Underwater Sonar Linked To Whale Deaths 187
An anonymous reader writes "A group of scientists have confirmed a link between the sonar used by Exxon Mobil to map the ocean floor for oil and the death of melon-headed whales. From the article: 'A spokesman for ExxonMobil said the company disagrees with the findings. "ExxonMobil believes the panel's finding about the multi-beam echo sounder is unjustified due to the lack of certainty of information and observations recorded during the response efforts in 2008," spokesman Patrick McGinn told AFP in an email. He added that observers employed by the Madagascar government and the oil giant "were on board the vessel and did not observe any whales in the area."'"
Cognitive Errors, Courtesy Exxon (Score:5, Insightful)
"ExxonMobil believes the panel's finding about the multi-beam echo sounder is unjustified due to the lack of certainty of information and observations recorded during the response efforts in 2008," spokesman Patrick McGinn told AFP in an email. He added that observers employed by the Madagascar government and the oil giant "were on board the vessel and did not observe any whales in the area."'"
Certainty of information: Nobody requires absolute certainty in science. In fact, even the court system, sad as it is, needs it -- it requires "beyond reasonable doubt", whereas science is similarily situated at "best model that fits the facts". Type of cognitive distortion ExxonMobile uses here: All-or-nothing thinking.
Out of date observations: It's 2013 now. By carefully hand picking your data set to be only, say, 2008, or pre-2008, you are discounting everything that came after. One supposes that an extra five years' worth of observations, we'd be able to narrow in on a cause. But let's humor them and take just 2008. In February of that year, before the incident in question, the US courts found there was enough evidence that high energy sonar was killing whales to ask the military to reduce its use in naval operations [enn.com].
Impartial observers: Let me sum this one up real easy -- "Managment finds no problem with the management." The government was paid a lot of money to go along with Exxon, and employees of Exxon I think we can safely say aren't impartial observers. So one of the most basic things required for proper fact gathering went right out the window. This is, in effect, an admission that ExxonMobile has no valid data points from which to draw any conclusions whatsoever. It is, from a scientific perspective, pure speculation. "We're not wrong because, er, we saw ourselves doing nothing wrong." Okay... what about everyone else? "We didn't ask them."
Exxon Mobile's new mission statement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cognitive Errors, Courtesy Exxon (Score:2, Insightful)
P.S. The lack of whales being observed in the area might be attributable to all the observers being in a boat, above the ocean, rather than in the ocean, where the whales live. And regardless, the piles of dead whales that started washing up on shore is a good indication that whatever methodology used was deeply flawed... Perhaps they were simply listening for the whales in between their exceptionally high power sonar tests... that may have already killed or incapacitated them.
So again, this is "cover my ass" commentary, not proper science. Proper science would note that corpses washed ashore in great number after, and conclude using indirect evidence, that observational methodology was flawed, then try to figure out why... not keep doing it for the next six years while continually saying ghosts and boogymen killed and then dragged the dead whales onto shore in the night, because otherwise wouldn't we have noticed them prior to us corpsifying them?
Exxon's Response (Score:3, Insightful)
"ExxonMobil believes the panel's finding about the multi-beam echo sounder is unjustified due to the lack of certainty of information and observations recorded during the response efforts in 2008"
This is a perfect example of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). Well done legal team!
Disgusted at humans :-( (Score:3, Insightful)
If some enlightened alien race came to earth and wiped us out after having looked at the atrocious way we treat other humans and all life on this planet, I'd understand. We don't deserve to live here.
Re:Disgusted at humans :-( (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are these hypothetical aliens always so judgmental and intolerant? What did they ever do for anyone? They have the energy to get here from other planets, but they've left us here, alone, digging in the sand for something to burn to keep from freezing in the winter. And now they want to sit on their thrones and second-guess our choices? Fuck them.
Regardless of the case... (Score:3, Insightful)
who in their right mind would believe an oil company? Out of all the sociopathic entities known as corporations, oil companies are the lying, destructive ringleaders.
