Slashdot Mirror


Oceans Are Getting Louder, Posing Potential Threats To Marine Life (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Slow-moving, hulking ships crisscross miles of ocean in a lawn mower pattern, wielding an array of 12 to 48 air guns blasting pressurized air repeatedly into the depths of the ocean. The sound waves hit the sea floor, penetrating miles into it, and bounce back to the surface, where they are picked up by hydrophones. The acoustic patterns form a three-dimensional map of where oil and gas most likely lie. The seismic air guns probably produce the loudest noise that humans use regularly underwater, and it is about to become far louder in the Atlantic. As part of the Trump administration's plans to allow offshore drilling for gas and oil exploration, five companies have been given permits to carry out seismic mapping with the air guns all along the Eastern Seaboard, from Central Florida to the Northeast, for the first time in three decades. The surveys haven't started yet in the Atlantic, but now that the ban on offshore drilling has been lifted, companies can be granted access to explore regions along the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific. And air guns are now the most common method companies use to map the ocean floor.

Some scientists say the noises from air guns, ship sonar and general tanker traffic can cause the gradual or even outright death of sea creatures, from the giants to the tiniest — whales, dolphins, fish, squid, octopuses and even plankton. Other effects include impairing animals' hearing, brain hemorrhaging and the drowning out of communication sounds important for survival, experts say. So great is the growing din in the world's oceans that experts fear it is fundamentally disrupting the marine ecosystem, diminishing populations of some species as the noise levels disturb feeding, reproduction and social behavior. A 2017 study, for example, found that a loud blast, softer than the sound of a seismic air gun, killed nearly two-thirds of the zooplankton in three-quarters of a mile on either side. Tiny organisms at the bottom of the food chain, zooplankton provide a food source for everything from great whales to shrimp. Krill, a tiny crustacean vital to whales and other animals, were especially hard hit, according to one study.

127 comments

  1. Re: Oh well, nobody cares... by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    Both of you need to get a room.

  2. Re:Obama 2008 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eh. You might want to review your geological history. Planet will be perfectly fine, and in the long term possibly better. Us? Might not.

  3. The Scam by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    Of course what is really going on is a mad rush to find and develop fields, do enough to package them as an investment, sell them to pension funds and then bet against them going belly up, crushed by nuclear and renewable, same insanely greedy rush to develop underwater property, to sell it to mug punters, prior to them going literally underwater, well, at least the bits attached to the ground.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:The Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear power is not competitive anywhere. It is dead.

    2. Re:The Scam by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      crushed by nuclear and renewable

      Nuclear and renewables are used to generate electricity. Petroleum is used for transportation. They are two different markets.

      The petroleum market may be crushed by better/cheaper batteries, but not by more efficient electricity generation. Electricity is already way cheaper than gasoline. The problem is how to take it with you on the road.

    3. Re:The Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nuclear and renewables are used to generate electricity. Petroleum is used for transportation.

      A quarter of all petroleum is used in manufacturing of physical goods. It's doubtful that even this will continue much into the foreseeable future given recent advances in cellulose processing.

      The days of petroleum use in transportation are literally numbered.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    4. Re:The Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      crushed by nuclear and renewable

      Nuclear and renewables are used to generate electricity. Petroleum is used for transportation. They are two different markets.

      The petroleum market may be crushed by better/cheaper batteries, but not by more efficient electricity generation. Electricity is already way cheaper than gasoline. The problem is how to take it with you on the road.

      Bill sometimes you are just so full of shit that it is almost funny. Number one dollar driven use for oil and gas is for petrochemicals and the plastic industries not energy. Low sulfur oil is only at a premium because it can be sold to the petrochemical industry at higher rates, so that is what they are looking for off the east coast of North America. Right now the largest supplier of cheap oil to the US just happens to be Canada which is getting screwed up the ass and paid way down at only 25-30% of market price because we are having a hard time building pipe lines fast enough to dump our glut of crude and natural gas.

      The petrochemical industry is pressuring Canada to put two pipes out to the Pacific and bypass the American industry all together and dump our oil and gas into the Asian market where most of the plastic and petrochemical industries do not suffer from tree huggers and environuts bitching about pipe lines and pollution. Contrary to popular belief the US market is shrinking in a big way because labour is not cheap enough and it is almost impossible to build new pipe lines and refining infrastructure in the US. Whereas China does not give a shit whether or not it pollutes the hell out of the atmosphere as long as a few of the oligarchy there remain in power and continue to get rich on the cheap labour that China provides.

