A copy of the flier was shown on Mermaids: The New Evidence Unfortunately the quality of this copy is poor and not closeup of the face; Animal Planet enlarged their copy of the photo.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Mermaids File: photo of Merman from PT Barnum freak show
A copy of the flier was shown on Mermaids: The New Evidence Unfortunately the quality of this copy is poor and not closeup of the face; Animal Planet enlarged their copy of the photo.
Mermaids File Brian McCormick, Paul Robertson
Excerpt below from a pro-Mermaids site. I dunno; Brian McCormick and Paul Robertson are pretty common names. And the characters could have been deliberately named with the 'real' scientists in mind. Flip a coin.
http://timenolonger.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/mermaids-sound-weapons-and-government-cover-ups-updated-and-compelling-evidence/
"Many of those speaking on it [The original "Mermaids: The Body Found"] have come to the conclusion that it is “debunked” based mostly on the claim that Dr. Paul Robertson and a marine biologist by the name of Brian McCormick do not exist.
They are hard to find, but they do exist.
Here is an excerpt from a document by the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, which research is affiliated with NOAA according to the document, and lists Brian McCormick as one individual who contributed to the project.
“The NBNERR Site Profile was made possible through the help of many individuals. Notable contributors and the expertise that they provided include… Sincere thanks also goes to current and former NBNERR staff members who assisted with materials presented in this document, but who did not individually author any of the chapters. These individuals include Robert Stankelis, Kristen Van Wagner, Jennifer West, Matthew Rehor, Kimberly Botelho, Brian McCormick, Alan Beck, and especially Roger Greene…
This publication is sponsored by the NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division and the State of Rhode Island. This publication is also sponsored in part by Rhode Island Sea Grant under NOAA Grant No. NA040AR4170062. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the NBNERR, NOAA, or any of its sub-agencies. The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon.”
http://www.nbnerr.org/Content/SiteProfile08/1_Preface.pdf
[Screenshot: Note the web address and document title. McCormick's name appears just above the lighthouse picture.]
And here is an excerpt from a document on the minutes of a Devils Lake water improvement district meeting. Listed as staff:
“STAFF: Paul Robertson, Seth Lenaerts, RARE Participant”
and affiliated with NOAA:
“Seid Creek: Green asked what is expected as the outcome on this issue. Robertson said nothing has occurred. NOAA previously said they were going to do a site inspection in March. Follow-ups have gone unanswered. Robertson asked if a letter from the Board would be effective. He explained that this is a construction site that has been filling debris above wetlands. Last year, a lot of it slid down into the wetlands. DSL has turned away from any enforcement action and the Corps never investigated. Robertson said it appears that Seid Creek is a watershed similar to Thompson Creek. Green asked for Robertson to continue making calls rather than the Board writing a letter just yet.”
http://www.dlwid.org/PDFs/Minutes%202009%2011%2005.pdf
[Screenshot: Note the web address and document title. Robertson's name appears to the right of 'Staff'.]
Why, among all “conspiracy” related topics would this be the one that was so highly attacked?
There are certainly elements of well accepted mainstream beliefs that might be shattered with the knowledge of aquatic humanoids. The aquatic ape theory is so poorly presented that even very adamant evolutionists could not help but feel shamed to preach it and it would not suffice to halt the questions about the accepted ideas of how life came to be on Earth.
That is not the answer all by itself though. There is something else that should not be lost on the viewer amidst the more sensational news of mermaids. The weaponized “sonar” which the Navy had allegedly invented is surely a serious issue if it were publicly recognized.
I am not sure that Ibelieve this weapon is Naval or is an advanced sonar weapon. We know there are sound weapons now and we know they can be lethal. They are not just a threat to wildlife in the Oceans, they are a threat to people on land as they have the capacity to be used not just in an aquatic environment but anywhere.
