Slashdot Mirror


White House Approves Sonic Cannons For Atlantic Energy Exploration

An anonymous reader writes: The White House on Friday gave final approval to allow the use of sonic cannons in finding energy deposits underneath the ocean floor on the U.S. Atlantic seaboard. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management says that finding energy resources off the Atlantic seaboard "could generate thousands of jobs, but has also acknowledged that the process will harm sea creatures." Sonic cannons "fire sound waves 100 times louder than a jet engine." Mammals such as whales and dolphins that communicate through sound will most likely be affected, but scientists aren't sure to what extent. They also aren't sure how the cannons will affect fish and other sea creatures or how any physiological effects on them may impact the fishing industries of the U.S. and the other countries who rely on seafood that migrate into and out of the Atlantic Ocean.

167 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fuck the earth, we do what we want!

    1. Re:Lol by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Hey man, didn't you read "could generate thousands of jobs?" Let me say that again. COULD. MAKE. THOUSANDS. JOBS.

      End of discussion. We all know the only things worse than aborting potential jobs are terrorism and taxes.

    2. Re:Lol by davester666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      everything is safe until we absolutely, 100%, know, for sure, with absolutely no dissent from anyone, that it is not safe.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Lol by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      in small print "for foreign workers"

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re: Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everything is safe always, you mean. In a world with the GOP, the EPA could find that this causes a 10000% increase in sudden infant death syndrome and no ban will pass the House because of "rabble rabble job creators class warfare energy independence"

    5. Re:Lol by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think you forgot shovel ready....

      Or was that implied?

    6. Re: Lol by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      The GOP took the white house? And here I thought there was another 2 years or so before they even got the chance to do something like that.

    7. Re:Lol by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2, Insightful

      goodness I'm tired of this white house. the sooner the better.

    8. Re:Lol by danceswithtrees · · Score: 2

      Because you think the next one will be better?

    9. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      COULD. MAKE. THOUSANDS. JOBS.

      To a first approximation, in a depressed economy that's constrained by lack of demand, doing things more efficiently will actually cost jobs (and presumably these sonic cannons will allow them to find oil more efficiently).

      I suppose that, when it comes to economics, politicians assume they can make any claims they want and no one will call them on it - and that does unfortunately seem to be the case. But it would be interesting to see whether a serious macro-economic analysis would actually show net job creation - or merely some gains in one sector offset by losses in other sectors.

    10. Re:Lol by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      yes because I will be in the white house and it will be epic.

    11. Re:Lol by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      And those jobs are "shovel ready"!!!

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    12. Re:Lol by dbIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      The last one was good but the Canadians burnt it down.

    13. Re:Lol by Nyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey man, didn't you read "could generate thousands of jobs?" Let me say that again. COULD. MAKE. THOUSANDS. JOBS.

      End of discussion. We all know the only things worse than aborting potential jobs are terrorism and taxes.

      Ya, but those jobs are going to be cleaning the dead fish & sea mammals off beaches.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    14. Re:Lol by QA · · Score: 1

      You know, as a Canadian, I have to say it was more the British soldiers that burned pert of it down, in retaliation for having OUR (in Canada, but Britains) parliment buildings razed.

      That being said........We're Sorry!

    15. Re: Lol by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Why do they still call it the "White House?" A few years back, before Obama, one of my black friends said when we have the first black president they are gonna paint the White House black, and call it the "Black House." You say Obama is not 100% black? Well then they could at least paint it gray, or beige. Yeah, how about the "Beige House", that would be more politically correct, it would not be as extremist racist as calling it the "White House" or "Black House."

    16. Re:Lol by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I an Australian being a stirrer so I'm the one that should apologise.

    17. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      With such unknowns as the following what could possibly go wrong?

      Sonic cannons "fire sound waves 100 times louder than a jet engine." Mammals such as whales and dolphins that communicate through sound will most likely be affected, but scientists aren't sure to what extent. They also aren't sure how the cannons will affect fish and other sea creatures or how any physiological effects on them may impact the fishing industries of the U.S. and the other countries who rely on seafood that migrate into and out of the Atlantic Ocean.

    18. Re: Lol by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      A few years back, before Obama, one of my black friends said when we have the first black president they are gonna paint the White House black, and call it the "Black House."

      In fact, the political comedian Dick Gregory said that about his own satirical run for president back around 1968 or so. When I'm president (c'mon, you guys gotta start campaigning for me!), I think I'll do the exterior in Jackson Pollock.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    19. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It wasn't white until that point . You colonials only painted it white to hide the burn marks because you were too cheap ass to build a new one.

    20. Re: Lol by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There is absolutely nothing racist about calling it the white house. The name has absolutely no connection to anyone living in it or who has lived in it. In the war of 1812, the whitehouse which was never previoudly called that nor was it white like we see today, was burnt by the invading english from Canada. The presidential manor was white washed in a hurry to hide the soot snd burn marks while the interior was rebuilt. That is when it became the white house and got its permenant white color.

      Your friend is a complete idiot and i hope i cured your ignorance. The name references the first time the US was ever invaded and how we survived not anyone who lived there. It is imposible for it to be racist. This is not secret history either. It should have been in the lessons in grade school if not highschool. You can find out all about it online and any number of other sources if you want to find out more. The war of 1812 is particularly interesting in that we didn't have a standing army and it prety much ended with an agreement to forget it happened but the battle of new orleans which took place six months after it ended with a bunch of dirt farmers in ths south and thdir second amendment shows that once organized, we would have kicked their asses.

    21. Re:Lol by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      I thought it was in retaliation for the shelling of York (Toronto). At any rate, the British reaction, safely evacuating and then burning public buildings in the war of 1812 was far better than the Americans policy of simply lobbing bombs at loyalist civilians and exterminating British friendly native tribes.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    22. Re: Lol by sjames · · Score: 1

      The presidential manor was white washed in a hurry to hide the soot and burn marks...

      Is it just me or does that sound like a political statement proven more apt on a daily basis?

    23. Re: Lol by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The EPA is under the executive which occupies the White House.

      I do not disagree with your comment, i just fo not see its relevance.

    24. Re:Lol by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Create 1000's of jobs balanced by destroying 1000's of them in marine based industries

      The above AC is right.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    25. Re:Lol by a_mari_usque_ad_mare · · Score: 1

      When the Americans attacked York it was the capital of Upper Canada (Ontario). US troops set fire to the Parliament buildings, which lead to the British burning the White House in revenge. This attack is the reason Ottawa later became the capital of Canada; it was not as easy for the USA to attack, keeping in mind that a major attack would come by water in the 1800s.

      I don't know if shelling was involved or not, but a famous American explorer, Zebulon Pike, was killed when the British troops blew up their own magazine.

      --
      The map is not the territory.
    26. Re:Lol by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      No, for domestic workers.

      Well, "domestic" to those of us living in Scotland, Norway, Nigeria, Netherlands, Lithuania ...

      After all, we've seen what Americans can do when they're trying to drill holes in the ground offshore America; we're hardly likely to do worse.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by sideslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can they give "warning shots" for some time period ahead of time to clear the area? Can they definitively detect whether any large mammals are in the vicinity before giving the big blasts?

    Actually, even if they can, this sounds really bad, no pun intended. :(

    1. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by thehfctech · · Score: 1

      Probably sounds pretty bad to whales and dolphins no matter what.

    2. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The _turf_ of bottom dwelling creatures can be quite small, especially of mollusks. Injuring them, or driving away their predators, is likely to have quite large ecological consequences. Even driving away vegetarian creatures from their feeding grounds is likely to interfere with stable ecologies.

    3. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by cstacy · · Score: 1

      Torpedoes and depth charges are much worse and no-one asks for permission to fire those...