      Here in Canada we gladly offshore our petrochemical refining and secondary industries, we take it up the ass economically just as much as the idiots who elected Trump do. NO problem offshoring our pollution, who gives a shit as long as we have access to cheap plastic products and some economy based upon the sale of raw materials. We are living on an economy of borrowed time no doubt and will pay heavily for it very soon. The price of food is going up rapidly and when the rich can no longer supply enough bread and circuses for the plebs all hell will break loose the same way it has when ever a society becomes economically stagnant and stratified the way we are currently headed. As we lose the protein sources from the oceans because of our ecological greed and stupidity the price will be social collapse and starvation on a scale that has never been seen before in the history of the human race. We have caused these problems before but never on the scale we are doing it this time around.

    5. Re:The Scam by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nuclear power is only dead because of NIMYism. The moment the anti-nuke crowd's ideas started to gain traction, it was all over. We stopped building reactors, which meant R&D slowed to a crawl because there was no reason to design something that would never get built. Thus, improvements that would otherwise have driven down the cost of nuclear power, improved the safety, improved the efficiency, and reduced the size never happened.

      And so we're stuck with technology from the dark ages and forty-year-old reactors that keep getting permission to keep running for decades past their design lifetime. And over time, these are going to get less and less safe, again because of NIMYism. Eventually, they will all be discontinued, and everyone will conclude that nuclear power just isn't feasible, when in reality, we just never really tried.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:The Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Nuclear power is dead, because the US pushed for stopping technological development and spent fuel reprocessing in the late 60s and the early 70s because of plain old fear. Which is understandable, as the only cowards to have used nuclear weaponry on civilians, they have the best idea what it is like to be nuked. They sent their unit 731s to study the victims.

      And since they got what they wanted, that is a super-regulated, technologically lagging industry with no perspectives, betting on nuclear is stupid.

      The remaining reactors will be closed, and the thousands of tons of waste will be deposited somewhere to poison the world for generations.

      Thanks.

    7. Re: The Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a confusing troll as the less educated tend to breed more?

    8. Re:The Scam by Freischutz · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nuclear power is only dead because of NIMYism. The moment the anti-nuke crowd's ideas started to gain traction, it was all over. We stopped building reactors, which meant R&D slowed to a crawl because there was no reason to design something that would never get built. Thus, improvements that would otherwise have driven down the cost of nuclear power, improved the safety, improved the efficiency, and reduced the size never happened.

      And so we're stuck with technology from the dark ages and forty-year-old reactors that keep getting permission to keep running for decades past their design lifetime. And over time, these are going to get less and less safe, again because of NIMYism. Eventually, they will all be discontinued, and everyone will conclude that nuclear power just isn't feasible, when in reality, we just never really tried.

      A power generation techology with a proven track record of catastrophic failures and irradiating huge areas of the plantet's surface has NIMBYism problems ... I wonder why? Could it be that nobody wants the things in their back yard for a reason and that the anti-nuke crowd has a pint? Just a thought ... Now start telling us about 'breeder reactors', I have some choice comments from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the US Navy on those things.

    9. Re:The Scam by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Nuclear power is dead because it is built on lies, and there's no reason to believe that will change any time in the future. It was supposed to be clean and cheap. It is neither. Pointing out that it is cleaner than coal is like saying a serial killer has a lower body count than a war - if you get near a point, make it. The decommissioning costs of nuclear are always much higher than claimed, the fuel is never really managed, and breeder reactors are even more uneconomical than nuclear.

      Nuclear power has failed on literally all levels, and it's time to admit your mistake and focus on realistic solutions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:The Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone was forced to internalize their own externalities, and all emotion was removed from the situation, nuclear would be competitive. No source can match its reliability and energy density.

    11. Re:The Scam by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How do you explain France then? They used to love nuclear, built loads of it, have new sites already approved.

      Or what about the UK? Sites already approved, ready for someone to start building a reactor. The government even guaranteed well above market rate for the energy produced, plus all the usual subsidies.

      Yet companies are pulling out and taxpayers are fed up with the massive bills. The cost clearly isn't related to NIMBYs, that's already been taken care of.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:The Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or its slow startup times. Nuclear can't compete. It can't sell. It is useless and wasteful.

    13. Re:The Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly right, but the others have a point too. The sad fact of the matter is that the irrational crazies (on both sides) are what has let us down. Profit seeking psychopaths mixed with self hating greens is a terrible mix.

      You are absolutely correct that many modern reactor designs are so much better than currently running reactors that it's nuts we aren't using them. We could deploy large amounts of nuclear power far more safely than with any other decent base load energy source. Travelling wave reactors would even allow us to clean up much of the waste from the old reactors, yet crazies stop us behaving rationally and improving the situation.

      So we burn more gas, and throw even more junk into the atmosphere. I strongly support solar, hydro, conservation and other renewable sources of energy. I also support nuclear because a mixture of technology is the best shot we have at not trashing the planet.

      Every irrational environmental nut is not just screwing us, they are also screwing the third world. They are just the flip-side of the sociopath profit driven narcissists who ignore safety at reactors.

