Pitchforks and Torches by sjames · 2013-09-29 11:11 · Score: 2

So renaming shouldn't be a problem. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Some reference by Solandri · 2013-09-29 08:06 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Some reference by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 14:18 · Score: 1

It does have to be at a loud level to harm them. It can just sound different enough to scare them and if they flee in panic and beached themselves, then yea I would associate the root cause to the sound even though it is the beach and lack of water.
If I were walking home passing a graveyard at night and I hear sounds that sound like the voice of a little girl singing, I'd be bolting...

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-09-29 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

The issue is not whether an individual member of the species is harmed, but instead whether the species as a whole is driven to extinction. Killing Deer? Fine by me. Killing Rhinos? Serious problem.

Re:We saw none, therefore we did not drive them aw by girlintraining · 2013-09-29 08:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-29 08:26 · Score: 1

In the real world we make trade offs. Cars result in thousands of deaths a year, but are too useful to give up on.

If we gave up on electricity far more people would die.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by Oligonicella · 2013-09-29 08:34 · Score: 1

But equally as damaging as sonar is to whales, which was the point.

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by Oligonicella · 2013-09-29 08:36 · Score: 1

You make a good argument that wind generators are a serious problem.

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by Oligonicella · 2013-09-29 08:38 · Score: 1

And those ships utilizing sonar carry medical supplies. Like you said, it's a tradeoff.

Re:We saw none, therefore we did not drive them aw by Xeno+man · 2013-09-29 08:42 · Score: 1

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.

Seems pretty clear by Gothmolly · 2013-09-29 08:48 · Score: 2

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.

Get in the water by failedlogic · 2013-09-29 08:55 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by N1AK · 2013-09-29 09:07 · Score: 1

My liberal educators taught me that the ends don't justify the means.

Did your liberal educators give you no insight into situations where all decisions have what would normally be unacceptable consequences, or did they just suggest you stick your head between your legs and hope it goes away?

Many absolutely can be in favour of a decision that leads to deaths if it avoids something worse, if that is something you are unwilling or unable to do then let us hope that you are never put in a situation where it matters.

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-09-29 09:29 · Score: 2

Wind generators kill rhinos?

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...

Melon-headed whales by malacandrian · 2013-09-29 09:33 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

The whales are already having a tough time of it, what with the dying. There's no need to insult them as well.

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-09-29 09:53 · Score: 1

A wind farm, improvidently sited, could theoretically interfere with the migration of a threatened, or endangered species. That's no reason to ban wind farms, but scientists have an obligation to see if those theoretical concerns will amount to a serious threat to the survival of a particular species.

BS Flag by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 10:50 · Score: 1

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.

surprised ? by Tom · 2013-09-29 11:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:We saw none, therefore we did not drive them aw by pupsocket · 2013-09-29 11:16 · Score: 1

Thanks. In trade, I offer a grizzly bear that has never bitten a human.

Re:We saw none, therefore we did not drive them aw by pupsocket · 2013-09-29 11:32 · Score: 2

Thanks from a fellow moron for the #*&@ing tip!

Re:Cognitive Errors, Courtesy girlintraining by Bite+The+Pillow · 2013-09-29 11:43 · Score: 2

Certainty of information: Nobody requires absolute certainty in science.

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.

Out of date observations

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.

As a shipboard oceanographic technician... by n1ywb · 2013-09-29 12:36 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:As a shipboard oceanographic technician... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 18:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Sigh. The irony continues. If you read the original report, air guns were NOT involved. The popular press has confused discussion of the echosounder survey with a seismic survey in the area, which was several days *after* the stranding and therefore eliminated as a possible cause. Both of them are discussed in the report. Only one of them is relevant because it was occurring before the stranding.

Re:Anti-oil propaganda by zippthorne · 2013-09-29 13:59 · Score: 1

Interfere with, perhaps, but significantly interfere? Windmills need to be spaced pretty far apart or they'll interfere with each other, and the blades themselves comprise a very small percentage of the disk area, although I suppose it could be a little more if you consider the area swept in the time it takes a migrating bird to traverse its thickness.

The chance of a bird strike is surely proportional to the area blocked by rotors compared to the area birds actually fly through. It would take a huge population of birds to have a chance of even a few hitting the blades.

The real problem with windmills is that the power generated doesn't correspond to the loads, resulting in requiring duplication of capacity using the very technologies you're trying to replace with windmills in the first place.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

Inversion. by SeNtM · 2013-09-29 14:54 · Score: 2

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

Put one in a fish tank. by ralphaostrander · 2013-09-29 18:44 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Stupid question. by hawkinspeter · 2013-09-29 21:30 · Score: 1

Thanks, but have you got any examples where the effect isn't due to the energy levels? I was thinking of things like "brown noise" but there's not much evidence that it actually works.

--
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe

Re:Yes it does. by Rising+Ape · 2013-09-29 23:30 · Score: 1

How can the sea form a waveguide? Even if the water bottom was perfectly reflecting (it's not), there's still the spreading in the horizontal directions. IIRC, the level typically drops to less than 170 dB at 1 km from the source. Blue whales can produce nearly 190 dB and sperm whales well over 200.

Re:Who are you going to believe? by delt0r · 2013-09-30 00:37 · Score: 1

Clearly you have never worked with whale scientists. I have and know plenty of people from the oil industry back home. I think its an even toss up on who to listen to here.

Wait a minute, no its not. They are both LYING.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

Re:time to move on by delt0r · 2013-09-30 00:38 · Score: 1

Lasers would blind the whales.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

Consider the source by leereyno · 2013-09-30 03:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:Stupid question. by Gwarsbane · 2013-09-30 10:11 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound#Human_reactions_to_infrasound

As was mentioned the sound waves can cause pressures in our bodies.

There are ultrasonic cleaners which jewelers use to clean all the little hidden areas of a ring or what ever that can't be reached.

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

While usually limited and not a problem for people infrasound and ultrasound can effect people.

Ultrasound is used today in hospitals to take care of gallstones inside a persons body without having to open them up. The sound waves break up the stones so that they can more easily be peed out. As far as I know, we can't hear or feel the sound wave when its made but the sounds do physically affect us.

There is at least some evidence that long term exposure to infrasound and ultrasound can be bad for humans. Look at some of the reports of people being sick near wind turbines. You can't actually hear anything from them as they spin, but they do create sound that can't be heard (by humans) for a long distance.

And with the whales, sound carries much better in water then in air and the oil and fats that make up their "ears"/sound receiving organs, they are far more sensitive to sound in general.

Sorry for rambling, its not a subject I know a whole lot about, but I do remember some of this from science class and science shows over the years.

Re:Stupid question. by hawkinspeter · 2013-09-30 18:55 · Score: 1

Thanks - this was the kind of thing I hoped someone would post.

--
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe

Re:We saw none, therefore we did not drive them aw by RockDoctor · 2013-10-06 10:20 · Score: 1

Exxon-Mobil's argument that saw no whales only fortifies the suspicion that they were driving the whales away.

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"

Contempt is not information. by pupsocket · 2013-10-07 10:10 · Score: 1

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Underwater Sonar Linked To Whale Deaths

119 of 187 comments (clear)