The USC sections sited on the shut down sites are those pertaining to making fraudulent or fictitious claims against the government. Those so-called fictitious claims almost certainly relate to the sound weapon mentioned. They are working hard to hide this and I wonder what we can do to make it less hidden…
[End Original Article]"
http://timenolonger.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/mermaids-sound-weapons-and-government-cover-ups-updated-and-compelling-evidence/
"Many of those speaking on it [The original "Mermaids: The Body Found"] have come to the conclusion that it is “debunked” based mostly on the claim that Dr. Paul Robertson and a marine biologist by the name of Brian McCormick do not exist.
They are hard to find, but they do exist.
Here is an excerpt from a document by the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, which research is affiliated with NOAA according to the document, and lists Brian McCormick as one individual who contributed to the project.
“The NBNERR Site Profile was made possible through the help of many individuals. Notable contributors and the expertise that they provided include… Sincere thanks also goes to current and former NBNERR staff members who assisted with materials presented in this document, but who did not individually author any of the chapters. These individuals include Robert Stankelis, Kristen Van Wagner, Jennifer West, Matthew Rehor, Kimberly Botelho, Brian McCormick, Alan Beck, and especially Roger Greene…
This publication is sponsored by the NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division and the State of Rhode Island. This publication is also sponsored in part by Rhode Island Sea Grant under NOAA Grant No. NA040AR4170062. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the NBNERR, NOAA, or any of its sub-agencies. The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon.”
http://www.nbnerr.org/Content/SiteProfile08/1_Preface.pdf
[Screenshot: Note the web address and document title. McCormick's name appears just above the lighthouse picture.]
And here is an excerpt from a document on the minutes of a Devils Lake water improvement district meeting. Listed as staff:
“STAFF: Paul Robertson, Seth Lenaerts, RARE Participant”
and affiliated with NOAA:
“Seid Creek: Green asked what is expected as the outcome on this issue. Robertson said nothing has occurred. NOAA previously said they were going to do a site inspection in March. Follow-ups have gone unanswered. Robertson asked if a letter from the Board would be effective. He explained that this is a construction site that has been filling debris above wetlands. Last year, a lot of it slid down into the wetlands. DSL has turned away from any enforcement action and the Corps never investigated. Robertson said it appears that Seid Creek is a watershed similar to Thompson Creek. Green asked for Robertson to continue making calls rather than the Board writing a letter just yet.”
http://www.dlwid.org/PDFs/Minutes%202009%2011%2005.pdf
[Screenshot: Note the web address and document title. Robertson's name appears to the right of 'Staff'.]
Why, among all “conspiracy” related topics would this be the one that was so highly attacked?
There are certainly elements of well accepted mainstream beliefs that might be shattered with the knowledge of aquatic humanoids. The aquatic ape theory is so poorly presented that even very adamant evolutionists could not help but feel shamed to preach it and it would not suffice to halt the questions about the accepted ideas of how life came to be on Earth.
That is not the answer all by itself though. There is something else that should not be lost on the viewer amidst the more sensational news of mermaids. The weaponized “sonar” which the Navy had allegedly invented is surely a serious issue if it were publicly recognized.
I am not sure that Ibelieve this weapon is Naval or is an advanced sonar weapon. We know there are sound weapons now and we know they can be lethal. They are not just a threat to wildlife in the Oceans, they are a threat to people on land as they have the capacity to be used not just in an aquatic environment but anywhere.
The USC sections sited on the shut down sites are those pertaining to making fraudulent or fictitious claims against the government. Those so-called fictitious claims almost certainly relate to the sound weapon mentioned. They are working hard to hide this and I wonder what we can do to make it less hidden…
[End Original Article]"
Mermaids File: March 2013 Greenland halts oil drilling licenses
This is the news story that was quoted in Mermaids: The New Evidence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/27/greenland-halts-oil-drilling-licences
Terry Macalister
The Guardian
Wednesday 27 March 2013 22.47 GMT
The new government in Greenland has slapped a moratorium on the granting of fresh offshore oil and gas drilling licences in the country's Arctic waters in a move which has been welcomed by Greenpeace but will disappoint the industry.
The ban came as one of the Arctic drilling pioneers, the British company Cairn Energy, failed in a bid to keep an injunction on any protests organised against it by Greenpeace.