Re:That's it (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason for the doubt is that melon-headed whales beach themselves anyway with surprising frequency.
The interesting question is, how can you tell this surprisingly high frequency ist not due to sonars?
Re:Disgusted at humans :-( (Score:5, Insightful)
In the past the whales had been able to sing to each other across whole oceans, even from one ocean to another because sound travels such huge distances underwater. But now, again because of the way in which sound travels, there is no part of the ocean that is not constantly jangling with the hubbub of ships’ motors, through which it is now virtually impossible for the whales to hear each other’s songs or messages.
So fucking what, is pretty much the way that people tend to view this problem, and understandably so, thought Dirk. After all, who wants to hear a bunch of fat fish, oh all right, mammals, burping at each other?
But for a moment Dirk had a sense of infinite loss and sadness that somewhere amongst the frenzy of information noise that daily rattled the lives of men he thought he might have heard a few notes that denoted the movements of gods.
Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, 1988
Re:Anti-oil propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is not whether an individual member of the species is harmed, but instead whether the species as a whole is driven to extinction. Killing Deer? Fine by me. Killing Rhinos? Serious problem.
Re:We saw none, therefore we did not drive them aw (Score:4, Insightful)
Exxon-Mobil's argument that saw no whales only fortifies the suspicion that they were driving the whales away.
Dude, stop using basic deductive reasoning. It'll get you into trouble on this website. Judging by the moderation on this thread, you need to swear more, use exclaimation points, and call everyone a moron -- this is apparently how you win arguments now.
Re:Exxon's Response (Score:5, Insightful)
Except there's a solid causal mechanism in play here. Whales are known to have particularly sensitive sound-receiving organs that also also known to be sensitive to extremely loud sounds like explosions and sonar. And it just so happens that someone was using a highly focused sonar in the time and space these whales turned up dead.
By your logic, a guy going into an auditorium and shooting a bunch of bullets isn't necessarily the cause of all the people found dead there with bullet-holes in them. There's just not a cause and effect relationship... sure, it's a plausible explanation, but that's far from being 'cause and effect'.
surprised ? (Score:4, Insightful)
A spokesman for ExxonMobil said the company disagrees with the findings.
When is the last time you heard a corporation agree with any kind of information that threatens its profits? Did it ever happen? Is there a recorded case in the history of mankind of a corporation agreeing with some kind of new information without having to be pressured into doing so?
Re:That's it (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no mention of damaged hearing organs in the article.
If I expose you to infrasonic tones, something proven to cause anxiety and stress in people, over a period of time, and then you later commit suicide, an autopsy will not find anything wrong with your ears. Nonetheless, that's what killed you. Now it doesn't work on everyone, and it works to varying degrees on the people it does effect, but searching for physical signs of trauma isn't always the best way of determining a cause of death; An autopsy is only one component in a murder investigation. You still have to investigate their environment, question eyewitnesses, and gather additional information.
It's not that much different, from a methodology standpoint, investigating the death of whales. A lack of damaged hearing organs doesn't mean it wasn't the proximate cause of death.
Re:That's it (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because the n-word has strong historic links to black people being beaten, lynched, enslaved, regarded subhuman & treated like animals (not allowed to drink from the same fountain, eat in the same restrooms, etc.) -- and white people that use or used the term are conveying that they figure that those abuses were at least somewhat justified.
The word "honky" is effectively just another mean word to call someone, as it only really refers to a subgroup of whites (not the race as a whole), and doesn't have the same history or suggest that we should be treated that way. All of the historically nasty terms for white people target nationalities, were made up by other whites, and stopped being genuinely offensive long ago. Even then, they just suggested that the new immigrants were genetically inferior, not that they should be treated like blacks were.
Re:Exxon's Response (Score:2, Insightful)
same ac here. you sound like a navy guy so some further explaination since you're in a position to understand it: air guns work much like a depth charge or cavitation. it's the shockwave from the collapse of the compressed air bubble which is what does all the damage. and large arrays of airguns are the tool of choice for these surveys.