b i o l o g i c a l   i m p a c t
    line

    The aspect of the LFAS research which is by far the most ambiguous and the most crucial is that of the LFAS's biological effects on marine mammals. The experiment consists of emitting sonar blasts of up to 150 decibels in the breeding waters of the humpback whale located just offshore from Honolulu. These blasts will be continued unless the whales show signs of intense distress (e.g. numerous breachings, flight from the sound, or increased vocal activity). Opinions and theories vary widely on the subject according to which source is cited and with which philosophical "side" the individual most identifies. This ambiguity is where the greatest controversy stems from as three major questions form.

    1. Is this experiment going to disclose information which will clarify the actual effects of the Navy's sonar and other underwater noise on marine mammals, thus making it easier to set guidelines on marine noise pollution and aid in ensuring that their environment is a tolerable one?

    2. Will this method of experimentation be an accurate measure not just of the initial effects but also on long term effects such as adjustments in migration routes and loss of breeding grounds, etc?

    3. Is this experiment and its potential results worth the risk that the LFAS's may seriously maim or impair not only the individual's ability to survive, but also the migrational patterns and their ability to communicate? These questions do not come with easy answers and often stand at odds with one another.

    Previous research has been done on other marine mammals as well as the use of similar research methods used several years ago by Scripps to ascertain whether a warming trend was evident in the oceans. The methods of the ATOC (Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate) test and its results are now available on the web. However, the LFAS testing pushes these issues slightly farther. The simplest concern is that the testing and potential use of LFAS's will be yet another pollutant in an environment which already receives excess noise, oil, and refuse from our shipping industries. On top of this is the potential dehabilitation of the cetaceans' own sonar systems. One must remember that hearing for them is like sight for us - it is their primary sense and should the LFAS's severely impair that, the cetaceans are effectively left "acoustically blind" in their own environment. Without sonar they would be unable to navigate their long migration routes, identify enemies and other members of the group at a long range, and hunt prey. Along with this is a more social side to the problem in which the question arisesof whether the LFAS's will interrupt the whales' own long-range communication in which it is believed they can identify individuals by specific song patterns. Scientists are also unsure if the LFAS transmissions will disrupt the singing of the humpback whales which still stands as one of the most beautiful mysteries of the natural world.

    There is another worry that should the LFAS be implemented at set places, migration paths and breeding grounds would be altered because of the LFAS's presence. This is a serious problem for the areas in which the cetaceans can breed now is already so limited by other human activities (whether it be pollution, heavy human traffic, or the recently proposed salt works factory in Mexico) that to deter them from places currently popular would leave them severely constrained and could potentially decrease breeding activities. This, however, is not the most alarming of the possibilities. There has been a disturbing connection proposed between the mass stranding of 12 Cuvier's beaked whales in Greece and the testing of LFAS's being done by NATO.

    The correlation between the two is very strong as there are very few recorded strandings, especially in this species, and the noted stranding corresponded exactly with the time of the NATO testing. The stranding was unusual in that the whales did not all strand in the same location as is customary but rather were spread over a large area which also correlated with the NATO tesing area. When examined, the whales had no signs of physical damage and their stomachs were well filled with cephalod, indicating that they were not having trouble finding nourishment and that the stranding was not due to major wounds or diseases. This poses a serious moral dilemma if one ascertains that these animals were caused to strand either because of LFAS-caused loss of their supreme navigational sonar abilities or because of the extreme disturbance (it's difficult to say whether this would be physical or mental or both) caused by the noise. This would be possible to test further but at the time is very unknown.

    There is one final effect under consideration by a very small group. This possibility is by far the least substantiated and yet because of its disturbing nature should not be disregarded. It is proposed that given that a mammal come into contact with the correct combination of frequency and volume, it is possible that the sound alone would be able to shear the animal's tissue or flesh. This has been put forward by several doctors who are doing research on the use of sound in breaking up tumors and is still highly hypothetical. This is definitely an extreme example. However, the statement of one scuba diver exposed to LFAS's who described the sensation of his lungs vibrating does make the power of the LFA's sound within the flesh a serious consideration.