    14. Re:The Scam by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Breeder reactors are not more uneconomical than LWRs unless you treat the cost of safely storing the spent fuel for thousands of years as an externality. And unfortunately, it was necessary to externalize that risk that in the short term to make it economical enough to jump-start the nascent industry. The need to treat some unavoidable costs as an externality exist for almost every industry that is just getting started. Unfortunately, thanks to reduced R&D spending resulting from only minimal nuclear power plant construction, the nuclear energy industry is basically still just getting started.

      NIMBY-driven fears caused reduced construction of nuclear plants, which resulted in reduced R&D spending, which slowed improvements to a crawl. Thus, most of the promised improvements to the technology never happened because of NIMBYism. Any hope of it becoming cheap died as a direct result. It really is that simple from an economics perspective.

      As for nuclear not being clean or cheap, actually it is. It is just one or the other, and never both at the same time. Breeders are relatively clean, but cost twice as much per kWh. And GE seems to think that they have a breeder design (PRISM) that actually will be cheap. Its compact size makes it cheaper and easier to deploy. Its passive safety design elements make it safe to place one in areas where you would not seriously consider putting in an LWR. And so on. Time will tell whether they're right.

      Nuclear power has not failed. It has never actually been given a serious chance. And I can pretty much guarantee that if the U.S. gives up on nuclear power, then other countries that are not terrified of the nuclear bogeyman will eventually start doing the R&D and will bring the costs down and the safety up to the point that people will laugh at all the NIMBYs. And then we'll all be buying most of our power from whatever country had the courage to take the risks.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:The Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead? You might want to take a look at South Korea and China, which are able to build and commission plants in under 5 years.

      China has commissioned the first EPR. South Korea has its APR design.

      Meanwhile, over in Russia the BN-800 2nd generation breeder reactor has been operating commercially for a couple of years now and work is progressing on the 3rd generation BN-1200.

  4. Oceans Are Getting Louder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Leon's getting LAAARGER!

  5. Re: Conjecture much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up.

    -=BeauHD=-

  6. Re: Oh well, nobody cares... by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    You really think they're two different people?

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  7. Atlanta, Atlantis by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    , Georgians always complain it's too humid, if they start bitching about the noise, just tell them it's a rave.

  8. Kill all the whale people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFMYHEczWmY

  9. No wonder the whales beach themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor fuckers.

  10. Conclusion : Hadesan is a moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know underwater TNT explosions are being used to map oil deposits, active sonar pings can be heard for hundreds of miles and are deafening to marine life nearby, and all of this is very well studied and documented.

    Conclusion : Hadesan is a moron, not someone in a position to evaluate science.

  11. Re:Oh well, nobody cares... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    orange man good

  12. Jobs or by AHuxley · · Score: 0

    save the whale forests?
    Someone is going to explore.
    Lets make sure its the USA so the science and resulting work stays in the USA.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Jobs or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up moron.

    2. Re:Jobs or by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Someone is going to explore.

      No. Some people including whole nations act responsibly.

    3. Re:Jobs or by AHuxley · · Score: 0

      So the energy brands from the UK, Italy, France, and the gov of China should be "free" to explore around the USA?
      But not the USA is not free to export the world????

      Make the 3D maps and get the US brands in first. Export that new energy to the world.
      Use the science of the loud strong sound waves to fully secure generations of wealth for US investors.
      Its rig job time and the USA is hiring locally again.
      Jobs, energy security, return for investors.
      Win, win, win.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Jobs or by Can'tNot · · Score: 1

      So the energy brands from the UK, Italy, France, and the gov of China should be "free" to explore around the USA?

      How on earth did you get this from what the parent said? How are you connecting those things? Your comment just doesn't make sense, you're ranting.

    5. Re:Jobs or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone is going to explore.
      Lets make sure its the USA so the science and resulting work stays in the USA.

      No. Some people including whole nations act responsibly.

      The insinuation is that the United States, all of it, should not be allowed to explore while others should because those act responsibly.

      The usual US == Great Evil meme. This is what the real russian bots are up to. Changing emotional sentiment, even when it makes no sense. Remember what russia's exports to the EU are...

  13. These oceans by Kohath · · Score: 2

    go up to eleven.

    1. Re:These oceans by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      It's like a Shark Sandwich.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  14. The ships used for this by aliquis · · Score: 1

    ... as well as for hunting/fishing, fur trappers and so on should be sunk.

    I shouldn't even have to explain why. It should be obvious why.

    1. Re:The ships used for this by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Well, you're using modern electronics, a modern computer network, numerous servers and your own computing device to post that message so clearly you support the modern use of the world's resources for communication purposes.

      Given that I'm not finding your reason for wanting to sink the ships that assure continued provision of such resources obvious at all. Perhaps you could educate me, ideally in a way that doesn't prove you're a virtue signally hypocrite.