      Well this is a very interesting point. However, is it correct that those are worse? Are there some numbers to support this idea?

    4. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      130kg @ 300m is 286db at source, 199db at 20km. So no, your typical 200lbs depth charge will not come anywhere near this insanity.

    5. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      286 db at source? Air cannons are 250 db at source, so 3 and a half orders of magnitude less powerful. Lightning in the ocean is 260 db at source and your average square kilometer of ocean gets two strikes per year. These ships will be covering tens of millions of square kilometers. With a pulse rate of once every 10 seconds (3.2 million pulses per year per ship, if they run constantly, which they almost certainly won't), you're looking at an order of magnitude less per ship than lightning (and I doubt there will be many ships, and they won't always be in operation). And lightning striking water is an order of magnitude louder. It even causes shock waves in the water by the same mechanism - rapidly creating an air bubble in the water (in lightning's case, by boiling the water) which then oscillates as it implodes and explodes repeatedly.

      Now, one could say that this is different because it's all in one place at a given time, and thus animals would be tempted to flee instead of it being a one-off thing. But then again, lightning strikes aren't spread out evenly over space and time either, they come in thunderstorms which do the exact same thing, repeatedly hitting the same section of sea for hours at a time.

      I'm not saying that I think these ships are harmless - not at all. I just think that I think people are overplaying it when they make these apocalyptic pronouncements on what effect they'll have on sea life. I mean, people have been detonating underwater *atomic bombs* - how do you think that compares to the sound of a pop of air? At 400 feet, a blue whale's own calls (188db @ 1m) are louder than the air gun.

      --
      People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
    6. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by sillybilly · · Score: 2

      I think whales in the North Pacific can hear blasts from the South Pacific, of sufficiently low frequency, such as 0.01 Hz or something like that. I haven't researched it. And from what I know, most beached whales seem to be beached over low frequency sounds in the sea, by ships and whatnot, but those sounds are constant, annoying, as opposed to a blast here and there. And if they want seismic things, they can blast underground nukes on islands, because to get a really good wave going you need a few megatons of blast power, and only nukes do that economically, unless you are willing to build a couple million tons of TNT - bomb (each ton is about 1 tow motor pallet skid), so to blast off nukes without polluting the ocean you need to do it either buried into the ocean floor, or find islands and bury them in dry land and blast it like that. But the underground contamination you create will be permanent, or at least stay behind for thousands of years. So a couple million skids of TNT is not as polluting, more environmentally friendly, compared to a heavily polluting small quarter ton nuke of the same blasting power. (They should ban all free blasting nukes for environmental reasons, and nuclear things all belong only into a nuclear power plant with reprocessing and reburning of any polluting waste. Nuclear propulsion subs and ships can recycle the spent fuel, and if they found a way to blast a nuke and contain all the fallout, and recycle it, that would be great, but I don't think it's possible. Cuz when we're about to kill your ass, we do it in an environmentally friendly way. No napalm, no Hannibal like scorched earth policy whose effects devastate southern Italy even today, 2000 years later, all chemical warfare gases biodegradable (like isothiazolone biocides in shampoo are unstable and self degrade and don't pollute, that kind of stuff. As long as we're killing each other we should make sure to protect the planet and environment for the future generations of those of us who win, or for other wildlife and animals, like bugs, who've got no business in whatever our dispute is about), They should put that stuff into the modern Geneva conventions for warfare.) Why don't they just wait, with their probes ready, for the regular earthquakes and volcanic eruption blasts that happen once every few years? And whales are probably adapted to once in a while massive earthquake blasts, what they really hate is the constant, constant annoying sounds made by ships and submarines.

    7. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      And there is still a very valuable place for nuclear bombs, but it's only for outer space use, to ping-pong celestial objects around, such as a huge meteorite on an impact course with Earth, you could use a gigaton Tsar bomba to send it off track and avoid a dinosaur-extinction-like-impact with Earth, and instead let it smack into Venus on its way back from around the Sun, sending Venus higher up in orbit, and spinning, any little bit counts, and eventually, habitable by humans (and bugs too.) If there is ever a definition of alien life, I think it'd look like a bug, which is so different from us, mammals. Like the antennae are their noses, that's how they smell. They have no lungs. They still have eyes, mouths, limbs, and they poop. Amazing little creatures, and luckily, they are tiny. I would not want to live in a world with spiders and ants the same size as me. Ever see a bug under an electron microscope? It looks scary! Do a google image search on SEM insect. (SEM is scanning electron microscope, the reflecting version, the other is TEM, transmission electron microscope.)

    8. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by sillybilly · · Score: 2

      I think for whales it's not the loudness that beaches them, but the constancy of the annoying sounds. If they plan as many blasts as you say they do, they should spread it out for like 10 years, and do a whole lot for 1 day, then stop for a few days, then repeat, and this way, whales that decide to get beached, don't reach the beach in time before the annoyance stops, and they get plenty of time to wander about and get far away from the beach before the next set of annoying blasts goes off in quick succession. Dragging it out for years creates jobs, and you can get the oceanographers and biologists involved too, who can track a whale from a chopper and ship, and follow it on its way to get beached, and tell the blasting guys, hey, we're getting close to the beach with our whale, stop blasting, and when the whale wanders back far enough, make the call, that hey, you can start blasting again. Follow a few whales, like 5, statistically, and monitor the coasts for any beachings and be ready to hoist the beached whales back into the sea with choppers and ropes.

    9. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by Rei · · Score: 1

      You think the boat is just going to sit in one place? They drag the sensors behind them while they travel across tens of millions of square kilometers. At the sort of pulse rate discussed and at typical ship rates of travel for a craft like this, the pulses would be about 100 meters apart, and the ship would be dozens of miles away an hour later.

      There's no point to sitting in one area and pulsing the same place over and over.

      --
      People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
    10. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by fygment · · Score: 1

      Makes sense because an animal hearing the loud sound will immediately clue-in that that was a warning shot, not a one-off, and that much louder noise is coming ... and be able to get far enough away from the source to be safe ... ... what kind of magical creatures are these?

      --
      "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    11. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Now we wish we had gone farther with those initial, aborted experiments in cetacean communication years ago. But in the absence of being able to issue warnings in "dolphin language" the idea of ramping up a series of smaller blasts before each 'big one' could work. This is how the redeye-reduction mode on a camera flash works.

    12. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by JMJimmy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speaking strictly in terms of pressure:

        - A 1kt nuclear explosion is 300-310db re 1 Pa at 1m
        - A seismic air cannon is 264-270db re 1 Pa at 1m
        - Whales can go anywhere from 108 to 225b re 1 Pa at 1m

      Looking at that without any context one might think it's no big deal. Except that for every 6db you're doubling the pressure.

      240db re 1 Pa at 1m is 100% lethal to fish and mammals up to 125m, permanent hearing loss on all trauma frequencies to >50% of fish/mammals to a range of 900m and causes some permanent hearing damage up to 1.5km (McAnuff and Booren, 1976; Yelverton and Richmond, 1981; Phillips et al., 1989: Richmond et al., 1989; Myricket ai., 1989)

    13. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      The proposal does call for a "ramp up" period where the sounds get louder and louder. Unfortunately, studies in Scotland found that fish are attracted to the noise from air cannons (no data on mammals)

    14. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by Falos · · Score: 1
      JMJimmy July 20, 2014 @03:42PM (#47495819)

      >The proposal does call for a "ramp up" period where the sounds get louder and louder.
      >

      I'm thinking you were hasty on knocking down the idea and assumed the one-off.

    15. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Can they give "warning shots" for some time period ahead of time to clear the area?

      We call them "mitigation shots".

