While the Navy is one centralized group, the opposing side is more or less completely decentralized, united only by its common goal of protection of marine life. This is not surprising. Whales are quite possibly amongst the world's most beautiful creatures, and, as opposed to the potential risk posed to our nation by anonymous submarines which could theoretically be owned by some unknown hostile power, beauty is a quantity that anyone can easily appreciate.

The beauty of these creatures is not the only valid reason for which to protect them. "Whale songs," the sounds made by whales, are amongst the most complex sounds made by any known animals. Though no distinct language characteristics have been identified in them, it has been theorized that they do comprise a system of communication. If this is true, study of these animals (which evolved in a considerably different ecosystem than our own) may aide us in better understanding the workings of the portions of our minds responsible for communications.

Additionally, whales and other marine life are a vital part of the ecology of our oceans. While their exact relationships to every other type of animal and plant species in existence inside the oceans is obviously not known, it's quite possible that the removal of whales from an ocean could produce an imbalance amongst the remaining species. Naturally ecological systems are often carefully balanced, and tampering with them has in the past produced unexpected and highly damaging environmental effects. One example of this is the Chesapeake Bay, the waters of which were until a few decades ago quite clear because oysters were filtering out particles at a rate estimated to be the equivalent of the entire volume of the bay every three days. Because of overharvesting of the oysters, the water is no longer being cleared adequately, and has become quite murky. (This example has been taken from chapter 7 of this textbook, written by Dr. Peter J. Bryant and used in the class for which this web site was created.)

To most conservationists, however, the need to protect all living creatures is self evident and transcends all utilitarian value. Conservationists believe that all species should be protected as valuable natural resources. To conservationists, all living creatures are potential wonderlands. Conservationists point out that it's perfectly possible that a worm which grows only in a certain 10 square mile patch of rainforest in the Amazon may turn out to be instrumental in producing the cure for cancer, or for some other horrid disease. Furthermore, many conservationists hold the view that most organisms are valuable portions of the great machine that is our planet, and that their removal may upset the planet's ecosystems in unpredictable and potentially horrendous ways. While these ideas can be seen as based in reason, I think it's fair to say that conservationists are generally conservationists simply because they hold life, in and of itself, in high regard.

Since conservationists tend to be decentralized, it's impossible to capture the complete range of their individual views. One large organization which has become involved in the effort to ensure the safety of whales against the Navy's LFAS system, however, is the National Resource Defense Council, or NRDC. The NRDC's low-frequency sonar site is here.

The NRDC's viewpoint on this issue is in many ways typical of most of the conservationist viewpoints we've encountered while researching this site.

These groups all share a noble goal: the protection of life. However, many of them unfortunately tend to be overly conservative when it comes to this task. Many conservationist persons or organizations seem to advocate the idea that 'natural' ecosystems should never be touched by man in any way. This seems to me to be somewhat of an extremist position.

Much conservationist literature makes statements like "According to the US Marine Mammal Commission, `[i]f the LFA sonar system is made available for world-wide employment as proposed, all species and populations of marine mammals could possibly be affected.'" This statement is phrased so as to sound rather alarming at first glance. At second glance, however, it becomes clear that the statement only refers to a possible effect, and that the size of this effect is unknown either. What the Commission is really saying, then, is that the effects of such sound patterns on marine life have not been properly studied, and that, as such, it would prefer to take the extreme conservative viewpoint and not expose marine life to any such sound patterns, even for testing purposes.

With this particular issue, one of the most widely publicized causes for alarm has been the volume of the sound which the sonar system is to emit. The NRDC's site claims that the Navy intends to generate sound at 235 decibels or greater. According to the Navy's site, however, the system will use approximately 200 decibels. Furthermore, the statement itself is misleading. Sound volumes become lower with distance. During their recently conducted research as to the effects of low frequency sounds on marine life, the Navy was careful not to generate any sound while there were whales within 1,000 yards of their sound source. At that distance, the maximum level which actually reached the whales was 155 decibels which is well within the range of sound volumes produced by whales themselves as part of their "whale song," which gets as loud as 170 decibels!