    2. Re:The ships used for this by aliquis · · Score: 1

      We don't need the oil for energy, possibly not for anything but I assume the other use cases are very limited in volume relative the energy part, and it's ass-hole behavior far beyond acceptable and are still being done because it's less noticeable since we don't live there.

      Reasoning like if you ever go for a walk and end up killing an ant you may just as well kill everything you see or else you're a hypocrite.

    3. Re:The ships used for this by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Doesn't have to blast the oceans for that.
      We don't need to find any more oil.
      We totally don't need them so it's just fine to ban it outright and to destroy anyone doing so anyway.

  15. Re:Conjecture much... by aliquis · · Score: 1

    I suggest we put you in scuba gear and drag you under the ships in question for a month month and then maybe we can find out.

  16. Stop blathering nonsense, you're smarter than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not true. It's mostly economics, cheap renewable power makes the Billions-up-front for nuclear sites unpalatable. A bunch of reactor projects are being scrapped because countries no longer want to dump money on them.

    It has nothing to do with NIMBYism if ever it did. It's not "anti-nuke" to be honest and note that it's expensive, potentially deadly if done "on a budget" like we've done. Hundreds of thousands of spent rods are sitting in pools right now,
    waiting for some accident to crack their cement pools and expose them without cooling. Fukushima is a centuries-long cleanup problem. All of these things affect the market so much more than your vague "NIMBYism" it's silly to say that.

    You're a smart guy, you should realize that. It's not a case of perfect being the enemy of the good, it's a matter of perfect being REQUIRED for nuclear power to be safe, and that simply costs a shitload of money. That's really all it is.

  17. Humans by fredrated · · Score: 1

    are destroying the planet with both hands. Prepare to evacuate planet!

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

      are destroying the planet with both hands. Prepare to evacuate planet!

      The Dolphins wanted me to relay this message... Goodbye and thanks for all the fish!

    2. Re:Humans by stealth_finger · · Score: 0

      The planet and the environment are two different things. The environment and a human friendly environment are also different things. The planet will be fine and it will have an environment long after we've cooked ourselves off.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re:Humans by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      are destroying the planet with both hands. Prepare to evacuate planet!

      The Dolphins wanted me to relay this message... Goodbye and thanks for all the fish!

      ... but we don't like the plastic aftertaste and the noise levels around here are getting way out of bounds so we are bugging out ahead of schedule.

    4. Re:Humans by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Yup. Mankind bad, mmmkay?
      Apparently we just don't get anything right; but there is no way 7 billion of us, with needs of energy, transportation, communication, and commodities, are not going to take a substantial toll on the planet's resources and ecosystems.
      May as well have all humans drink the Jim Jones Koolaid and off ourselves from the face of the planet so nature can return to her natural state of bliss; then and only then can the unicorns return and rainbows will be permanent.
      Either this, or we should return to the stone age where we can have as little impact on the environment as possible, but keep it vegan.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  18. noise is no problem by swell · · Score: 1

    Let them cover their ears until the noise goes away. Simple, effective.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:noise is no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say we blow you up instead of the seafloor. Who's with me!

    2. Re:noise is no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noone. You are alone extremist.

  19. Re:Oh well, nobody cares... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1 Troll

    Now that's funny! You assholes are killing us all, and I'm the Troll! Damn good thing I'll be dead soon.

  20. Re:Conjecture much... by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's see what is in this fact based plea from an anonymous coward: probably produce, Some scientists say, can cause, experts fear, according to one study.
    The science is strong with this REEEEEE for help...

    Whilst science-bashing is depressingly popular on slashdot (news for nerds who think science is a vast left wing conspiracy). At least go to the effort of engaging with the story? Theres literally a link to the primary study ( https://www.nature.com/article... , plug it into sci-hub if you don't have academic or institutional access ) in the article, which is pretty much on point for the story. The NYTimes story itself actually answers who "Some scientists" and "experts" are.

    So heres the thing. Either you didn't actually read the article, or you did and aren't quite bright enough to parse it.

    Or your a boring alt-right virtue signaller who wants to be the first to post "REEEEEE" into a comment, because clearly posting the same joke over and over and over again is the height of wit.

    Embarassing!

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  21. Re:The US is set on destroying Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Jealous"? LOL. I live in a "third world shithole" with better standards, better education, better healthcare, better nature, better food, good looking people who are not living ass-to-mouth and I'm looking forward to living 20 years longer than you.

    I'm just pissed off that the US is trying to ruin this world.

    But not to worry, in 10 years your Chinese masters will reign you in.