      I don't know American regulations, but Norwegian regulations require a visual observer ("MMO", Marine Mammal Observer) to scan for cetaceans (whales, dolphins) by day and an acoustic monitor ("PAM", Passive Acoustic Monitor) to be deployed for at least 30 minutes before starting the guns. If a cetacean is spotted within a kilometre of the air guns (why they're using the name "sonic cannon" except to drum up FUD, I don't know), or an acoustic detection is made, then a start up sequence of one shot every 30 seconds, ramping from zero power to operating power over 30 minutes. The specific aim is to alert the cetaceans to something noisy happening, and to impel them to move away.

      (I don't have a qualification to operate as an MMO, but I have to work with them on almost every exploration well that I drill, and I am absolutely flat-out no-questions-asked required by my employer's to comply with the MMO's recommendations. Here is a list of the exceptions : [LIST BEGINS][LIST ENDS] ; list length 0 bytes. Can I be less ambiguous about this?)

      This is NOT new technology. The mitigation procedures are NOT new. TFA is pure FUD.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    16. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I mean, people have been detonating underwater *atomic bombs* - how do you think that compares to the sound of a pop of air?

      Just to put this into perspective : the air guns are suspended over the side of the drilling vessel about 20m from the side of the vessel ; if they're streamed behind a seismic boat, they're in the order of 100m behind the boat.

      Shocking as it may seem, we don't design equipment that will damage our other equipment. Which is why the energy released from air guns is considerably lower than (for example) that released by a depth charge or a torpedo.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    17. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      There's no point to sitting in one area and pulsing the same place over and over.

      There is - if you're doing "Seismic While Drilling". You can bump up the signal to noise ratio at your hydrophone 5, 6, or 7 kilometres below the seabed, without having to use huge air gun arrays (the compressors and air banks for which take up a lot of deck space ; deck space is always at a premium).

      However, TFA is about shooting area-wide seismic coverage, not SWD. Because of the turning circle of (say) a 5km long, 16-wide array of streamed hydrophones, you keep them in constant motion. If you didn't, the hydrophones will get displaced from their required relative positions. Positioning typically needs to be precise to tens of centimetres. (Yes, many companies use (D-)GPS to confirm the positioning of the hydrophones, and record those positions for every shot.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    18. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Those figures sound broadly comparable to regulations that I've seen controlling the exposure of diving workers to loud noises in their work place (pneumatic tools, stand-off distances from explosive cutters, that sort of thing). I didn't memorise the details as I didn't need them, but those figures sound broadly comparable.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    19. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      See my comment up-thread.

      You don't know the procedures that have been followed for years. I first approached my Boss about getting qualified as an MMO in about 2005, but he couldn't see a business case for it - I don't have the time in my regular employment to spend 1/2 hour doing nothing but sweeping the horizon with binos.

      Shame - I'd have liked to get paid for a week of going whale-watching.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    20. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But in the absence of being able to issue warnings in "dolphin language"

      The "cetacean communication experiments which were stopped were ones attempting to teach dolphins (I forget the species, but only one species) to speak English. Work to understand the communications of cetaceans continues to this day.

      Your "dolphin language" phrase implies that you think there is one "dolphin language" ; what we're pretty sure of is that there is one language per species ; there are 40 "dolphin" species in 17 genera (closely related groups), and about the same number of other cetaceans. We're pretty sure that some species have multiple, geographically constrained languages - "dialects" if you will. So your "dolphin language" suggestion implies learning to speak something like 100 distinct dialects, some probably very distantly related to others.

      Big task.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    21. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The same problem exists in human communications, and we're addressing it by developing a pictographic communication mode that works like Japanese kanji. Instead of having that sign at the rim of the Grand Canyon say Keep Back in an ever-proliferating number of tourist languages, we use a pictograph of a person falling down a slope.

    22. Re:Hoping this is not as bad as it sounds by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Probably are - higher due to transmission through water but comparable.

  3. Re:The Republicans that rule this country... by masterofthumbs · · Score: 1

    Did you forget that Obama is a democrat?

  4. They already do this elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've heard a geologist speak of doing this in the Mediterranean. I would hope the experience would allow them to do more than speculate about the effects on animals.

    1. Re:They already do this elsewhere by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      See my comment up-thread. TFA is ill-informed and written to generate FUD, not to inform people. These aren't new techniques, and procedures for mitigating the effect of seismic air guns on sea life - particularly cetaceans - are well-known and used throughout the industry.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. Re:The Republicans that rule this country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did you forget that Obama is a democrat?

    Since he's maintained virtually every policy of the Cheney Administration, I'd say he's a DINO.

  6. Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is just disgusting news

  7. I want one by eyegone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't care what they're supposed to be used for. They may be civilization's last hope of controlling my children.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  8. Other loud noises by ishmaelflood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder how loud they are compared with underwater explosions, volcanoes and seaquakes?

    1. Re:Other loud noises by jbolden · · Score: 2

      210 dB 2.0 earthquake (sound force is the equivalent of holding a stick of dynamite).
      235 dB 5.0 earthquake
      248 dB atom bomb
      310 dB loudest volcano that we know of (happened in 1883)

    2. Re:Other loud noises by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

      yeah It's like they don't know where babies come from!

    3. Re:Other loud noises by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      These are very interesting and informative numbers, but can you cite some sources for them? A sincere question.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Other loud noises by jbolden · · Score: 2

      All over the web. Those particular data: http://www.decibelcar.com/menu...

    5. Re:Other loud noises by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      What, intruding actual scale and proportion into a political argument?

      Off with his head!

    6. Re:Other loud noises by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      i mean why have 6,8,or 10 children? when you can only feed 2 or 3(without assistance)?

      Historic precedent, based on two factors -

      * High levels of infant mortality
      * The need to provide for one's retirement

      These countries don't have functioning social care systems. Your children are the only care you're going to get in your dotage. That, combined with the historic trend of high infant mortality, means that high numbers of children are perceived as a form of great fortune. They don't have the career driven lives of the West that are leading our populations to shrink because we're producing fewer than one child per person. Even if the healthcare systems improve and infant mortality rates drop, there is some time before the culture catches up.

    7. Re:Other loud noises by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Common screwup. Those are all atmosphere-rated decibel figures. Underwater decibel figures are listed at 61.5 dB louder than their atmospheric equivalents. 250 dB underwater is 188.5 atmospheric.

      Adjusting your above examples to be underwater figures, we get:

      271.5 dB 2.0 earthquake
      296.5 dB 5.0 earthquake
      309.5 dB atom bomb
      371.5 dB loudest volcano

      I'd think it obvious that an air cannon isn't going to produce sound levels equivalent to an atomic bomb. And actually one would expect an underwater atomic bomb to be much louder than a surface one, far more of the energy is going to go into creating a gigantic oscillating bubble. And lastly, your cited atomic bomb figure is only for the 16 and 21 kiloton bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Modern thermonuclear weapons are generally three orders of magnitude higher yield than that. A large thermonuclear weapon in deep water will create a bubble on the order of magnitude of a kilometer in size, which will then oscillate in a series of collapses and reexplosions. The oscillating bubbles created by air cannons are practically microscopic by comparison.

      --
      People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
    8. Re:Other loud noises by blackbeak · · Score: 1

      this is just stoopid...we've already done so much damage to this planet...

      WE?

      I had no part in the decision making process that led to any significant world or environment damaging, and I doubt you did either, unless you have a hand in directing activities of a industrial company or are involved in military decision making. You may very likely not even know anyone who did. Get it straight, the robber barons and financially powerful that direct the ecologically damaging activities are not "We". Not without contorting the meaning so as to blame the consumers for how the products used are produced. Were "we" dumping agent orange in Vietnam? "We" level mountaintops? Funny, I don't recall getting my share of the profits!

