Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Military sonar 'will kill whales'

10 views
Skip to first unread message

M.Hamer

unread,
Aug 10, 2004, 2:41:29 AM8/10/04
to
Observer News Pages

LETHAL SOUNDWAVES: Military sonar 'will kill whales'

Mark Townsend
810 words
8 August 2004
The Observer
14
English
© Copyright 2004. The Observer. All rights reserved.

IT IS one of the loudest sound systems devised by man, capable of sending a
sonic boom so thunderous experts warn it can rupture the brains of whales
hundreds of miles away.

Yet defence chiefs have earmarked a staggering pounds 340m for a new
submarine sonar system increasingly linked to a number of mysterious whale
deaths. Experts yesterday condemned the decision to press ahead without even
a public meeting into its effects. A single ping of the new low-frequency
technology can affect animals across 3.8 million square kilometres of water,
roughly the size of the Pacific Ocean.

The noise, far greater than any natural sound, has been linked to ear damage
and harm to body tissue, and can trigger intense confusion. Startled whales
surface too quickly and suffer the bends, a decompression sickness that
affects deep-sea divers but was thought an impossible condition in whales.

Environmentalists believe the introduction of the new radar violates marine
laws to which the UK has signed up. They point to a series of whale
strandings that coincided with naval exercises involving sonar, to support
their concern. During the latest, a fortnight ago, a Nato exercise off
Morocco was followed by two dead whales being washed ashore on the nearby
Canary Islands.

Unlike the UK, the US has staged a number of public hearings over the use of
low-frequency sonar and 12 months ago a judge banned the American Navy from
testing a similar system to that which the MoD is keen to introduce. The
judge concluded that the booming sounds could damage marine life, yet his
comments have done little to deter Britain from entering the low-frequency
race in which powerful speakers on a metal post are lowered into the sea. An
intense burst of noise designed to detect enemy vessels floods the ocean,
causing panic among whales, which use similar sonic booms to find food and
mating partners.

Despite such concern and the recent defence spending cuts, negotiations for
the sonar sets to be fitted to six UK vessels have just begun. The MoD
admits that if the technology performs well in secret trials, it will be
officially accepted in 18 months.

Seven weeks ago the MoD conducted a covert series of trials of the
low-frequency system off Scotland's northwest approaches that are still
being analysed. The tests were conducted at 4,500m, in an area where
humpback, sperm and minke whales have all been spotted. No one outside those
conducting the tests has any idea whether the trials have been harmful.

The disquiet of campaigners is exaggerated by the fact that they have not
been invited to a forthcoming government meeting where the effects of noise
pollution will be discussed. However, a further series of trials is
understood to be planned for later this year off Britain. Experts say that
because whales navigate using their ears in the dark, pumping sound is akin
to shining a bright light directly into a person's eyes, leaving them
disorientated and practically blind.

'There is little doubt that these military sonar trials will kill or injure
untold numbers of whales and dolphins and other marine life,' said Liz
Sandeman, founder of the charity Marine Connection. Certainly the evidence
suggesting a link continues to mount, despite reassurances from defence
experts. Last month a report by the International Whaling Commission
indicated that military sonar induced bizarre, self-destructive behaviour in
whales. Scientists cited a mass stampede of 200 melon-headed whales into
shallow water in Hawaii during a US training exercise. Delivering its
verdict on the US Navy's mid-frequency sonar, which is less powerful than
that planned by the MoD, the report says that the evidence of suffering to
whales 'appears overwhelming'.

Their verdict followed a report that challenged the notion that whales
cannot suffer from the bends. In some beached whales, gas cavities had
formed in their livers to the extent the organs, when dissected, resembled
aerated chocolate.

Others warn that the sonar could block out the ocean's natural noises:
whales need to listen to the quiet swish of a school of fish and may go
hungry or stop using their own sonar, which prevents them finding food.
Defence chiefs, however, insist that the new technology will enhance the
ability of British vessels to detect, classify and track enemy submarines
that 'remain one of the main threats to our maritime forces in times of
conflict'.

The MoD insists all trials are environmentally sound and in accordance with
industry practice. Military experts say the technology represents the
changing face of warfare. Cold war technology relied on passive sonar, which
only listened out for enemy vessels. As modern subs have become increasingly
quiet, active systems that emit sounds millions of times more powerful are
deemed necessary.

Arved Sandstrom

unread,
Aug 10, 2004, 8:13:56 AM8/10/04
to
"M.Hamer" <mha...@yeahright.com> wrote in message
news:cf9qru$hgv$1...@rdel.co.uk...

> Observer News Pages
>
> LETHAL SOUNDWAVES: Military sonar 'will kill whales'
[ SNIP ]

Not really a major concern. Your grandchildren and later generations will
still be able to look at pictures of animals in books. Having the pesky
things out in the wild (on land or in the ocean or in the air) hinders
development, can be unsafe to humans in various areas, and they consume our
resources. We are moving at far too slow a pace to kill all animals above
the size of rats, so I say, speed it up...sonar can only help in the oceanic
effort.

