A sonar device being lowered into the ocean by an anti-submarine squadron helicopter. Such devices generate slow-rolling sound waves topping out at around 235 decibels; the world’s loudest rock bands top out at only 130. Evidence shows that whales will swim hundreds of miles, rapidly change their depth, and even beach themselves to get away from the sounds of sonar.
Image: U.S. Navy
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that military sonar exercises actually kill marine wildlife?
-- John Slocum, Newport, RI
Unfortunately for many whales, dolphins and other marine life, the use of underwater sonar (short for sound navigation and ranging) can lead to injury and even death. Sonar systems—first developed by the U.S. Navy to detect enemy submarines—generate slow-rolling sound waves topping out at around 235 decibels; the world’s loudest rock bands top out at only 130. These sound waves can travel for hundreds of miles under water, and can retain an intensity of 140 decibels as far as 300 miles from their source.
These rolling walls of noise are no doubt too much for some marine wildlife. While little is known about any direct physiological effects of sonar waves on marine species, evidence shows that whales will swim hundreds of miles, rapidly change their depth (sometime leading to bleeding from the eyes and ears), and even beach themselves to get away from the sounds of sonar.
In January 2005, 34 whales of three different species became stranded and died along North Carolina’s Outer Banks during nearby offshore Navy sonar training. Other sad examples around the coast of the U.S. and elsewhere abound, notably in recent years with more sonar testing going on than ever before. According to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which has campaigned vigorously to ban use of the technology in waters rich in marine wildlife, recent cases of whale strandings likely represent a small fraction of sonar’s toll, given that severely injured animals rarely make it to shore.
In 2003, NRDC spearheaded a successful lawsuit against the Navy to restrict the use of low-frequency sonar off the coast of California. Two years later a coalition of green groups led by NRDC and including the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the League for Coastal Protection, Cetacean Society International, and Ocean Futures Society upped the ante, asking the federal courts to also restrict testing of more intense, harmful and far ranging mid-frequency types of sonar off Southern California’s coastline.
In filing their brief, the groups cited Navy documents which estimated that such testing would kill some 170,000 marine mammals and cause permanent injury to more than 500 whales, not to mention temporary deafness for at least 8,000 others. Coalition lawyers argued that the Navy’s testing was in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Two lower courts upheld NRDC’s claims, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Navy should be allowed to continue the use of some mid-frequency sonar testing for the sake of national security. “The decision places marine mammals at greater risk of serious and needless harm,” says NRDC’s Joel Reynolds.
Environmental groups are still fighting the battle against the sonar, lobbying the government to curtail testing, at least during peacetime, or to at least ramp up testing gradually to give marine wildlife a better chance to flee affected areas. “The U.S. Navy could use a number of proven methods to avoid harming whales when testing mid-frequency sonar,” reports IFAW’s Fred O'Regan. “Protecting whales and preserving national security are not mutually exclusive.”
CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org; IFAW, www.ifaw.org.
EarthTalk is produced by E/The Environmental Magazine. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.
See what we're tweeting about
5 Comments
Add Commentknowledge is power..and this is one site to attain it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm surprised that Scientific American ran this "article" by NRDC. It has many inaccurate statements, and I wish I could address all of them. Just know that while national security is the U.S. Navy's mission, protecting our oceans and marine life is a major priority for us. We hire or fund the best scientific minds in the world (e.g., scientists from Duke University, Scripps, and Wood's Hole) to help us better understand potential effects of sound on marine mammals, so that we can protect them during our training operations. To learn more about the Navy's ocean stewardship efforts, check out www.navy.mil/oceans or Currents (Navy's environmental magazine) on facebook. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-- Tracey Moriarty, Director of Environmental Outreach, Environmental Readiness Division (Code N45) U.S. Navy.
I agree with Director Moriarty - complete, biased, environmentalist BS. The environmentalist community has the knowledge that the Navy, and ex-Submarine Sonarmen like myself, are bound by National Security regulations and cannot speak openly and freely to completely debunk this hogwash. What is known widely however, and but not mentioned here, is that modern Navies rarely use any type of active sonar, due to the detection capabilities of passive sonar systems on all modern ships and submarines. These people would have you believe all ships and submarines are belching out sound louder than Metallica, when in fact merchant shipping noise creates a lot more of the type of frequencies this "article" is about. In today's tactical Naval world, as in my day, he who hears the other one first wins.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has always been a major tactic of these types of people to argue against those who have limited ability to argue back. In this way, they appear to be right, knowing their opponent cannot release the full side of their story.
In my 5 years aboard attack submarines, not once did we ever go to sea without having dolphins, whales, and more noisy sea critters around us than you'd care to listen too. They were always with us, and always will be with us.
My own daughter is the personal assistant of a key lobbyist at a firm here in D.C. Having lived here for over 30 years, I am well aware of these groups' kind of tactics. It's not about the issue - it's about gaining legislative leverage by any means necessary, even at the expense of National Security.
Don't buy the BS like the author of this "article" apparently has.
If there weren't marine life beaching themselves with tissue and organ damage and bleeding from their ears, no one would be blaming anyone. No one cares if your daughter is a PA for the criminals, and no one belives the BS that the Navy prints on their web page or in their mags. We do care about the marine life that is being destroyed by sonar. Lets cut the BS and stop hurting our world!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy daughter doesn't care that you're an idiot either, & she's been an advocate of animal causes her entire life. She's just not gullible enough to buy into BS like you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarine mammals beach themselves for many reasons; Sonar sure as hell isn't one of them. You and the author are clearly victims of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)syndrome. It's one of the more deadlier problems for mammals, both human and marine.
When you have the oceanographic, acoustic,technical, military, political knowledge & background to make a knowledgeable response, then it might be worth listening to. Unfortunately, like many who suffer from DHMO syndrome, you're ignorant to anything but propaganda designed solely to elicit contributions and sympathy for a "cause" that has absolutely no basis in science or fact - the "Dihydrogen Monoxide" effect.
How much of your wallet have you already given to these radical leftists?
Here's a little scientific reality:
Did you ever stop to consider how marine mammals communicate? High and Low frequency Sonar. Where the hell do you think the Navy got the idea for echo-location and ranging in the first place?
Their ears are built naturally for Sonar - it's their primary means of communication and feeding. Whales and Dolphins also arent' stupid;they don't stick around when there's a known threat, but the reality is that they're a constant presence around ships and submarines.
The image caption is laughable, citing "evidence" that shows marine mammals leave the area where high frequency dipping sonar is being used. I hate to break the bubble for you, but marine mammal sonar frequencies are a lot higher than that which the Navy uses. It's more likely they're leaving the area due to the noise from a helo's rotor wash and jet turbine noise.
Shipboard and helo active sonar, when it's used, has a limited range that dissipates rapidly over distance due to water absorption, thermal layers, & salinity. Whales are known to communicate over vast distances using low-frequency Sonar, just as some Navy vessels do. The author's comparison to DB levels exceeding that of a rock band is pure BS; you can't compare noise in a smaller confined space to sound propagated in the vast oceans. If you had any scientific or acoustics background, or frankly basic common sense, you'd realize that.
The problem with people like you and the author is that propaganda brainwashes simpletons who have little to no scientific background - the Dihydrogen Monoxide effect. You'd better get yourself cured of that problem before it becomes terminal.