  22. Re:Stop blathering nonsense, you're smarter than t by x0ra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nuclear power got its fate sealed in 1986. It *has* all to do with NIMBY'ism, you can try to repeat the opposite it won't change the fact that people don't understand the basic physics behind nuclear and will always fear it, and Germany is paying the high price of higher emission because of this, ie. deploying unreliable renewable and requiring gas burning plants and imports to deal with load demand.

  23. noise is no problem by buzi · · Score: 0

    i am with you, that is really funny

  24. This is sounding familiar.... by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    ... Other effects include impairing animals' hearing, brain hemorrhaging and the drowning out of communication sounds important for survival ...

    Sounds like what happens to an elected "representative" after a year or two walking the halls of power.

    Or am I being too generous?

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  25. Plankton Eardrums Bursting by mentil · · Score: 1

    Won't someone PLEASE think of the zooplankton?!

    I'm wondering if the next President will reverse course and ban offshore drilling again. Could that happen before they get their oil rigs set up? With the incoming flood of electric cars, changes in vehicle ownership due to self-driving tech, and the current low price of oil due to fracking, I'm skeptical that we really need off-shore drilling. If there's another world war and Canada and Mexico embargo us, then sure, otherwise we should be fine. (Hint: we'd be the Axis.)

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Plankton Eardrums Bursting by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Won't someone PLEASE think of the zooplankton?!

      I'm wondering if the next President will reverse course and ban offshore drilling again. Could that happen before they get their oil rigs set up? With the incoming flood of electric cars, changes in vehicle ownership due to self-driving tech, and the current low price of oil due to fracking, I'm skeptical that we really need off-shore drilling. If there's another world war and Canada and Mexico embargo us, then sure, otherwise we should be fine. (Hint: we'd be the Axis.)

      It could very well be that a great many investors, having to choose between investing in offshore drilling and renewables, simply choose not to fall into the 'buggy whip trap' and invest in the choice that has a future. Also, careful investors will want to wait and see what happens in 2020, for the exact reason you mentioned, president man-baby could be voted out and offshore drilling could be banned again (and I hope it will be). Extraction costs for offshore oil will only increase as they move into picking higher and higher hanging fruit. The extraction costs of wind and solar are basically zero.

    2. Re:Plankton Eardrums Bursting by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Extraction costs for offshore oil will only increase as they move into picking higher and higher hanging fruit.

      When you talk about "offshore oil", you do realize that being underwater means the "higher hanging fruit" would actually be easier to get to because it isn't as deep, right?

      The extraction costs of wind and solar are basically zero.

      "Basically zero" means "isn't zero but I don't want to say that."

  26. The ocean's not getting louder per se by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    It's just that Howlin' Mad Murphy's pirate radio station is back on the air thanks to the FCC's Search and Destroy team being out of action, thanks to the government shutdown.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:The ocean's not getting louder per se by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Shut up, mailbox head. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  27. What is the scale of this? by kubajz · · Score: 1

    I am all for protecting nature and against killing zooplankton and whales, but what is the scale of this? I tend to think that one ship is a literal "drop in the ocean". Does anyone have data not on the effect of these blasts on fish next to it, but rather on fish populations? Also, it sounds like it would be a waste of time and money to blast too loudly where a softer blast would suffice, and therefore my guess is that the power of the blast should be quite small by the time it reaches ocean floor...? I will be happy to be proven wrong but could this be a similar case to the "kids killing themselves with the parents' gun" versus "kids drowned in a swimming pool"?

    1. Re:What is the scale of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given the likely costs and possible profits, I'd be surprised if they weren't making the loudest sounds money could buy.

      Why skimp when going a little softer means you would either a) risk failing to detect oil, b) risk having to redo your survey later, or c) lose the oil-field to a competitor?

    2. Re:What is the scale of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the biggest problem is that sound travels something like 5 times faster in water, such that one ship could be equivalent to 5 land vehicles emitting the same noise. Depending on temperature and pressure, sound can travel significantly further too, there is a body evidence that suggests that whales can communicate over literally thousands of miles because of this.

      This coupled with the fact that things like Sonar are sufficiently loud (200db+) as to be able to rupture the tissues in your brain or rupture you lungs, thus killing you close up, hopefully demonstrates the issue here.

      Effectively, imagine something that loud on land, then imagine it travelling 5 times as fast and much much further. It's easy to think the ocean is big, so something like that is a drop in the ocean, but then when something is travelling at 1500m/s it stops being quite so big.

      Regarding effects on whales, it's been found that whales can get the bends just like humans can if they ascend too quickly. There has been evidence of whales surfacing too quickly and getting the bends, and descending too quickly and injuring themselves to try and escape from Sonar because the Sonar is even more painful for them. Whether you believe in conservation or not, I think it's hard to not at least have some sympathy, facing a noise so loud and painful it pushes you to be willing to rupture your blood vessels, or surface so fast you burst your lungs or allow an air bubble to expand so quickly it severs the bones in your spine or other bones to escape it is a pretty fucking horrible thing for any living thing to have to suffer.