A coalition agreement signed by prime minister Aleqa Hammond and others inside a newly elected administration said it would be "reluctant" to hand out any new permits, while exploration under existing licences could only be done under much heavier safety scrutiny. Oil industry experts in London said that a new licensing round that would have opened up waters off the north east of Greenland would not now take place.
Jon Burgwald, Arctic campaigner for Greenpeace in Denmark, said it was good news for everyone: "Until now, the people of Greenland have been kept in the dark about the enormous risks taken by the politicians and companies in the search for Arctic oil. Now it seems that the new government will start taking these risks seriously. The logical conclusion must be a total ban on offshore oil drilling in Greenland."
The coalition agreement makes clear a parliamentary body will be established to scrutinise offshore operations while promising oil spill safety plans will be made publicly available in future.
Greenland, with Alaska and Russia, has been at the forefront of oil company hopes to uncover an estimated 25% of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves lying under and around the Arctic ocean.
Early drilling operations by Cairn and Shell infuriated environmentalists worried about global warming and concerned that the pristine and icy waters of the far north could be irreparably damaged by any oil spills.
A decision by the former Greenland government and Cairn not to make public any spill response plan caused particular concern and led to Cairn's Edinburgh headquarters being taken over briefly by protestors dressed as polar bears.
A legal injunction obtained by Cairn against Greenpeace International was lifted on Wednesday although a parallel one against Greenpeace UK, which organised the protest back in 2011, remains in place. Cairn spent $1.4bn (£1bn) drilling without commercial success off Greenland while Shell has just been forced to drop plans to drill again off Alaska this summer after it ran into a series of technical problems in the region during 2012.
Hammond's Siumut party came to power this month following an election campaign dominated by a debate over the activities of foreign investors and concerns among the 57,000 population that Greenland's future could be dictated by the demands of potentially polluting new industries rather than traditional Inuit fishing and hunting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/27/greenland-halts-oil-drilling-licences
Terry Macalister
The Guardian
Wednesday 27 March 2013 22.47 GMT
The new government in Greenland has slapped a moratorium on the granting of fresh offshore oil and gas drilling licences in the country's Arctic waters in a move which has been welcomed by Greenpeace but will disappoint the industry.
The ban came as one of the Arctic drilling pioneers, the British company Cairn Energy, failed in a bid to keep an injunction on any protests organised against it by Greenpeace.
A coalition agreement signed by prime minister Aleqa Hammond and others inside a newly elected administration said it would be "reluctant" to hand out any new permits, while exploration under existing licences could only be done under much heavier safety scrutiny. Oil industry experts in London said that a new licensing round that would have opened up waters off the north east of Greenland would not now take place.
Jon Burgwald, Arctic campaigner for Greenpeace in Denmark, said it was good news for everyone: "Until now, the people of Greenland have been kept in the dark about the enormous risks taken by the politicians and companies in the search for Arctic oil. Now it seems that the new government will start taking these risks seriously. The logical conclusion must be a total ban on offshore oil drilling in Greenland."
The coalition agreement makes clear a parliamentary body will be established to scrutinise offshore operations while promising oil spill safety plans will be made publicly available in future.
Greenland, with Alaska and Russia, has been at the forefront of oil company hopes to uncover an estimated 25% of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves lying under and around the Arctic ocean.
Early drilling operations by Cairn and Shell infuriated environmentalists worried about global warming and concerned that the pristine and icy waters of the far north could be irreparably damaged by any oil spills.
A decision by the former Greenland government and Cairn not to make public any spill response plan caused particular concern and led to Cairn's Edinburgh headquarters being taken over briefly by protestors dressed as polar bears.
A legal injunction obtained by Cairn against Greenpeace International was lifted on Wednesday although a parallel one against Greenpeace UK, which organised the protest back in 2011, remains in place. Cairn spent $1.4bn (£1bn) drilling without commercial success off Greenland while Shell has just been forced to drop plans to drill again off Alaska this summer after it ran into a series of technical problems in the region during 2012.
