3 ms·
> And because there are no people in a place, it's completely OK to pollute this place with noise, by burning bunker fuel, dumping unused munitions or mabye eve
by adwn 6y ago
> And because there are no people in a place, it's completely OK to pollute this place with noise, by burning bunker fuel, dumping unused munitions or mabye even nuclear waste there
Boom won't burn bunker fuel, nor will it dump munitions or nuclear waste, so how is this relevant? Some of those are real problems, but none of them will be made worse by Boom.
- _Microft 6y agoYou conveniently ignored "noise" from the list you quoted there.
- adwn 6y agoI don't think the fish below the surface of the ocean are going to notice some noise originating from 10-15km above the surface.
- drewm1980 6y agoYou underestimate fish.
- hobofan 6y agoOh, I also doubt fish (or other life in the ocean) won't mind a small increase in temperature in the ocean, or tiny sonar noises a few hundred kilometers away, or an increase in above-surface CO2 levels, or ...
- adwn 6y ago> a small increase in temperature in the ocean, [...] or an increase in above-surface CO2 levels Those are permanent, globally occuring, chemical phenomena. A sonic boom is a very temporary, very local, mechanical phenomenon. You cannot draw any conclusions from one to the other. > tiny sonar noises a few hundred kilometers away Sonar originates from within water, while sonic booms originate in the air. Most of the boom's acoustic energy will probably be reflected by the transition from one medium to the other. I think marine life will most likely be a lot less disturbed by sonic booms than by naturally occuring storms.