      Even the hunting lobby who typically don't care about conservation at least mostly respect the importance of a quick clean kill, so it's pretty barbaric suffering that these sounds can cause. How widespread it is, I don't know however.

    3. Re:What is the scale of this? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Get an old Casio watch with the "beep" alarm.

      See how far you can hear it from in the air (10-15 feet in silence, maybe a bit farther with good ears), and how loud it is.

      Then jump into a pool and try the same. It's basically at full volume from 100 feet (with a couple of dozen kids playing between the watch and the listener, clear as day).

      We had a lot of fun with our watches in the pool as children, we could signal each other from anywhere in the water. We frequented a large bent rectangular pool with the deep end at 20 feet for the high dive). The sound didn't diminish around concrete corners, it was basically everywhere in the pool.

      I haven't tried this in the ocean. It was pretty cool.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  28. Re:Stop blathering nonsense, you're smarter than t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuclear power gets its fate sealed every year, as new projects are stopped, shuttered, mothballed, and left to become minimalls. 9/13 in the UK fell away recently, that's not a 1986 America problem moron.

  29. Douglas Adams already covered this by niftydude · · Score: 2
    I'm disappointed /. All this noise, and no one has provided the obligatory Doug Adams quote.

    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

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  30. Re:Conjecture much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Honestly, scuba diving even a good few miles away from a cruise ship leaving port leaves you feeling the horrible rumbling and hearing the dull droning sound. It's pretty obvious that even floating tenements that allow poor people to pretend they're on a luxury holiday because they get to experience the odd day here and there in paradise whilst spending the rest of the time on a giant council estate with more pollution than Delhi (as opposed to actually going on holiday in paradise) clearly have an effect on the oceans around them for a good few miles, it seems likely that any area seeing that day in day out multiple times a day is going to clearly have some kind of impact in an environment not previously accustomed to that noise or rumbling effect and that's a fraction of the sound being talked about in TFA from Sonar and air guns.

    I've never experienced it myself but there are plenty of reports of divers having been in the water during sonar pings significant distances away and feeling fairly severe pain as a result of it.

    Contrary to popular belief, even without boat traffic reefs are noisy places, the sound of a thousand parrot fish covering a few square miles can be heard as a constant crackling biting bits of reef when diving, and that's a relatively small sound. It should be obvious how big a problem this is with much louder noises.

    Remember sound travels further and faster in water, so any sound being generated has the potential to culminate to much higher levels than we're used to on land because sound sources from vast distances away can combine much more easily underwater for this reason. Depending on th sounds generated for example you might not hear two sound sources miles apart on land if you're between them, but placed in the same positions in water, you could well hear not one, but both at once in contrast, so yes, sound underwater can be a much bigger problem.

  31. the free market will solve this by cas2000 · · Score: 1

    don't worry, the fish can just buy ear-muffs.

  32. Not a greenie, but... by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    I'm not a greenie, but afaik this really is a problem. Hadn't heard about the sound blasts for oil surveys, but just the noise from ships is apparently a serious problems for certain species.

    Anyone who has spent time in a swimming pool knows how well sound travels underwater. Noise pollution takes on a completely different dimension.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  33. So what!? As long as America gets GREAT again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets fuck everything else over as long as WE get the money...

    Immoral naked bastard sitting on his throne of rubble...

  34. Make 'merka Greedy Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares if non-human life is killed, it's in the pursuit of MONEY errr PROGRESS, yeah.
    Make 'merka Greedy Again.

  35. Re:Conjecture much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not support companies which do it if you mind it. E.g. do not buy gas. Vote with your valet.

  36. 'Soft start' procedures and monitoring by jago25_98 · · Score: 2

    Some governments try protect their assets through NOAA and the JNCC by requesting soft start procedures. This means slowly ramping up the volume to give a chance for cetaceans to get away.

    More or less, the deeper you want to go with your survey then the louder you'll need to be.

    I believe there are ways to be more efficient with the energy used but I'm not versed enough to explain the specifics of this.

    Most governments don't protect their territorial waters with the soft start requests. They also don't monitor marine mammals with acoustic monitoring. Requesting these procedures pretty much anywhere would be a start to making some progress in this area.

  37. Humans are garbage, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and we deserve everything that's coming.

  38. Re:Stop blathering nonsense, you're smarter than t by vakuona · · Score: 1

    NIMBYism makes nuclear more costly. Unnecessary regulations make nuclear more costly.

    Construction delays because of constant lawsuits to prevent nuclear plant construction makes nuclear more costly - tying up capital for decades before you start earning any money on it can double the cost of nuclear power.