Hammond's Siumut party came to power this month following an election campaign dominated by a debate over the activities of foreign investors and concerns among the 57,000 population that Greenland's future could be dictated by the demands of potentially polluting new industries rather than traditional Inuit fishing and hunting.
Mermaid Files: Jan 2012 "Whale advocates sue Navy over sonar exercises"
Associated Press January 26, 2012, 10:34 AM via CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57366677/whale-advocates-sue-navy-over-sonar-exercises/
SEATTLE - Conservationists and Native American tribes are suing over the Navy's expanded use of sonar in training exercises off the Washington, Oregon and California coasts, saying the noise can harass and kill whales and other marine life.
In a lawsuit being filed Thursday by the environmental law firm Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups against the National Marine Fisheries Service claims the service was wrong to approve the Navy's plan for the expanded training.
They said the regulators should have considered the effects repeated sonar use can have on those species over many years and also required certain restrictions on where the Navy could conduct sonar and other loud activities to protect orcas, humpbacks and other whales, as well as seals, sea lions and dolphins.
Instead, the Navy is required to look around and see if sea mammals are present before they conduct the training.
Kristen Boyles, a Seattle-based attorney with Earthjustice, said it's the job of the fisheries service to balance the needs of the Navy with measures to protect marine life.
"Nobody's saying they shouldn't train," she said. "But it can't be possible that it's no-holds-barred, that there's no place where this can't happen."
In 2010, the fisheries service approved the Navy's five-year plan for operations in the Northwest Training Range Complex, an area roughly the size of California, about 126,000 nautical square miles, that stretches from the waters off Mendocino County in California to the Canadian border. The Navy has conducted exercises in the training range for 60 years, but in recent years proposed increased weapons testing and submarine training.
The groups want the permit granted to the Navy to be invalidated. They are asking the court to order the fisheries service to study the long-term effects of sonar on marine mammals, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and other laws.
Regulators determined that while sonar use by navies has been associated with the deaths of whales around the world, including the beaching of 37 whales on North Carolina's Outer Banks in 2005, there was little chance of that happening in the Northwest. The short duration of the sonar use, typically 90 minutes at a time by a single surface vessel, and reduced intensity would help prevent whale deaths, they said. Regulators required the Navy to shut down sonar operations if whales, sea lions, dolphins or other marine mammals were spotted nearby.
The lawsuit, being filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, claims that the Navy's sonar use in the Northwest might be strong enough to kill the animals outright. But even if it doesn't, the repeated use of sonar in certain critical habitats, such as breeding or feeding grounds, over many years could drive those species away, making it more difficult for them to eat or reproduce, it claims. The fisheries service should have ordered the Navy to keep out of such areas, at least seasonally, the environmental groups said.
A spokeswoman for the Navy declined to comment on Wednesday, saying she had not seen the lawsuit, and the fisheries service did not immediately return an email seeking comment.
The plaintiffs include People for Puget Sound, a Seattle-based nonprofit, and the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, which represents ten Northern California American Indian tribes.
© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57366677/whale-advocates-sue-navy-over-sonar-exercises/
Whale advocates sue Navy over sonar exercises
SEATTLE - Conservationists and Native American tribes are suing over the Navy's expanded use of sonar in training exercises off the Washington, Oregon and California coasts, saying the noise can harass and kill whales and other marine life.
In a lawsuit being filed Thursday by the environmental law firm Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups against the National Marine Fisheries Service claims the service was wrong to approve the Navy's plan for the expanded training.
They said the regulators should have considered the effects repeated sonar use can have on those species over many years and also required certain restrictions on where the Navy could conduct sonar and other loud activities to protect orcas, humpbacks and other whales, as well as seals, sea lions and dolphins.
Instead, the Navy is required to look around and see if sea mammals are present before they conduct the training.
Kristen Boyles, a Seattle-based attorney with Earthjustice, said it's the job of the fisheries service to balance the needs of the Navy with measures to protect marine life.
"Nobody's saying they shouldn't train," she said. "But it can't be possible that it's no-holds-barred, that there's no place where this can't happen."