      Little known fact: The iconic "Crying Indian" commercial of the 1970's was produced by a consortium of industrial polluters in order to throw the popular focus back on individuals at a time when industrial pollution was an exponentially greater problem. Sure, people threw garbage out their car window, and that's bad, but the cumulative damage from that was a tiny fraction of what industry was doing.

      --
      Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
    9. Re:Other loud noises by volmtech · · Score: 1

      If you want to control the economy and make people do right you should read up on the tactics employed by those who were successful at it. People like Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot. But unlike them, I'm sure you would be a benevolent dictator and everyone's lives (those who still had theirs) would be so much better.

    10. Re:Other loud noises by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Good point about the 61.5. Absolutely changes things if there are different scales.

    11. Re:Other loud noises by Rei · · Score: 1

      Orders of magnitude are used for approximations of scale, not exact figures. And the Russian R-36 missile can take a 20MT warhead (although I think they've eliminated all of the R-36s in that configuration in favor of the MIRVed version, I'd have to check).

      You're right, though, I think two orders of magnitude would be a more accurate figure.

      --
      People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
    12. Re:Other loud noises by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I'd think it obvious that an air cannon isn't going to produce sound levels equivalent to an atomic bomb.

      Considering that air guns are powered by air compressors typically driven by diesel engines consuming a couple of gallons per hour, the average power isn't that high. The peak power is higher, because the guns fire in pulses, using the air as a storage medium.

      The oscillating bubbles created by air cannons are practically microscopic by comparison.

      For seismic analysis, particularly for differentiating between oil-filled rock, gas-filled rock and water-filled rock, we need lots of high frequencies in the projected sound, so that we can measure the difference of absorption at different frequencies. To get those high frequencies, we need bubbles of relatively small size. That constrains the power we can put into the water. Producing bigger guns will produce more power, but will not answer our geological questions, and so would be a waste of money. We'd have to run multiple surveys (big guns versus small guns) across the same area, almost certainly causing more harm than doing one survey.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  9. Great News by Hevel-Varik · · Score: 1

    Mankind needs energy. The sea creatures will...adapt.

  10. BAD,Bad, Bad! by JimSadler · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Providing jobs means absolutely nothing nor does the profit of business. Anything that does harm to the land or oceans should be a felony. People come and go. The land and the oceans must exist for all people in all generations. Our needs are simply not a consideration. The horror of anything in the Arctic or extreme north is even worse as when accidents occur we have no ability to restore or mitigate a disaster.

    1. Re:BAD,Bad, Bad! by jbolden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are the reason environmentalism gets discredited. Of course our needs are a consideration. The oceans must exist for future generations to do what for them? Fulfill their needs. The first imperative of every species is survival, that is nature. We can talk about balance or relative cost, but there is no way that humans are going to agree to extinct themselves.

    2. Re:BAD,Bad, Bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      no, Jim is spot on.if it conceit to think that our needs trump all other considerations... conceit is bad

      the key is sustainability, our needs can only be considered if they can be fulfilled sustainably, if not then that need must be stomped on and I don't care if that directly impacts my current lifestyle or means we need to cut human population back dramatically... no gas means 1000s freeze to death, well, that's 1000s of jobs you don't have to come up with. It sounds harsh but if you can rationally step back and look at what's going to happen without a serious behavioural correction that's going to be nothing. Sanctioning such exploration is not a behavioural correction, it's doubling down on the crazy.

      fossil fuels (presumably the energy source in question here) is, by definition, not sustainable. if we mess up the whales forever just to get a few more years of natgas then shame on us

      this is not an environment change concern either... the time will come when we *must* make the transition, the tipping point on cost is only being thwarted by interests who can externalize costs to keep the price of fossil fuels low... whale disruption is not a line item on the balance sheet that determines the cost of that product. If an estimate can be made and priced in and the source is still viable economically then go for it... if an estimate can not be made then it is an error to assume that the value is zero (the current status quo), it should be considered infinite... now how's that balance sheet looking.

    3. Re:BAD,Bad, Bad! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Or howabout you attempt to make a realistic estimate rather than either 0 or infinity?

    4. Re:BAD,Bad, Bad! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      There is no reason we need to cost future generations. There are reasons we need to manage the land and water on this planet in a way advantageous to humanity to maintain our population and anything remotely approaching our standard of living.

    5. Re:BAD,Bad, Bad! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      America's energy consumption per day per capita is over 3 barrels of oil. That's about 3.3b calories worth of energy per dy. What difference to that consumption does adding or subtracting human manual effort make?

    6. Re:BAD,Bad, Bad! by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      It depends. If you add about 30 mins of cycling to work and back every day, that adds 600 calories to your list, but then you could remove about 25.000 calories that would be used in driving a car. And, since you're talking calories per capita, if enough people did that and less cars were needed, you could subtract the savings from the whole auto industry, which include energy needed to power factories, extract raw materials, build factories and retailers, shipping... I can't really estimate, but it would be pretty significant if you consider it takes about 240.000 calories just for the welding of a single car in the assembly line (source: www.energystar.gov/ia/business/industry/LBNL-54036.pdf ). Now think along these lines about heating, too, and you'll see the enourmous savings we get by adding some manual effort.

    7. Re:BAD,Bad, Bad! by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      I frankly doubt that not using sonic cannons to look for new sources of oil would be an extinction level event. The GP is exaggerating, but so are you.

    8. Re:BAD,Bad, Bad! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Of course it wouldn't. But not "harming" the oceans or land i.e. not utilizing resources would be an extinction level event. All animals, humans included need to pull resources from those sources to live.

    9. Re:BAD,Bad, Bad! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. But that's the sort of balanced measure where we do a cost benefit analysis and see a decent improvement to the environment without having to inflict great harm (and arguably a benefit) on humans. Very different than the rhetoric of our needs don't matter.

    10. Re:BAD,Bad, Bad! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Of course we should be reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. I fully support large investments in green technology. That's different than a 0 harm policy enforced imprisonment.

    11. Re:BAD,Bad, Bad! by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      the obscene and growing number of spanking brand new cars taking up space, never to be sold, being added to every single day in a never-ending and accelerating cycle of build-and-stack kinda pisses all over that argument.

      The only thing that is likely to happen if more people rode bikes is that Shimano make more money.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  11. The White House isn't stupid.. by Rigel47 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They know that above all the oil must flow. Without the oil that came from the fracking boom oil would probably be at $150/barrel or higher. Without flowing oil the economy suffers (many past recessions were precipitated by high oil prices), the common man starts to get irritated at higher food prices, less disposable income.. for those that had disposable income to start with. The house of cards starts to sway even more.

    Cheap oil is the real bread and circus that keeps the masses subdued. Some dead whales and dolphins isn't even a consideration.

    1. Re:The White House isn't stupid.. by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So You're saying oil is cheap now??? You are blind to investor trading. Who is buying oil at $120 a barrel? We don't know because it's a 'privacy thing'. Or trade secret they say How convenient.... So what if BIG oil is buying their own commodity to keep the #s up. Saudi Arabia said they would be happy with $50 to 60 a barrel and yet it is double where it realistically should be, according to commodity analysts. I have studied it. So saying it would be $150 is a lie and scare tactic. Because THAt is exactly what caused the BIG recession. $147.00 price. Remember the saying "what can we do about it???" Or weren't you alive back when we got robbed of our hi-way freedom. We are paying TWICE as much as we should be for gasoline to line some traders pocket. PERIOD. wake up. The war in Iraq was supposedly going to free up oil and we have never paid more ever since.

    2. Re:The White House isn't stupid.. by saleenS281 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, if they went back to banning speculation on commodities, oil would be $25/barrel. But not allowing wall street to fuck us would be anti-American and borderline COMMUNIST!

    3. Re:The White House isn't stupid.. by jovius · · Score: 1

      The time of cheap and unconventional oil is over. Shale and deep water sources are unconventional and they wouldn't be profitable with the oil prices known in the last millennium. Besides in terms of oil used to extract oil they are also more costly.

