Must See

Login or register to post comments Last Post 33769 reads   229 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 201 through 210 (of 229 total)

[quote=caroline_culbert]

I’m thinking of the mixed messages they receive with the artificial sonar clouding their communication (if they can get any in the first place).  Sonar is their method of communicating and deciphering information, but I guess that’s nothing to worry about… gee, why would we care if mammals (like us) want to communicate. 

[/quote]

So what you’re saying is you are not capable of carrying on a conversation in a noisy room?  I’ll bet you can hear your children call you from the back yard while your neighbor is cutting their lawn next door.  All the sonar does is contribute to the ambient noise in the ocean – which is an extremely noisy place in the first place.  Certain species of shrimp have been measured at 185-190 dB.  Other major contributors: carpenter fish, tectonic rumble, wave action, shipping, etc.

We don’t send "messages" – mixed or otherwise – to whales.  And what exactly is artificial sonar?  Noise in the water for echolocation is noise in the water, whether it is mammalian in origin or from a surface ship or a submarine.  The physics behind underwater acoustic propagation is the same  – nothing artificial about that.  The frequencies that whales emit and the frequencies the Navy uses in their sonar systems are not even close.  It doesn’t make any sense to ping using a waveform frequency that is in the same portion of the sonic spectrum as whale song.  Every time a whale burped ships would register a false return????  What is also conveniently overlooked is that sonar emmissions from both sperm whales (230 dB, by far and away the loudest animal on earth) and blue whales (188 dB) reach levels much louder (50-100 dB) than Navy sonar systems.

[quote=caroline_culbert]

Even if they they’re not being killed by sonar, then should that give the ok to minimize their effective communication?  But they are being killed;  and the scientific community finds it worthy to report on this issue.  But you feel that if the Navy’s activities do not attribute TOO much damage to the mammals, then it’s ok, right?

[/quote]

Unless you can come up with objective research results that can conclusively demonstrate that active sonar use minimizes "effective communication" between marine mammals then you don’t have an argument.  I think you are going to have a lot of trouble defining "effective communication" in a manner that the academe accepts and can then measure against.

It doesn’t matter what I think or feel.  The case was heard in appellate court.  Experts from both sides presented their material.  The Navy’s experts were better, their research was more thorough, their case was stronger and ultimately, the court upheld the Navy’s appeal.  So legally, if the Navy takes measures to mitigate the impact of active sonar on marine mammals, then yes, it is okay.  And that case now establishes precedent.

[quote=caroline_culbert]

Maybe you should bring these issues up with the BBC, NRDC, and the NOAA.  They were too careless and forgot to mention what you have so astutely observed.  I mean, come on… I would think that they have some of the best, if not ‘the best’, scientists working for them and reporting on this issue… but they didn’t even mention what you had so pointedly observed?

[/quote]

You might think that those organizations would have the best, but since you don’t have any experience in the field you would be very wrong.  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has the finest oceanographers in the world.  Of the three organizations you cite, NOAA has a fairly robust scientific community, but they aren’t the best by a long shot.  NRDC is a bunch of activists who typically get steamrolled in court because their cases unravel once their "research" methods used to back their conclusions come under academic scrutiny.  I’m not even going to dignify the BBC’s academic cred with a retort.

I have 30 years of hands on experience in this area and would put my academic resume and experience up against anything or anyone these organizations can offer.  Thanks for noticing.

[quote=Dogs_In_A_Pile][quote=caroline_culbert]

Maybe you should bring these issues up with the BBC, NRDC, and the NOAA.  They were too careless and forgot to mention what you have so astutely observed.  I mean, come on… I would think that they have some of the best, if not ‘the best’, scientists working for them and reporting on this issue… but they didn’t even mention what you had so pointedly observed?

[/quote]

You might think that those organizations would have the best, but since you don’t have any experience in the field you would be very wrong.  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has the finest oceanographers in the world.  Of the three organizations you cite, NOAA has a fairly robust scientific community, but they aren’t the best by a long shot.  NRDC is a bunch of activists who typically get steamrolled in court because their cases unravel once their "research" methods used to back their conclusions come under academic scrutiny.  I’m not even going to dignify the BBC’s academic cred with a retort.

I have 30 years of hands on experience in this area and would put my academic resume and experience up against anything or anyone these organizations can offer.  Thanks for noticing.

[/quote]

Yes… They’re all discreditable (or shall we say, we could only cherry-pick at best) and you’re the only one that’s right on.  GMAB.  …And you are right, I don’t have ANY experience in the field and that is why I rely on sources for my information.  But no source could be leveled against YOUR knowledge on the issue.  Can you give me, at least, some sources that you find to be more accurate (credible) than the ones I proposed/read?  At least give me that otherwise there’s nothing more I could do besides go through the hundred of journals/academic papers that "the sources" read to make their decisions upon the issue….