In 2010, the fisheries service approved the Navy's five-year plan for operations in the Northwest Training Range Complex, an area roughly the size of California, about 126,000 nautical square miles, that stretches from the waters off Mendocino County in California to the Canadian border. The Navy has conducted exercises in the training range for 60 years, but in recent years proposed increased weapons testing and submarine training.
The groups want the permit granted to the Navy to be invalidated. They are asking the court to order the fisheries service to study the long-term effects of sonar on marine mammals, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and other laws.
Regulators determined that while sonar use by navies has been associated with the deaths of whales around the world, including the beaching of 37 whales on North Carolina's Outer Banks in 2005, there was little chance of that happening in the Northwest. The short duration of the sonar use, typically 90 minutes at a time by a single surface vessel, and reduced intensity would help prevent whale deaths, they said. Regulators required the Navy to shut down sonar operations if whales, sea lions, dolphins or other marine mammals were spotted nearby.
The lawsuit, being filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, claims that the Navy's sonar use in the Northwest might be strong enough to kill the animals outright. But even if it doesn't, the repeated use of sonar in certain critical habitats, such as breeding or feeding grounds, over many years could drive those species away, making it more difficult for them to eat or reproduce, it claims. The fisheries service should have ordered the Navy to keep out of such areas, at least seasonally, the environmental groups said.
A spokeswoman for the Navy declined to comment on Wednesday, saying she had not seen the lawsuit, and the fisheries service did not immediately return an email seeking comment.
The plaintiffs include People for Puget Sound, a Seattle-based nonprofit, and the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, which represents ten Northern California American Indian tribes.
© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This
Mermaids File: 2009 "Navy Sonar vs. Marine Life"
kohlhase@earthlink.net
Navy Sonar vs. Marine Life
http://www.eco-web.com/edi/090228.html
By Charles Kohlhase
February 2009The Author is a Scientist and former Naval Officer based in Pasadena, California, USA
The U.S. Navy continues its sonar training exercises for detecting quiet diesel-electric submarines, with the damaging effects these far-traveling sound waves have on whales, dolphins, and many other forms of marine life. By using the power of science-based computer simulations, however, it is possible to achieve a solution which benefits the Navy, spares the marine life, and to a lesser extent helps with the economy, the shrinking energy reserves, and even the goal of reduced carbon emissions. In the long run, the Navy must find alternatives to sonar that can still meet submarine detection goals or which can protect the fleet if aggressive actions are taken by hostile submarines.
The Navy admits that detection of quiet submarines running on battery power is difficult, given the plethora of ocean sounds from natural and commercial sources, yet is unwilling to constrain their active sonar tests to protect marine life. The Navy stated in October 2008 (during the Winter vs NRDC case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court) that there were no recorded sonar-related marine mammal deaths off the California coast during the previous 40 years of sonar operations and that any such deaths were caused by non-sonar sources. Yet only three months later, the Navy admitted that nearly two million marine mammals each year may suffer “biologically significant impacts” from planned sonar operations off the eastern coast of the United States and in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Supreme Court reached a 5-to-4 decision in favor of the Navy, with Chief Justice Roberts writing, in effect, “We do not discount the importance of plaintiffs’ ecological, scientific, and recreational interests in marine mammals, however national security takes priority over whales and dolphins.” With the state of the world’s oceans and sharply declining marine populations at great risk, our value system must change under the Obama administration. We need Earth stewardship – not the military industrial complex conducting business as usual. This could be achieved by enforcing the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 without granting 5-year exemptions to the Navy for “incidental take.”
Marine biologists point to numerous cases of stranded whales which have suffered physical trauma, including bleeding around the brain, ears, and other tissues. In the ocean darkness, many marine creatures use sound to navigate, find food, locate each other over great distances, breed, and care for their young. Naval sonar can disrupt feeding and even cause species to panic. Scientists are concerned about the cumulative effect of these impacts on marine populations. The International Whaling Commission, comprised of expert whale biologists, has reported that the effect of sonar on whale mortalities is both convincing and overwhelming. In late 2004, the European Parliament even voted 441 to 15 to cease the use of active sonar in European waters.