      The most reasonable solution is to move forward from hydrocarbons. That era is soon over and besides the dependency upkeeps certain political trenches. If an oil or energy company is shortsighted they will oppose this, but the companies who develop alternatives will be the market leaders of the future. It's no wonder that the more advanced and rich Middle East countries are heavily investing in solar and renewables. The same names will dominate the energy sector in the coming years.

      This is the moment where the ones who don't adapt will not survive.

    4. Re:The White House isn't stupid.. by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      To expand on the sibling's post about Saddam switching oil sales to Euros :

      The economy of the US is propped up by a vast debt. We're not talking loans to banks, or China. We're talking petrodollars.

      The de-facto currency that oil is traded in was for a long time, the US dollar. Which meant that nations speculated in it, hoarded it, retained reserves of it for the purpose of trading oil.

      This meant that the US printed more dollars with impunity, as long as oil markets expanded, meaning the government enjoyed the ability to spend vast amounts of money backed not just by US wealth and productivity, but the wealth and productivity of the whole world.

      Then it was proposed that it would be a good idea to start trading for oil in currencies other than the US Dollar. The US financiers were terrified by this.

      If the nations of the world no longer needed their dollars to buy oil, they would seek to exchange them for other things of value. And if the nations of the world no longer needed US dollars to buy oil, they would no longer want to accept them in exchange for things of value, so the bulk of the balance would have to come home to the US to be exchanged for things of value there.

      This would cause US inflation, devaluation of the US dollar, and vast tracts of US interests suddenly being owned by foreign nationals. The incumbent administration (or rather, their financier friends) could not permit this, so they made an example of one of the countries that dared to make noises about trading their oil for Euros.

      It's no coincidence that Iran is having it's feet held to the fire at a time when it is once again proposing to open a non-dollar oil bourse.

    5. Re:The White House isn't stupid.. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      What's the alternative? Do you think you can convince everyone that deprivation is better than plenty? Do you think the government will suddenly start adopting sound economic policies rather than economic policies to satisfy greed and envy and entitlement and grievance and short-term political goals? What would cause that to happen? And if it happened, what would cause it to continue?

    6. Re:The White House isn't stupid.. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Without the oil that came from the fracking boom oil would probably be at $150/barrel or higher

      The overwhelming majority of the "fracking boom" is drilling for gas, not oil. Yes, it is possible to frack shale (as in the gas boom) for oil, but it's much, much less common than fracking for gas.

      Of course, in conventional (i.e. non-shale) reservoirs, hydraulic fracturing to enhance oil (and gas, but more rarely) production has been going on since the 1950s without arousing any particular attention. Of the about 200 wells on my CV, dozens of them have probably been fracked since I drilled and steered them. I wouldn't know ; it's not a question I'd ever waste my time asking.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  12. Even regular sonar wreaks havoc on marine life by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Informative

    When sonar is used, it can create sound pressure levels of 140dB 300 miles from the source . The sound is so excruciating that whales will surface too fast and get the bends, and/or beach themselves, just to escape the sound.

    Yup, let's rape our irreplaceable planet some more while torturing innocent, intelligent creatures. After all, they aren't human, and our comfort, convenience, and entertainment are so much more important than their lives.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Even regular sonar wreaks havoc on marine life by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      According to a more informative article, this won't be nearly as bad, then.

      180 decibels. The maximum underwater noise from sonic cannons allowed within 500 meters, mitigating physical damage to marine mammals.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Even regular sonar wreaks havoc on marine life by jbolden · · Score: 2

      The article is full of crap:

      Some systems operate at more than 235 decibels, producing sound waves that can travel across tens or even hundreds of miles of ocean

      BS. 235 decibels is louder than almost all volcanos. That's essentially a 31megaton explosion. The navy has tested ship based sonar of that power but only experimentally. No submarine has every carried anything remotely like that. Sonar in use on subs maxes out at around 180 dB, which is still about the equivalent of a 1lb explosion but nowhere near 235.

    3. Re:Even regular sonar wreaks havoc on marine life by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Decibels used in SONAR are referenced to 1 microPascal; deciBels used in audio are referenced to 20 microPascals. Thus there is a 26 dB difference in level. A level of 140 dB underwater is the same as 114 dB SPL (in air). About a mid-level peak at an EDM club. Source: designing SONAR systems for scientific and fisheries research for the better part of a decade...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Even regular sonar wreaks havoc on marine life by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

      And let's not forget the INVESTORS.

    5. Re:Even regular sonar wreaks havoc on marine life by Rei · · Score: 1

      Once again, people here at Slashdot seem completely unaware that underwater sounds are measured by a scale that's 61.5 db louder than sound in the air.

      --
      People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
    6. Re:Even regular sonar wreaks havoc on marine life by Habberhead · · Score: 1

      There is absolutely no way for a whale to get the bends.

      They are not breathing compressed gas at depth and then ascending.

    7. Re:Even regular sonar wreaks havoc on marine life by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The sound is so excruciating that whales will surface too fast and get the bends

      Whales don't get "the bends" (in the sense of decompression sickness). When they dive, they stop breathing (Doh!) and the air in their lungs rapidly compresses until their lungs have collapsed and the air is in the (relatively non-absorbent) bronchae and cranial air passages. Then, when they come back up, there isn't the excess of nitrogen dissolved in the blood that needs to exsolve and forms the bubbles that cause decompression sickness.

      What gives human divers decompression sickness is that we breathe air while we're at depth. That allows our bloodstream to equilibrate with an effectively unlimited supply of nitrogen at depth, whereas the whales (dolphins, seals, penguins, etc) have only the one pair of lungs full of air to equilibrate against.

      Don't worry, you're by no means the first person to get this wrong. I've had to talk other trained SCUBA divers through the maths before.

      There are other forms of diving injury to which whales etc are subject, but they're not "the bends." And while they leave marks on the bones (as they do on human divers too), they're not enough to incapacitate the animals (though they can destroy a commercial diver's career).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    8. Re:Even regular sonar wreaks havoc on marine life by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Agreed. There are other forms of diving injury that whales (and other non-human air-breathing divers) suffer from, but they're generally chronic and cumulative. Crush injuries to bones with isolated fluid-filled cavities which can't equilibrate fast enough, for example. Humans get the same, which is part of the reason that sat divers take several days to get to depth.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  13. You're presuming any of them gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's a pretty safe bet that they don't. Even if it harms the fishing industry, they don't have more lobbyists than the energy companies.

    1. Re:You're presuming any of them gives a shit by Sciath · · Score: 1

      Japan ranks at the top of the list for abusers.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
  14. Some of the jobs this would create by marciot · · Score: 5, Funny

    1) Fish Deafness Specialist
    2) Hearing Aid Designer for Dolphins
    3) Bass Boosting Headphone Maker for Bass
    4) ASL Teachers for Octopi
    5) Jellyfish Mending Seamstress
    6) Aquatic PTSD Therapist
    7) Exploding Whale Cleanup Crew

    1. Re:Some of the jobs this would create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no, we don't understand cetacean hearing well enough to even think about it. See, the cetacean specialists are not allowed to gather whale or dolphin samples from living or even stranded animals, or the Greenpeace activists throw a wobbly. It's a shame, really, because they hoped to verify that beached whales are often hearing damaged by human activity, and help protect the species. But the Greenpeace whackjobs wouldn't even allow the research on live whales. And *dead* whales have generally already had their delicate inner ears ruined, making them useless for research into why they beached themselves.

  15. Re:The Republicans that rule this country... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    That makes all democrats that voted him in for a second term DINOs...

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  16. So It Has Come To This by mentil · · Score: 2

    This will create a Sharknado, won't it?