    You cannot divorce the cost of nuclear from the strategies that have been used to delay and stop it. In fact, making nuclear uneconomic is exactly what the anti-nuclear crowd has done successfully - it has been their goal.

  39. Re:The US is set on destroying Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to know what else the Chinese will be a master over?
    Whatever shithole country you're from.
    And if you think the US is so terrible... you'll be in for a shock. Don't worry though, you wanted it that way.

  40. Re:Stop blathering nonsense, you're smarter than t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck off ivan

  41. Re:Conjecture much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Comments like that being modded -1 is due to your utter failure to address the issues raised by sg_oneill. Get over yourself.

  42. Not as Bad as it Looks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you take an honest look at the way sound works underwater, and the way animals use are are sensitive to it, you'll see that this is not as damning as social media influencers and experts at Slashdot make it out to be.

    When there is an air blast, the itinerant amplitude may be somewhere around 270dBuPa at the source, which is about 30dB above the sound pressure emitted by a Blue Whale when it is talking to its peers.

    In the first 1km, decay is evanescent and the pressure falls off rapidly - by about 80-100dB. Decay then becomes roughly inverse-square with a low constant of attenuation.

    The maximum pressure level that has any deleterious effect on marine wildlife is about 180dBuPa, so really it is only within about 1km of the vessel that wildlife would even consider seismic tomography to be a nuisance.

    And, this is for an unregulated hard blast. Most underwater tomography is performed using a soft-start transducer which dramatically reduces the initial pressure level. There are other mitigation tools that are also typically deployed in such a way that marine wildlife is "annoyed" away from the tomography vessel by several km before it even arrives at the survey site.

    It turns out that marine wildlife do not like to listen to rock and roll, so they just start it playing underwater as they arrive at the site and everyone swims away.

    1. Re:Not as Bad as it Looks by rickyslashdot · · Score: 1

      Granted - the underwater beasts DON'T listen to modern music . . .

      BUT - they DO navigate / communicate / LIVE with the underwater 'noise'

      Kinda' SUCKS that your NAVAL PROTECTION is _literally_ destroying / overwhelming the echo-location biological organs that the sea-going mammals require to JUST LET ME LIVE ! ! !

      --
      redneck geek
  43. Re:Conjecture much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh god, I love a scuba diver rant about environment and other people.

    Scuba diving is a completely selfish carbon sink, and totally invasive to the environment you are going into, for absolutely no reason at all (aside from, humans!)

    Long time tech diver - our carbon footprint and lifestyle leave us no leg to stand on.

  44. Re:Obama 2008 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my God thank you for remind me of that absolute GEM!!!!! :-D

  45. Diamond Mining Also Destroying the Oceans by northerner · · Score: 1

    I'm concerned about the undersea mining vacuum operations around Africa that rip up the ocean floor looking for diamonds. The oceans are not protected from corporations with no ethics. Japanese whaling is another example of damaging exploitation that has no opposition.

    1. Re:Diamond Mining Also Destroying the Oceans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japanese whaling is a vile, disgusting practice. They kill whales just for the sake of killing whales. Often they don't even keep the meat, but sometimes they do, just because of stupid superstitions.

  46. Re:Conjecture much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or your a boring alt-right virtue signaller who ..

    What? That's the stupidest thing I've read today, that doesn't even make sense.

  47. Can we stop killing every fucking thing? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    I understand we are still reliant on oil, but for fucks sake, stop killing everything around. Who wants their grandchildren to inherit an Earth with nothing but cockroaches and algae left on it?

    1. Re: Can we stop killing every fucking thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically all modern parenting globally is "hand your child a smartphone and leave them alone" causing all sorts of stunted development and short attention spans.

      The world is already on a high speed train aimed at a brick wall.

  48. Legit issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've ever been scuba diving within a couple hundred meters of a moving freighter, you know it's an experience you will never forget. I can't imagine what actual focused noise blasts like this would be like underwater.

  49. Re:Conjecture much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note the complete lack of content from the parent post who is sitting at +1, but defended bigoted hate based on assumed politics.

    That is what slashdot is now. A medium for hate where reason and content doesn't matter.

  50. Re:Stop blathering nonsense, you're smarter than t by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Nimbyism, regulations, and lawsuits seem to make most all power generation more expensive or impossible. Pipelines, dams, power lines, wind farms, fracking.
    Then there are the costs from lack of regulation. 100's of millions to fix the dam down the road because they didn't bother connecting it to bedrock when built for example. Cleanup costs from companies that shutdown as soon as profits dropped and cleanup was needed is a huge cost in the oil industry.
    Unregulated nuclear is scary. Cost cutting, companies that shutdown as soon as problems appear and such, all leaving the tax payers on the hook.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  51. Re:Conjecture much... by aliquis · · Score: 1

    It would be hard to know whom do what, plus it's a retarded argument anyway because changing how you do things is also an option. Also I've never owned a car.