The Department of Energy stopped testing nuclear weapons fifteen years ago, changing to simulations run on super-computers to obtain information on bomb blast effects. The Navy should follow this precedent. Sonar was developed in 1916, thirty years before the atomic bomb, and we understand the physics of sonar transmission through water of varying density, depth, and to targets of different properties over varying types of undersea topography. In fact, computer programs can simulate a vastly greater spectrum of target conditions and noise sources than can ever be carried out in ship-based exercises. The Navy acknowledges the value of simulations, but argues that their personnel must “train as they fight.”
The U.S. defense budget is presently $623B per year, larger than the combined defense budgets of all other countries in the world. In today’s beleaguered economy, we need to start cutting back where we can. The U.S. Navy could reduce its operational costs by using simulations instead of fleet sonar exercises. Each destroyer-class ship uses daily an amount of diesel fuel equivalent to that of about 6,000 cars, so energy savings would be dramatic as well. It is also easier to develop countermeasures to hostile submarine strategies through quickly modified and accurate computer simulations than through an endless and incomplete variety of training exercises.
It is also imperative that the U. S. Navy seeks to develop detection schemes that do not harm marine life. Examples include magnetic anomaly detection, synthetic aperture radar to measure ocean height disturbance, highly sensitive gravimeter techniques, a network of nanotechnology-based detection bots, and other sensing techniques identified from brainstorming sessions with top scientists. It is time to be inventive and not trapped in ways of the past. The Navy currently spends less than 0.01% of their $150B annual budget on “marine mammal mitigation” research. This tragic shortfall must be remedied quickly.
***
Copyright © 2009, C. Kohlhase
Navy Sonar vs. Marine Life
http://www.eco-web.com/edi/090228.html
By Charles Kohlhase
February 2009The Author is a Scientist and former Naval Officer based in Pasadena, California, USA
The U.S. Navy continues its sonar training exercises for detecting quiet diesel-electric submarines, with the damaging effects these far-traveling sound waves have on whales, dolphins, and many other forms of marine life. By using the power of science-based computer simulations, however, it is possible to achieve a solution which benefits the Navy, spares the marine life, and to a lesser extent helps with the economy, the shrinking energy reserves, and even the goal of reduced carbon emissions. In the long run, the Navy must find alternatives to sonar that can still meet submarine detection goals or which can protect the fleet if aggressive actions are taken by hostile submarines.
The Navy admits that detection of quiet submarines running on battery power is difficult, given the plethora of ocean sounds from natural and commercial sources, yet is unwilling to constrain their active sonar tests to protect marine life. The Navy stated in October 2008 (during the Winter vs NRDC case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court) that there were no recorded sonar-related marine mammal deaths off the California coast during the previous 40 years of sonar operations and that any such deaths were caused by non-sonar sources. Yet only three months later, the Navy admitted that nearly two million marine mammals each year may suffer “biologically significant impacts” from planned sonar operations off the eastern coast of the United States and in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Supreme Court reached a 5-to-4 decision in favor of the Navy, with Chief Justice Roberts writing, in effect, “We do not discount the importance of plaintiffs’ ecological, scientific, and recreational interests in marine mammals, however national security takes priority over whales and dolphins.” With the state of the world’s oceans and sharply declining marine populations at great risk, our value system must change under the Obama administration. We need Earth stewardship – not the military industrial complex conducting business as usual. This could be achieved by enforcing the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 without granting 5-year exemptions to the Navy for “incidental take.”
Marine biologists point to numerous cases of stranded whales which have suffered physical trauma, including bleeding around the brain, ears, and other tissues. In the ocean darkness, many marine creatures use sound to navigate, find food, locate each other over great distances, breed, and care for their young. Naval sonar can disrupt feeding and even cause species to panic. Scientists are concerned about the cumulative effect of these impacts on marine populations. The International Whaling Commission, comprised of expert whale biologists, has reported that the effect of sonar on whale mortalities is both convincing and overwhelming. In late 2004, the European Parliament even voted 441 to 15 to cease the use of active sonar in European waters.