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:So It Has Come To This by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Sharktopusnado, I'm afraid.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  17. Re:The Republicans that rule this country... by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    get that nonsense out of your head. the ones with Republicans and Democrats in their pockets rule your world. hint, the seat of power in the USA isn't Washington DC, it is New York

  18. so long as the duration is... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... short. If they just blast away continuously for days that might be an issue. But if they do it for an hour or so every day that probably won't matter.

    Think of it like the noisy neighbor... if they have a loud phone conversation or violent sex or blast party music for a couple hours every day... it probably won't be a literal threat to your health. It might be annoying but you're not going to get ill or die or something.

    But if someone does it to you every day all day for days on end... then yeah... you might have a physiological reaction.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:so long as the duration is... by upontheturtlesback · · Score: 2

      The 235 decibel blasts from these sonic cannons enters the water about every ten seconds, 24 hours a day, for weeks or months on end, per exploration mission. 235 decibels is about a million times louder than standing next to a jet engine. It kills or injures nearby life almost immediately.

      The US Navy recently increased sonar exercises without a proper assessment of the risks to marine mammals. The service and the Navy later estimated that the use of sonar during the five year plan will result in the death or injury of 650,000 marine animals. Their own study.

      This isn't something you can compare to the noise that your neighbours make, it's essentially the shockwave from a powerful bomb that travels hundreds of kilometers in every direction due to the increased conduction of the wave by the density of the fluid (water). This is one of the largest compression waves that humans can generate, and it "hemorrhages in and around the ears" and causes "organ damage and internal injuries similar to decompression sickness".

    2. Re:so long as the duration is... by upontheturtlesback · · Score: 2

      The 235 decibel blasts from these sonic cannons enters the water about every ten seconds, 24 hours a day, for weeks or months on end, per exploration mission. 235 decibels is about a million times louder than standing next to a jet engine. It kills or injures nearby life almost immediately.

      The US Navy recently increased sonar exercises without a proper assessment of the risks to marine mammals. The service and the Navy later estimated that the use of sonar during the five year plan will result in the death or injury of 650,000 marine animals. Their own study.

      This isn't something you can compare to the noise that your neighbours make, it's essentially the shockwave from a powerful bomb that goes off every 10 seconds for weeks or months and travels hundreds of kilometers in every direction due to the increased conduction of the wave by the density of the fluid (water). This is one of the largest compression waves that humans can generate, and it "hemorrhages in and around the ears" and causes "organ damage and internal injuries similar to decompression sickness". If you intentionally wanted to kill every living mammal in the ocean, there are few things you could do that would accomplish it quicker or more effectively.

      I'm not a US citizen, but you should Contact your Congressional Representative and tell them that this won't fly, immediately.

    3. Re:so long as the duration is... by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      For what its worth, I fired off an email to my congressman. Sounds like its too far gone to stop but we can hope.

      Understand, I am pro oil drilling, pro nuclear power... and all sorts of other things you likely find unsavory. But this just seems wanton to me. I'm not a monster or an idiot... and this seems like madness.

      If it didn't disturb marine life then I'd be fine with it. But blasting that into the water for months on end?... no.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:so long as the duration is... by Rei · · Score: 1

      For the third time I have to point it out in this thread, underwater explosions are measured differently on the decibel scale than above water explosions, you need to subtract 61.5 from the decibel figures before comparing them with above-ground noise figures. That's over 6 orders of magnitude difference.

      Also, when people talk about how the ships keep making pulses every ten seconds, they act like it's in the same spot. Which would be idiotic. "Okay, now that we know what's down here, what should we explore next? I know, let's keep exploring the exact same place!" The ships pulse every 10 seconds while moving across the vast survey area.

      Lastly, see my comparison with lightning above, which strikes more frequently in the survey area, louder, and often hits the same area for hours on end.

      --
      People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
    5. Re:so long as the duration is... by whoda · · Score: 1

      Congresspeople don't care about email complaints.
      Send snail mail, or you aren't really concerned about the situation at all.

    6. Re:so long as the duration is... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      this is the point that I think most commenters are missing - that we're talking less about a continuous sound, more a shock akin to an underwater bomb.

      If you want to blow a safe without burning the contents, you drill a hole in it, fill it with water and insert a charge. Plug the hole, detonate the charge, what happens?

      Water is practically incompressible. What happens is the overpressure from the detonation (and we're talking a BLASTING CAP here, nowhere near the power of a quarter stick!) is transmitted through the water until it meets the point of lowest resistance: the points where the door meets the superstructure - the lock and the hinges. Result? Door blown off hinges, safe contents slightly damp.

      What do you suppose would happen to any creature inside that safe when the cap is detonated?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    7. Re:so long as the duration is... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Grasp I'm just going on what people here are telling me both one way and the other.

      What would you say to the people that are claiming this technology sets off hundreds of intense pressure waves that sound continuously for weeks on end?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:so long as the duration is... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Understand, I am pro oil drilling, pro nuclear power... and all sorts of other things you likely find unsavory. But this just seems wanton to me. I'm not a monster or an idiot... and this seems like madness.

      Then TFA's writer has achieved his (her? I forget which) purpose of spreading FUD about what has been a routine technique in other parts of the world for decades, with appropriate mitigation strategies in place.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    9. Re:so long as the duration is... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Your analogy is wrong. You need to cut the top off the safe and then perform the rest of your experiment.

      Air guns (they've never been called "sonic cannons" ; the author has been channelling early Hawkwind) are fired at a depth of 5~10m below water level, suspended from floats towed behind the survey boat. Normally there's a string of multiple hydrophones trailing along behind the air gun, held at a similar depth by tension between floats (pulling them up) and a hydroplane (underwater wing) pulling them down. Sometimes we lower a hydrophone (or several, for redundancy) into an existing well bore and lower it to the bottom, maybe as much as 7 or 8 km away from the surface, but we never lower air guns to that depth because they wouldn't work.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  19. Re:Comparisons by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    whales don't shriek, they are very low frequency sources

  20. 235dB-180dB=55dB=310,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If 180 dB is 1 lb, the 235 dB is 0.155 kiloton not 31 megaton. I bet engineers could do something like that for a specific pulse of short duration.

    1. Re:235dB-180dB=55dB=310,000 by jbolden · · Score: 1

      10^5.5 = 316,227
      So I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. I'm not sure what the falloff is in air pressure as you increase the size of an explosive. I'd expect a square root function (?) if someone knows they can solve that part.

    2. Re: 235dB-180dB=55dB=310,000 by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's why I used an exponent.

  21. Re:The Republicans that rule this country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    right, because the alternative would have been so much better... I'm sure Republican's would have objected to this if it harmed sea creatures.......

  22. Re:The Republicans that rule this country... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 2

    Ahhh, so Dinos are totally without blame because the other party woulda done it?

    The senate, the Oval office, all controlled by Dinos - but it's Bush's fault...

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  23. Bullshit by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because they don't have exact figures, doesn't mean they don't know the outcome. They've already seen the effects our underwater noise making with naval craft and underwater military technology has had. But hey, as long as they can say "we don't know exactly100% for sure" it's A-OK, because the US needs jobs. And so the self-proclaimed "most transparent", "pro middle-class", "pro environment", "anti-lobbyist" President in History® gives BP, Shell and Exxon the OK to drive aquatic mammals into killing themselves and to suffer social separation because that's EXACTLY what they already know happens when we bombard the ocean with sonic disturbances. They just don' t know HOW MUCH WORSE it will be. just that it will be worse.

  24. Yes Minister. by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    So, in Brussels there is a office to subsidize food production and another to destroy the food surplus according to Minister Hacker. Now we will have oil spills to destroy all the effort put into restoring the Chesapeake Bay. It used to be funny on TV, but in real life it just looks stupid.