[quote=caroline_culbert]

Yes… They’re all discreditable (or shall we say, we could only cherry-pick at best) and you’re the only one that’s right on.  GMAB.  …And you are right, I don’t have ANY experience in the field and that is why I rely on sources for my information.  But no source could be leveled against YOUR knowledge on the issue.  Can you give me, at least, some sources that you find to be more accurate (credible) than the ones I proposed/read?  At least give me that otherwise there’s nothing more I could do besides go through the hundred of journals/academic papers that "the sources" read to make their decisions upon the issue….

[/quote]

Relative to the material presented in your provided sources I can conclusively state that yes indeed, I am more "right" with my assessment and level of knowledge than the authors of the articles.  You either accept that or not – I do not care

You need to stop reading articles and start reading published academic papers.  Your first comment on this latest run was:

"I agree that the sonar tests are killing the animals and that this "training" should be banned."

A definitive statement (your opinion) that sonar test kill animals and that training should be banned.  Based on what "research"?  News pieces written by academic lightweights?  You need to go back and re-read your original sources – none of them were conclusive so I’m not sure if you even read those inconclusive sources before you made your original post.  Seem a little "shoot first and ask questions later" doesn’t it?  The BBC article was laughable in it’s lack of supporting research.  The NRDC piece wasn’t much better – as far as providing conclusive research to support their positions.  The NOAA piece was by far and away the best of the three and even it stopped short of saying "Active Sonar kills Marine Mammals"  Note that it conceded the Navy’s training requirements need to be met, but those requirements need to be balanced with mitigation efforts to minimize the impact of active sonar on marine mammals.

Provide a copy of your latest SF-86 indicating your level of clearance, date that clearance was granted, any special access or compartmented programs you have been read into, a statement of "need to know" from your immediate supervisor and I will be happy to provide you links to more classified research papers and objective studies than you can read in a month of Sundays.

If you can’t do that, this conversation just went terminal.

[quote=Dogs_In_A_Pile][quote=caroline_culbert]

Yes… They’re all discreditable (or shall we say, we could only cherry-pick at best) and you’re the only one that’s right on.  GMAB.  …And you are right, I don’t have ANY experience in the field and that is why I rely on sources for my information.  But no source could be leveled against YOUR knowledge on the issue.  Can you give me, at least, some sources that you find to be more accurate (credible) than the ones I proposed/read?  At least give me that otherwise there’s nothing more I could do besides go through the hundreds of journals/academic papers that "the sources" read to make their decisions upon the issue….

[/quote]

Provide a copy of your latest SF-86 indicating your level of clearance, date that clearance was granted, any special access or compartmented programs you have been read into, a statement of "need to know" from your immediate supervisor and I will be happy to provide you links to more classified research papers and objective studies than you can read in a month of Sundays.

[/quote]

Well… since the ONLY papers, you imply, that are credible enough to withstand your scrutiny, are "classified", then I guess I’m out of reading material.

OR… maybe I could read the articles, from the sources I listed, written by journalists and/or scientists who have made statements and/or opinions based upon these journals (that I may or may not agree with).  Since they are probably getting paid to read and sift through the hundreds of academic journals to make their decisions… I’ll let them do it.  I’ve been through the phase of "let’s read a crapload of published papers provided by very expensive database companies purchased by the libraries or schools"- in college.  Even if I wanted to read every published academic paper out there, I don’t have even close to the time needed.  But I don’t want to.  There are (to me at least) credible sources who read/study these papers who will then, in return, publish a summary of the opposing viewpoints.  But that’s not good enough?

I think you’re right… I think this written conversation is terminal, in that, there are just some people who just don’t like opposing viewpoints (or those who take these debates/conversations personally instead of passionately).

BTW, when I get clearance to the classified research papers (links), I’ll let you know… Until then… Cheers!

OvrNout Captain!

(Maybe I can get my brother, who’s an officer in the Air Force, to get those "links" for me)… hmmm.

 

  • Thu, Mar 05, 2009 - 03:30pm

    #206
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Doting On Animals In Hard Times

When markets drip tears and For Rent signs appear over products in shops that were once For Sale, people still spend almost as much resources, time and energy as ever on a completely wasteful economic category: pets.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/03/animal-food-evolution-opinions-columnists_pet_owner.html

 

Shelters Seeing More Drop-Offs From Owners Who Can’t Afford Pets

http://your4state.com/content/fulltext/?cid=35151

Greg

Mess O’Potamia – The Iraq War Is Over  The Daily Show  Change we can believe in.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220241&title=mess-opotamia-the-iraq-war-is

Greg

[quote=gregroberts]

Mess O’Potamia – The Iraq War Is Over  The Daily Show  Change we can believe in.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220241&title=mess-opotamia-the-iraq-war-is

Greg

[/quote]

This is great… Thanks!

  • Mon, Mar 16, 2009 - 05:29pm

    #210
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Must See Gold for Bread

Looks like Gold is still valuable even when people are starving.

Viewing 10 posts - 201 through 210 (of 229 total)

Login or Register to post comments