3 ms·

For underwater acoustic systems there is a well understood and effective marine mammal mitigation process that’s followed. Basically, slowly stepping up in powe

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.
- toast0 2y ago
  > 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. Otoh, some people purposefully setup noise machines to improve sleep and reduce stress. Sometimes a small amount of noise is a good thing.
- villmann 2y ago
  "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", you mean like a mosque :-D
  - g8oz 2y ago
    Or church bells.
sbsudbdjd 2y ago
"but if it involves NATO, I would expect that’s being employed" Why would that be your expectation?
Terr_ 2y ago
> a well understood and effective marine mammal mitigation process that’s followed. Basically, slowly stepping up in power. Uhh... I don't consider myself an eco-hippie, but that "mitigation" sounds like a euphemism or sinister "mitigation of negative PR", rather than actually literally doing less damage. Like: "Gradually make things worse so that animals flee on their own, and if they die of starvation at least it's somewhere else so it won't make the local news with kids finding corpses on the beach."

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.
toast0 2y ago
> 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. Otoh, some people purposefully setup noise machines to improve sleep and reduce stress. Sometimes a small amount of noise is a good thing.
villmann 2y ago
"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", you mean like a mosque :-D
- g8oz 2y ago
  Or church bells.

sbsudbdjd 2y ago

"but if it involves NATO, I would expect that’s being employed" Why would that be your expectation?

Terr_ 2y ago

> a well understood and effective marine mammal mitigation process that’s followed. Basically, slowly stepping up in power. Uhh... I don't consider myself an eco-hippie, but that "mitigation" sounds like a euphemism or sinister "mitigation of negative PR", rather than actually literally doing less damage. Like: "Gradually make things worse so that animals flee on their own, and if they die of starvation at least it's somewhere else so it won't make the local news with kids finding corpses on the beach."