The Department of Energy stopped testing nuclear weapons fifteen years ago, changing to simulations run on super-computers to obtain information on bomb blast effects. The Navy should follow this precedent. Sonar was developed in 1916, thirty years before the atomic bomb, and we understand the physics of sonar transmission through water of varying density, depth, and to targets of different properties over varying types of undersea topography. In fact, computer programs can simulate a vastly greater spectrum of target conditions and noise sources than can ever be carried out in ship-based exercises. The Navy acknowledges the value of simulations, but argues that their personnel must “train as they fight.”
The U.S. defense budget is presently $623B per year, larger than the combined defense budgets of all other countries in the world. In today’s beleaguered economy, we need to start cutting back where we can. The U.S. Navy could reduce its operational costs by using simulations instead of fleet sonar exercises. Each destroyer-class ship uses daily an amount of diesel fuel equivalent to that of about 6,000 cars, so energy savings would be dramatic as well. It is also easier to develop countermeasures to hostile submarine strategies through quickly modified and accurate computer simulations than through an endless and incomplete variety of training exercises.
It is also imperative that the U. S. Navy seeks to develop detection schemes that do not harm marine life. Examples include magnetic anomaly detection, synthetic aperture radar to measure ocean height disturbance, highly sensitive gravimeter techniques, a network of nanotechnology-based detection bots, and other sensing techniques identified from brainstorming sessions with top scientists. It is time to be inventive and not trapped in ways of the past. The Navy currently spends less than 0.01% of their $150B annual budget on “marine mammal mitigation” research. This tragic shortfall must be remedied quickly.
***
Copyright © 2009, C. Kohlhase
Mermaids File: March 2013 "Navy denied request to increase use of sonar off California’s coast"
"Navy denied request to increase use of sonar off California’s coast
Posted on March 11, 2013 by Physics Today
Los Angeles Times: The US Navy wants to expand its use of sonar and underwater explosives in training exercises off the coast of California. The state’s Coastal Commission, however, voted unanimously against the navy’s proposal. It said the navy provided inadequate evidence that the damage to whales and other wildlife would be negligible. Environmentalists believe the navy’s projected numbers—130 marine mammals will be killed over the next five years and 1500 will suffer hearing loss—are greatly underestimated. By law, the navy is required to confer with the commission, but it argues that it does not have to abide by the commission’s decision. Although the navy has said it will continue to negotiate with the commission regarding methods to mitigate the impact of training on wildlife, it previously has indicated that some suggestions, such as slower speeds of naval vessels and reduced nighttime exercises, are not practical."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-navy-whales-20130309,0,1038169.story
Posted on March 11, 2013 by Physics Today
Los Angeles Times: The US Navy wants to expand its use of sonar and underwater explosives in training exercises off the coast of California. The state’s Coastal Commission, however, voted unanimously against the navy’s proposal. It said the navy provided inadequate evidence that the damage to whales and other wildlife would be negligible. Environmentalists believe the navy’s projected numbers—130 marine mammals will be killed over the next five years and 1500 will suffer hearing loss—are greatly underestimated. By law, the navy is required to confer with the commission, but it argues that it does not have to abide by the commission’s decision. Although the navy has said it will continue to negotiate with the commission regarding methods to mitigate the impact of training on wildlife, it previously has indicated that some suggestions, such as slower speeds of naval vessels and reduced nighttime exercises, are not practical."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-navy-whales-20130309,0,1038169.story
Mermaids File: March 2013 "Coastal panel rejects Navy's plan to boost underwater blasts"
Coastal panel rejects Navy's plan to boost underwater blasts
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/09/local/la-me-navy-whales-20130309
The commission says military officials used weak data to support claims that training causes little injury to whales and other sea life.
March 09, 2013|By Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times
SAN DIEGO — Citing the danger to whales and other sea life, the California Coastal Commission voted unanimously Friday to reject the Navy's plan for increased use of sonar and underwater explosives for training off Southern California.
The vote will not immediately curtail any training, but will set the stage for additional negotiations between the Navy and the commission about how to safeguard marine mammals while permitting military operations in an area of 120,000-plus nautical square miles.