The idea that, although the sound generated by the actual system is louder than whale song, the sound the whales actually hear is quieter may seem confusing. It's important to remember that when a whale produces whale song at 170 decibels, it itself will hear just as you or I hear ourselves when we talk. It's logical to assume that a whale would not produce sound at this level if it was liable to cause itself hearing damage by doing so. The comparison here is between sound a whale might make itself -- and hear at the exact volume at which it itself produced it, and sound made by the sonar system at some distance sufficiently far away for the sound to have faded.

Here are some more examples of misleading conservationist web sites. This site lists incorrect numbers for the volume of the sound being used in the system, fails to point out that sound fades over distance, and lists adverse effects that sound has been shown to have on humans in order to motivate people to fear for whales. The NRDC's web site also exaggerates their volumes, and claims the Navy intends to "bombard the world's ocean with extremely loud sound," language which is clearly inflammatory. This site claims the Navy has been creating sounds "in excess of 235 decibels" and that "whales and humans are sickend and killed," apparently attempting to create the impression that the Navy's research has been killing humans! This message presents detail regarding NATO tests of a low frequency active sonar system which have caused significant harm to whales, but fails to detail the levels of sound which were used in NATO's tests (noting only that the maximum possible output of the system was 230 decibels), and certainly fails to mention that NATO and the US Navy are two different organizations, and that their research programs are by no means identical. Certainly, whale deaths have not been amongst the reported consequences of the Navy's tests. This site expects us to believe that the low frequency active sonar is as destructive as an atom bomb, telling us that "like setting off the first atom bomb this sound pollution has far-reaching and known impact on the environment." (See the very bottom of their page.) At another point on the same page, this site theorizes that the low frequency active sonar "can probably destroy enemy subs and everyone on board." These types of examples are quite plentiful.

Perhaps due to the lack of centralization in the "conservationist camp," the more creditable scientists on the side of conservationism are sometimes overshadowed by those amongst them who are less skillful scientists but more skilled at getting media attention. This does not, however, mean that conservationism is nothing more than a media circus of wild allegations.

Despite the prevalence of misleading conservationist literature, most conservationists around are extremely well organized and creditable scientists. Some such scientists have recently cooperated with the Navy in a joint research effort into the actual effects of low frequency sound on marine mammals. Thanks to this research, the Navy now has information regarding which levels of sound are environmentally "safe" for use, and they intend to use this information when implementing their actual sonar system.

This research was an example of the scientific side of conservationism. Instead of attempting to portray the opposing side as an organization with no regard whatsoever for the importance of marine life, these scientists took the Navy's goal into consideration and participated in the creation of well controlled and formulated research. In this research, the behavior of marine life was monitored first in their normal surroundings (without the introduction of sonar sounds), and then, once a good idea of their "normal" behavior was established, sonar sounds were introduced in gradually increasing intensity. The Navy was under strict legal requirements to crease their research if any extreme behavioral changes were observed. The goal of this research was to discover if the Navy's goals may be met at least partially while keeping ocean waters safe for marine life. With the collection of data regarding safe levels of sound, it appears that this goal has been accomplished.

In response to environmentalist and conservationist concerns, the Navy is currently preparing an environmental impact statement in relation to the nature of the actual sonar system they intend to deploy. This issue may again become prominent when this statement is completed. The Navy claims that its research established that this type of sonar system can be constructed in a manner which would not bring significant harm to marine life. As such, if it becomes possible to put sufficient legal controls of the Navy when it deploys it actual system to assure it uses similar precautions to the ones used during its research, it's likely that this issue could be soon settled in a manner that would satisfy all involved.

The research conducted as a true joint effort between the Navy and conservationists, and I (Ron Katzir) personally feel that they should be congratulated for having displayed the ability to work together to protect both the lives of marine animals, and of the citizens of the United States.