5 ms·

I didn't find anything about the potential effects on marine life. I'm not in the market for this, so maybe it's obvious to those who are, but it would be nice

I didn't find anything about the potential effects on marine life. I'm not in the market for this, so maybe it's obvious to those who are, but it would be nice to address it somewhere for the uninitiated. But their modem[1] uses NATO's JANUS standard[2], which communicates at 11.5 kHz, which is just audible to humans, but well within range of marine mammals[3]. 1: https://www.subseapulse.com/products/ https://www.subseapulse.com/products/ 2: https://spectrum.ieee.org/nato-develops-first-standardized-acoustic-signal-for-underwater-communications https://spectrum.ieee.org/nato-develops-first-standardized-a... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range#/media/File:Animal_hearing_frequency_range.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range#/media/File:Anim...

alas44 2y ago
I completely agree, filling oceans/seas with noise seems like a good recipe to further stress marine ecosystems
- moffkalast 2y ago
  To be completely frank, we haven't done anything to stop the rise of water temperature and acidification from CO2 absorption that prevent fish from reproducing, along with continuing overfishing. Most of these ecosystems will be dead from food chain collapse in a decade or two. I suppose the good news is that jellyfish that will step in to fill the niche don't care about sound.
  - futuramaconarma 2y ago
    they will adapt like they always did
    - immibis 2y ago
      Yes, the numbers in the ecosystem will shift. Some to zero. That's an ecosystem adapting. Is it good?
    - moffkalast 2y ago
      Yeah dinosaurs adapted into chicken.
  - observationist 2y ago
    Overfishing and pollution will wipe out most of the remaining ocean fish in the next couple decades if nothing is done about it. We're on track to destroy 99% or more of the species of fish and large animals in our oceans. Maybe state funding for privateering navies given license to sink illegal fishing boats would be a good start. Trawling and other wildly destructive practices funded by various south asian countries are doing incalculable harm all over the world. Sink on sight is an appropriate policy. Humanity has to get their shit together, or jellyfish will be all that's left.
- zardo 2y ago
  You also don't want to find out the hard way that e.g. your new modem enrages sealions or something.
puzzydunlop 2y ago
For underwater acoustic systems there is a well understood and effective marine mammal mitigation process that’s followed. Basically, slowly stepping up in power. Not sure if they’re employing that here but if it involves NATO, I would expect that’s being employed
- beachy 2y ago
  I'd like to know more about this process. But ultimately, it can only be detrimental to sealife to emit noise into the marine environment. Imagine someone set up a radio or a noisy machine somewhere in your own vicinity and you had no choice but to listen to it (even at a low volume) all day and night, perhaps for the rest of your life. Tests might or might not show that you were stressed, but you most certainly would be. Perhaps I am biased from regular snorkelling and enjoying being immersed n a different natural world, and for sure I do have tree-hugger tendencies. But I find it extremely arrogant that our species thinks it's acceptable to inject noise pollution into an environment inhabitated by thousands of other species.
  - puzzydunlop 2y ago
    Not to get too deep in the underwater weeds here but sound propagation underwater is not omnidirectional like how sound propagates above water. And I’m not sure how true that is either All that to say, I certainly understand the concern. But I would personally have to see evidence of harm
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
      The Precautionary Principle calls for proof of safety, not proof of harm. Harm is assumed unless proven otherwise.
      - cperciva 2y ago
        I assume that the Precautionary Principle is harmful and will refuse to accept it until it has been proven safe.

alas44 2y ago

I completely agree, filling oceans/seas with noise seems like a good recipe to further stress marine ecosystems

moffkalast 2y ago
To be completely frank, we haven't done anything to stop the rise of water temperature and acidification from CO2 absorption that prevent fish from reproducing, along with continuing overfishing. Most of these ecosystems will be dead from food chain collapse in a decade or two. I suppose the good news is that jellyfish that will step in to fill the niche don't care about sound.
- futuramaconarma 2y ago
  they will adapt like they always did
  - immibis 2y ago
    Yes, the numbers in the ecosystem will shift. Some to zero. That's an ecosystem adapting. Is it good?
  - moffkalast 2y ago
    Yeah dinosaurs adapted into chicken.
- observationist 2y ago
  Overfishing and pollution will wipe out most of the remaining ocean fish in the next couple decades if nothing is done about it. We're on track to destroy 99% or more of the species of fish and large animals in our oceans. Maybe state funding for privateering navies given license to sink illegal fishing boats would be a good start. Trawling and other wildly destructive practices funded by various south asian countries are doing incalculable harm all over the world. Sink on sight is an appropriate policy. Humanity has to get their shit together, or jellyfish will be all that's left.
zardo 2y ago
You also don't want to find out the hard way that e.g. your new modem enrages sealions or something.

puzzydunlop 2y ago

For underwater acoustic systems there is a well understood and effective marine mammal mitigation process that’s followed. Basically, slowly stepping up in power. Not sure if they’re employing that here but if it involves NATO, I would expect that’s being employed

beachy 2y ago
I'd like to know more about this process. But ultimately, it can only be detrimental to sealife to emit noise into the marine environment. Imagine someone set up a radio or a noisy machine somewhere in your own vicinity and you had no choice but to listen to it (even at a low volume) all day and night, perhaps for the rest of your life. Tests might or might not show that you were stressed, but you most certainly would be. Perhaps I am biased from regular snorkelling and enjoying being immersed n a different natural world, and for sure I do have tree-hugger tendencies. But I find it extremely arrogant that our species thinks it's acceptable to inject noise pollution into an environment inhabitated by thousands of other species.
- puzzydunlop 2y ago
  Not to get too deep in the underwater weeds here but sound propagation underwater is not omnidirectional like how sound propagates above water. And I’m not sure how true that is either All that to say, I certainly understand the concern. But I would personally have to see evidence of harm
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    The Precautionary Principle calls for proof of safety, not proof of harm. Harm is assumed unless proven otherwise.
    - cperciva 2y ago
      I assume that the Precautionary Principle is harmful and will refuse to accept it until it has been proven safe.