Commission members accused the Navy of providing inadequate scientific data to support its view that damage to the whales and other species would be marginal, and that measures taken in the past — including having sailors watching for whales — have greatly minimized harm to the mammals."The Navy's conclusions are not supported by evidence," said commission member Esther Sanchez of the Oceanside City Council.Members were also upset that Navy officials, before the vote, said that the Navy did not plan to follow the mitigation measures suggested by commission staff members, such as making certain areas off-limits to training.The Navy's plan "seems like an extraordinary increase [in sonar and other training] when we're at peace, in most places," said commission member Dayna Bochco of Los Angeles.The commission is charged with protecting California's coast and offshore areas. The Navy maintains that it does not need the panel's approval for its offshore training — only that it is required by law to confer with the panel and its staff.After the vote, Navy officials promised to resume negotiations with commission staff members about mitigation measures and other items before bringing the issue back to the commission.Navy Cmdr. John Doney, director of training exercises for the San Diego-based 3rd Fleet, said the increase in training is needed to prepare sailors for a shift in U.S. military emphasis to the Pacific Ocean region and beyond, including areas where the U.S. could be in conflict with North Korea and Iran.The California coast is the best training area available for the Pacific Fleet for individual ships and multi-vessel task forces, Doney said.America's adversaries, he said, are building super-quiet submarines and U.S. Navy sailors need to train to detect these submarines through sonar. "I would submit the threat is real and the threat is out there," he said.The Navy estimated that the training, at most, could kill 130 marine mammals in five years and lead to hearing loss for 1,600, although the environmentalists branded that a gross underestimate.Michael Jasny, director of the marine mammal project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the increase in sonar, explosives and other aspects of training would disrupt the foraging and breeding of several kinds of whales and destroy the hearing of many, leaving them to die.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/09/local/la-me-navy-whales-20130309
The commission says military officials used weak data to support claims that training causes little injury to whales and other sea life.
March 09, 2013|By Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times
SAN DIEGO — Citing the danger to whales and other sea life, the California Coastal Commission voted unanimously Friday to reject the Navy's plan for increased use of sonar and underwater explosives for training off Southern California.
The vote will not immediately curtail any training, but will set the stage for additional negotiations between the Navy and the commission about how to safeguard marine mammals while permitting military operations in an area of 120,000-plus nautical square miles.
Commission members accused the Navy of providing inadequate scientific data to support its view that damage to the whales and other species would be marginal, and that measures taken in the past — including having sailors watching for whales — have greatly minimized harm to the mammals."The Navy's conclusions are not supported by evidence," said commission member Esther Sanchez of the Oceanside City Council.Members were also upset that Navy officials, before the vote, said that the Navy did not plan to follow the mitigation measures suggested by commission staff members, such as making certain areas off-limits to training.The Navy's plan "seems like an extraordinary increase [in sonar and other training] when we're at peace, in most places," said commission member Dayna Bochco of Los Angeles.The commission is charged with protecting California's coast and offshore areas. The Navy maintains that it does not need the panel's approval for its offshore training — only that it is required by law to confer with the panel and its staff.After the vote, Navy officials promised to resume negotiations with commission staff members about mitigation measures and other items before bringing the issue back to the commission.Navy Cmdr. John Doney, director of training exercises for the San Diego-based 3rd Fleet, said the increase in training is needed to prepare sailors for a shift in U.S. military emphasis to the Pacific Ocean region and beyond, including areas where the U.S. could be in conflict with North Korea and Iran.The California coast is the best training area available for the Pacific Fleet for individual ships and multi-vessel task forces, Doney said.America's adversaries, he said, are building super-quiet submarines and U.S. Navy sailors need to train to detect these submarines through sonar. "I would submit the threat is real and the threat is out there," he said.The Navy estimated that the training, at most, could kill 130 marine mammals in five years and lead to hearing loss for 1,600, although the environmentalists branded that a gross underestimate.Michael Jasny, director of the marine mammal project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the increase in sonar, explosives and other aspects of training would disrupt the foraging and breeding of several kinds of whales and destroy the hearing of many, leaving them to die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)