  52. Re:Stop blathering nonsense, you're smarter than t by swillden · · Score: 1

    Nimbyism, regulations, and lawsuits seem to make most all power generation more expensive or impossible. Pipelines, dams, power lines, wind farms, fracking.

    But none of them provoke the visceral fear of the unknown that nuclear power does, or evoke visions of mushroom clouds, even though every one of them has killed orders of magnitude more people (except maybe fracking; but I don't think we yet understand the costs of fracking). This means none of them have the depth of organized opposition, or the many options for running up costs.

    Unregulated nuclear is scary. Cost cutting, companies that shutdown as soon as problems appear and such, all leaving the tax payers on the hook.

    Sure, sensible regulation is sensible. But that's not what we have in the nuclear industry. We have a combination of ridiculous over-regulation that essentially stops all new construction, combined with ridiculously lax extensions on operating permits because without new construction we don't have anything else to take over the baseload when we shut an old plant down. This is the worst of all worlds. We're essentially running headlong toward a significant nuclear accident because of our regulations that are supposed to prevent nuclear accidents.

    I have no opposition to sun, wind, etc. I think they're great, and I'm just fine with replacing nuclear power with them. But that's going to take time, and in the meantime we're going to keep burning coal and dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. At this point it's probably too late to try to ramp up nuclear production. Even if we got instantly rational about it, by the time we could build the nuclear capacity we need, we can probably deploy the same capacity in renewables + utility-scale storage. We screwed ourselves 20-30 years ago when renewables weren't practical, and now we're just going to eat the cost, in the form of a warmer planet than we might have had otherwise.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  53. Re:Oh well, nobody cares... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll be dead soon

    My condolences. If you are dying from a disease that western medicine has no cure for I suggest trying an extended water fast.

  54. Re:Conjecture much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scuba diving is a completely selfish carbon sink, and totally invasive to the environment you are going into, for absolutely no reason at all (aside from, humans!)

    Dude, you can say that about life in general. If you stick to sail boats I don't see scuba diving having much carbon footprint at all.

  55. Re:Stop blathering nonsense, you're smarter than t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations! You tipped it over the edge.
    Slashdot comments have finally become worse than Youtube comments.

  56. There must be a better way to do that by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Isn't there a radar frequency that sea water is invisible to?

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  57. Re:Stop blathering nonsense, you're smarter than t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck off with your retarded power trip fantasies

  58. Re:Conjecture much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speak for yourself, I carry a mesh bag and camera on every dive and routinely bring out plastic and other problematic debris like discarded fishing hooks, broken and discarded traps that still kill but never get collected. I also largely only shore dive, even when I don't shore dive I normally just take my kayak and kayak dive, so short of the negligible impact of air fills I'm not entirely sure why you think I would have a problematic carbon footprint. Furthermore, I actively remove invasive lionfish when I find them also and eat them, so it's not like I'm even flying or shipping as much food in from afar as most people either. I suspect my carbon footprint is bigger on the days I sit at home playing Xbox than when I'm out diving.

    Don't tar everyone with your brush, I can absolutely guarantee my diving has a net positive impact on the ocean even if yours doesn't. What you're describing isn't a problem with scuba divers, it's a problem with you. If you're selfish and problematic then fine, but don't try and justify it to yourself by pretending everyone else is as bad as you are; sort yourself out instead rather than criticising others for things that are patently untrue to them but obviously apply to you.

  59. Re:Conjecture much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, people driving their kids to their dance or karate lessons, to the bar, to the supermarket to buy unnecessarily plastic packed produce, or to the cinema or a restaurant or any other such thing will have a massively larger impact than a scuba diver, especially one diving from shore.

    Totally invasive to the environment made me laugh, I guess he thinks roads, and hiking trails were crafted for us by random rockfall, telegraph poles and electricity lines carefully generated by the birds, and buildings produced by termites. Entering an environment and not touching anything as you're trained to do as a diver is about as un-invasive as it gets compared to land based activities where you necessarily have to touch the environment because you can't float like you can in water due to the unfortunate reality of the existence of gravity, or you simply work in, live in, or do activities in a building that is about as invasive to the natural environment it's built in as you could ever possibly get.

  60. Oceans Are Getting Louder, Posing Potential Threat by rickyslashdot · · Score: 1

    YEAAAAAH ! ! !

    GO DONALD ! ! !

    KILL EVERYTHING THAT CAN'T VOTE ! ! !

    REALLY Gotta' Love AMERICA - - - where ANYBODY (. . . insert appropriate venomous remark . . .) CAN BE PRESIDENT

    So Sorry Everybody, I voted 'DONALD' as an anti-Hillary protest !

    --
    redneck geek