  25. Red flags: by no-body · · Score: 1

    - Jobs in danger
    - Jobs created
    - Freedom
    - Security

    Look who is talking and who is supporting (bribing) them.

    Applies to all politicians in the US where the supreme court is smoking what? - pot, no cannot be, they would be more sensible.

  26. We'll attempt to extract every drop of fossil fuel by eco2geek · · Score: 1

    ...from the earth before it's all over, as long as it has the potential of making a profit.

    If the Keystone XL pipeline isn't approved by this president, just wait a few years for energy prices to get higher and fossil fuels to be more scarce. It'll eventually happen.

  27. Sorry Whales by Scottingham · · Score: 1

    Whales:...what's that sonny?

    I SAID I'M SORRY!!!!!!!


    Poor bastards can't hear a damn thing ever since we started with our sonic blasters.

  28. Re:The Republicans that rule this country... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    want animals to die. No surprise here.

    Yes, George W. Bush obviously hated marine animals.

  29. whales get the bends? by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    Um, that's a bit of a puzzle, the whale breathes in air at atmospheric pressure, therefore to a first order approximation the air in its body can't be at much more than that after compression and then surfacing.

    I'm not saying its impossible, but I can't see what pressure is driving the nitrogen deep into joints etc, it should all be in equilibrium.

    the whole point with bends and SCUBA is that you are breathing high pressure air, and so high pressure nitrogen diffuses into the parts of the body with lower partial pressures of nitrogen, then when you surface the high pressure nitrogen wants to diffuse out again, but can't easily. If the whole lot starts in equilibrium then it all compresses together. This loosely is why duck diving into quite significant depths is safe without a decompression stage.

    1. Re:whales get the bends? by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      the air in your lungs is at the external pressure and so is the nitrogen in the joints etc, IF no additional high pressure nitrogen is injected into the system, the lungs and joints are in equilibrium no matter what the external pressure, they all compress together.

  30. Some (more) jobs this would create by marciot · · Score: 1

    ...

    8) Coral Relocation Consultants
    9) Cochlear Implant Maker for Conchs
    10) Ear Surgeons for Sturgeon
    11) Disability Lawyers for Sharks
    12) Mime School Professor for Deaf and Dumb Clownfish
    13) Burst Blowfish Re-Inflation Technician
    14) Electric Eel Defibrillation Nurse

    I'll be hear all week, folks!

  31. You're more right that you know by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Our food supply is based on oil. We don't rotate crops anymore. We couldn't possibly make enough food if we did. Instead we generate nitrogen as a by-product of oil and pump it back into the soil.

    If the oil stops flowing some Americans might have to tighten their belts, but people around the world that depend on our surplus food would just starve...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You're more right that you know by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      70% of US corn is fed to livestock. Because of all the economic subsidy that corn receives this means the price of meat in the US is artificially low.

      US meat consumption is multiple times that of the next nearest nation ; even if you cut your meat consumption by half, you'd still be eating a lot of meat, and you'd free up vast tracts of agricultural land to grow other crops.

    2. Re:You're more right that you know by Rei · · Score: 1

      Nitrogen-based fertilizers generally come from natural gas, not oil, FYI. Of the three main sources of fossil energy (coal, oil, natural gas), oil is generally by far the most expensive per joule.

      Also, I don't think your comparison is that simple that if yields decline, people die. If there was a global food shortage due to reduced yields per acre, the price spike would hit meat the hardest, practically driving grainfed meat off the market. A calorie of grainfed beef takes over 12 calories of grain to produce; all of that vast acreage dedicated to growing field corn for livestock feed would switch to the suddenly more valuable crops for human consumption. Meat from animals grazing on marginal lands wouldn't be more expensive to produce, although their profit margin would shoot up. The world's diet, although especially the poorer nations', would increasingly look more like it did in the past - calories primarily from plant sources with only the occasional meat supplementing it.

      Also there's the fact that if price on food products skyrockets, all sorts of land that was previously considered marginal and uneconomical to produce on suddenly becomes economical.

      --
      People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
    3. Re:You're more right that you know by labawi · · Score: 1

      Or, rich people would still eat meat and the poor ones would starve to death. Overpopulations solved. Though only after they have devastated the land with their last attempts to feed themselves, possibly causing uprisings, wars, a thermonuclear catastrophe ... unless they're killed off first. Who knows?

  32. Re:This is total BS by someone1234 · · Score: 2

    Scientists don't know what will happen to a dolphin getting in the way?
    Well, either they explode, or just get their brain squashed. It could be they just become permanently deaf or just scared shitless and swim to the shore to die there.
    Either case: they die, who cares which way?

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  33. Why should people change their energy use... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you can kill off the coasts to get a few more scraps to move everyone along until the US finds more oil owning brown people it can 'liberate'.

    1. Re:Why should people change their energy use... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      So you'd prefer the opposite order? Wars first, offshore oil exploration later?

  34. Re:Not Even Funny by ssam · · Score: 1

    You can reduce carbon emission a lot without changing lifestyles.
    US has carbon intensity of 0.413 (Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide per Thousand Year 2005 U.S. Dollars)
    France has 0.167
    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdb...

    So they make 2.5 times more money for each ton of CO2

  35. Re:Comparisons by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    i) They aren't fish, they are mammals
    ii) They have social grouping activity, the thing that separates the smart animals from the dumb ones, and the thing responsible for the growth of humans into the dominant species

  36. Re:these guys are fucking tards by Rei · · Score: 1

    Let me know how you managed to fit the sun or a fusion reactor into your gas tank.

    Are we really going to keep pretending that oil and electricity are the same thing?

    --
    People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
  37. Re:Not Even Funny by Rei · · Score: 1

    France also has a much milder climate and 3.5 times the population density. They're also heavily dominated by nuclear power, which some people like but others truly hate, and which tends to be one of the more expensive generation sources per kilowatt hour and with a very long turnaround time from conception to commencement of generation.

    And once again, we're talking about oil here, oil and electricity are not interchangeable. You need to be comparing oil consumption per capita. France's is a bit over half the US's, but with a population density 3.5 times higher, that's kind of to be expected.

    --
    People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
  38. You first by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Figure out what level of energy use, as a whole, is acceptable by your calculations. Then figure out how much that means you get to use. Make sure to include all forms of energy usage, such as heating and energy used in building and delivering goods. Adjust your energy use to meet that level, and see how that goes. Then we can talk. Otherwise, kindly STFU.

    The reason I say this is not because I'm against trying to reduce energy consumption, I think conservation is always a good idea when practical, but because I'm sick and tired of hypocritical online eco-whiners. They'll bitch about how "people" should do something yet are unwilling to do it themselves. Somehow they see it as ok to bitch that others should be willing to make sacrifices but don't make any themselves.

    So put up or shut up. Don't whine that "people" need to change their energy use, but then continue to live an energy intensive first world lifestyle. You are people too. If you cannot or will not adjust your usage, why would you assume anyone else would be willing?

    1. Re:You first by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> I think conservation is always a good idea when practical,

      Just like every other change, conservation will require some compromise somewhere else, so if you always prioritize other sources of endless short term issues (such as business/economics/politics) above long term planning activities such as conservation, no conservation will ever get done at all.

      It always amazes me to see how completely short-term most thinking in the US is. It is truly bizarre to me how most Americans will make excuses for some company permanently damaging the environment to make their CEO's annual bonus even bigger this year.

      Its like many Americans apparently feel literally no sense of responsibility to protect the earth we all need to survive on, or care about what we are handing to the next generation, especially if there's a quick buck to be made.

  39. THOUSANDS of Job Opportunities! by blackbeak · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wanted: Marine Life Impersonators. Must have own costume and be able to thrive in salt water conditions. Overtime available.

    --
    Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
  40. "Energy" exploration by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I don't like the "energy" euphemism, they're not searching for some tidy glowing yellow stuff like something from an RTS game. Let's call it what it is. OIL. Wildlife-gooping, coast-ruining, fossil-carbon-filled, toxic oil that needs to have more energy dumped into it to be refined into something we can use.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  41. You and I know what the dolphins are going to say: by pahles · · Score: 1

    So long, and thanks for the all fish!

    --
    Sig?
  42. Re:The Republicans that rule this country... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    except for people were complaining that bush was not a real republican and he was a RINO, so which is it??

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  43. Tesla by tepples · · Score: 1

    Let me know how you managed to fit the sun or a fusion reactor into your gas tank.

    Tesla managed it somehow.

    1. Re:Tesla by Rei · · Score: 1

      And for the literally 99.9995 percent of the world population who doesn't have a Tesla?

      As much as I'm a fan of electric cars, it's simply an absurdity to pretend that everyone's going to have one any day now. The average car on the road in the US is 10 years old, implying an average US lifespan of 20 years - and many live on even longer, shipped to the third world. So even if every new car sold tomorrow was an EV, it'd still take decades to switch over. But of course, every new car sold tomorrow won't be an EV. Even if every consumer in the world was suddenly sold on the concept of EVs, it'd take a decade or two to be able to ramp up production that high. But of course every consumer in the world isn't sold on the concept of EVs, it'll take a decade or two of people getting to experience the technology and being satisfied with it for that to happen.

      I wish this wasn't the case, but the majority of the cars in the world aren't going to be electric for many decades to come. So if your plan is to stop all oil production during that time... yeah, best of luck with the end of human civilization.

      --
      People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
  44. It's science, for god's sake ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    WHY don't they know the impact?

    When I was in this man's Navy (US) out on the Big Pond, we used practice depth charges all the time, and that was way back when Moby Dick was a minnow.

    We killed 30,000 shrimp one time and, I'm sorry ... they deserved it for doing performance art where their echo pattern looked like a submarine. They weren't "a" submarine, but they were submarine.

    Anyway, if we can construct punny remarks that amuse the author, I'm certain we could test this idea with small underwater sonic booms and do a surface body count charted against Db to see if we can eliminate, " [Scientists] ...aren't sure how the cannons will affect fish and other sea creatures or how any physiological effects on them may impact the fishing industries of the U.S."

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  45. I wonder by Mirage · · Score: 1

    Is this just early viral marketing for a new Aquaman movie?

  46. Peak oil is not sudden by tepples · · Score: 1

    Now you claim there are 5 Tesla cars per million people. At one point there were 5 cars period per million people. Just as a practical ICE vehicle took time to refine, so will a practical EV, as you recognized. But peak oil, like other peak resources, doesn't mean a resource will just up and disappear suddenly. As easy petroleum is depleted, its price will rise gradually over the decade or two needed to ramp up EV production, giving the market some time to make a transition. And there's always biodiesel to smooth the gap.

    1. Re:Peak oil is not sudden by Rei · · Score: 1

      Decade or two to ramp up production for new vehicle sales. Plus a decade or so for consumer acceptance lag. Then two decades or more to phase out existing gas cars. We're talking half a century here.

      Yes, at one point there were 5 cars per million people period. Around the year 1890. Today there's 0.15 cars per capita globally. It took over a century to scale up that much, so I don't think that's the sort of point you want to be making. Plus, not only do we have to scale up for existing car replacement, but also to handle the rapid growth of the third world, which will push that 0.15 cars per capita way up over the coming decades. It's simply something that will take decades to get the production capacity in place, and then decades at that level to phase out the existing vehicles on the road.

      Biofuels are hardly a gap filler. Have you ever checked how much land they eat up even to meet today's tiny pathetic percentage of the market share? To meet the needs of the average American driver's 12k miles per year in an average 24mpg car (500 gallons) would require 3 million square miles of farmland dedicated to it, more than double the US total farmland for *all* crops - for human consumption, for animal feed, for clothing, for industry, everything combined. And that's just for passenger cars, let alone freight trucks, trains, airplanes, ships, etc.

      It's not a gap filler. It's an environmental disaster on a greater scale than the oil it's trying to replace.

      --
      People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
    2. Re:Peak oil is not sudden by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      there are no plans to phase out ICE cars as long as there's iron to be extracted. There are vast graveyards of spanking brand new cars which will never be sold (don't ask me why, some weird fucking economic pressure I guess) and those graveyards are growing on a daily basis with no signs of the influx slowing down. Private motorised transport in the long term is the death knell for human civilisation as long as there is addiction to two things: fiat currency and petrochemicals.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  47. Re:Comparisons by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    brain structure is the entire reason humans grew into dominant species, but whales have a brain mostly dedicated to sensory perception.

  48. Alert the fish, whales, dolphons by jraff2 · · Score: 1

    Ramp up the explosions, to warn the animals that something BIG is comming. Start with 100 DB and ramp it up over a few days to drive them out of the area. If one starts with the Big Bang it will totally disrupt the ears and phisilogy of the animals.

  49. Yes, They Know ... by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    - that it'll affect the noise-sensitive mammals (and maybe fish).
    - that these endangered and most interesting creatures are important.
    - that they don't care .. because Big Oil wants to find more!

    America! F*ck yeah! I guess this is my chance to go down to the Carolina coast and find me a nice Orca skeleton. There should be lots lying around pretty soon. All encased in tons of rotting flesh and blubber, of course, but no worries: I'll just leave that mess for the edification and amusement of the tourists.

  50. Re:Comparisons by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    The parts of our brain structure that are most associated with our cognitive abilities evolved from the parts that processed smell. Whales clearly communicate using their song, so what's to say that the parts of their brains that process sound (which would be the bulk of their sensory needs) aren't undergoing the same transition?

  51. Only one jackass for approval? by penguinbrat · · Score: 1

    Why is Obama approving this, shouldnt this be under the jurisdiction of the EPA or something?

  52. What could possibly... by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

    What could possibly go "booonnnggggg"?

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  53. 100x louder than a jet engine by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    ??

    By any metric, that is a serious amount of acoustic pressure. It doesn't matter if you rely on sound to find your way around or locate prey, if you encounter that underwater you're getting turned into jelly.

    (walk into a pet store and tap on the fish tanks. Go on, I'm giving you permission).

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  54. Energy Deposits? Weasel Word Alert! by eepok · · Score: 1

    What the hell are energy deposits? Have we renamed "fossil fuels" like oil and natural gas to simple "energy"? Because PR professionals don't get to do that!

  55. Brain Dead by Winkkin · · Score: 1

    What we really need is a mechanism to churn that frozen carbon dioxide at the bottom of the ocean! We're going to find a way to kill ourselves off yet. The shame of it is, we just cant stop ourselves.

  56. Sonic cannons? What an absurd term! by carbonates · · Score: 1
    Really, who made that name up? These are airguns that are simply blowing compressed air into the water.

    These are the same airguns that have been used for many decades in ocean waters everywhere in the world. I have watched sea lions playing in the towed array of air guns behind a survey ship as they are operating. Sound levels of these guns are comparable to the noise made by a tanker and are actually lower than the low frequency sonar used by Navies all over the world. Whales and other marine mammals are quite capable of avoiding the noise, and normally do just that. The Navies of the world have been making much more noise without any environmental hysteria for decades.

    http://sciencenotes.ucsc.edu/9...

  57. Too late by jess_wundring · · Score: 1

    Did anybody see this part?

    >> These sonic cannons are already in use in the western Gulf of Mexico, off Alaska and other offshore oil operations around the world.

    The damage is already being done, we've just decided to expand the scope to include those waters between the East Coast and Europe.