More seriously, just save all the picture books of animals that you have,
and your National Geographics, and Canadian Geographics. Because people in a
hundred years time will never have the opportunity to see most of that, not
if they had a million bucks and were willing to travel.

AHS


Jack Linthicum

unread,
Aug 10, 2004, 1:40:36 PM8/10/04
to
"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message news:<C03Sc.47711$vO1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...


You are forgetting all those wonderful people who are collecting the
DNA from every species, etc. Someday we will be able to back breed to
every possible ex-living animal by souping up mouse DNA.

Duke of URL

unread,
Aug 10, 2004, 3:22:08 PM8/10/04
to
M.Hamer wrote:

> LETHAL SOUNDWAVES: Military sonar 'will kill whales'
> Mark Townsend

> sending a sonic boom so thunderous experts warn it can rupture the

> Environmentalists believe the introduction of the new radar violates

Oh, and we can *certainly* trust the accuracy of a reporter who doesn't know
the difference between RADAR and SONAR ... Suuuuurrre we can.
--
The One-and-only Holy Moses™


rich johnson

unread,
Aug 10, 2004, 5:13:03 PM8/10/04
to
Duke of URL wrote:

Technically speaking they are quite close in concept, just a few GHz
apart in operating frequencies :)

At least they didn't say the acoustic source would be louder than a jet
engine at take off

--
Rich
Enfield NS
Canada

M.Hamer

unread,
Aug 11, 2004, 1:54:48 AM8/11/04
to
> > LETHAL SOUNDWAVES: Military sonar 'will kill whales'
> > Mark Townsend
> > sending a sonic boom so thunderous experts warn it can rupture the
> > Environmentalists believe the introduction of the new radar violates
>
> Oh, and we can *certainly* trust the accuracy of a reporter who doesn't
know
> the difference between RADAR and SONAR ... Suuuuurrre we can.

Oh well, the reporter made a mistake. Don't worry MoD, the reporter made a
mistake so you're allowed to carry on.

Essentially the concept of active sonar is the same as radar. Throw a
frequency out and check whether it bounces off something. I think we can
allow the reporter this particular mistake this time. After all, this report
is exponentially more accurate than most posts on this newsgroup and it's
vaguely navy oriented.

Mel Hamer


Jack Linthicum

unread,
Aug 11, 2004, 7:56:45 AM8/11/04
to
"M.Hamer" <mha...@yeahright.com> wrote in message news:<cfccgl$qdc$1...@rdel.co.uk>...

Am I missing something here? Active sonar means the target has,
minimum, double the range of detection to get 'undetected'.

M.Hamer

unread,
Aug 11, 2004, 8:51:05 AM8/11/04
to

> Am I missing something here? Active sonar means the target has,
> minimum, double the range of detection to get 'undetected'.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement. Active sonar means you send a
signal out and 'listen' to it's reflections. Passive sonar means you just
'listen', you pretty much remain undetected. Most, but not all, sonar buoys
are passive and are fairly simple in design, consisting of one or more
hydrophones and a transmitter. Active sonar buoys are a bit more complicated
and therefore expensive and thus don't get used so much (they don't tend to
be retrieved from the sea). Most active sonar devices are fitted to ships
and subs.

Hope this goes some way to answering your question.

Mel Hamer


Jack Linthicum

unread,
Aug 11, 2004, 2:01:57 PM8/11/04
to
"M.Hamer" <mha...@yeahright.com> wrote in message news:<cfd4t7$moo$1...@rdel.co.uk>...

Active sonar has to have a target relection to get back to the sender.
If the target is far enough away such that the target can hear the
active sonar searching beyond the range that the returning signal can
reach the sender then the active sonar becomes a large beacon telling
any target 'I am looking for you'. I don't think the whales get the
heebie-jeebies from sonobouys, it is the very powerful and seemingly
necessary active sonar that is giving whales problems.

RENABORNEY

unread,
Aug 11, 2004, 2:12:10 PM8/11/04
to
sonar becomes a large beacon telling
any target 'I am looking for you'. I don't think the whales get the
heebie-jeebies from sonobouys, it is the very powerful and seemingly
necessary active sonar that is giving whales problems.

SNIP

My impression is that the transmitter is not intended to be ship-mounted, but
mounted on the sea-bed, sending out incrediblle sonic pulses

Mick Nicholson

unread,
Aug 11, 2004, 3:35:00 PM8/11/04
to

"RENABORNEY" <renab...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040811141210...@mb-m13.aol.com...

You are wrong. The system in question is Sonar 2087. Its not a submarine
sonar but an ASW sonar used on surface ships. There is nothing incredible
about the sound levels. Note that there are many other sources of loud low
frequency sounds underwater, some of them aren't even man made. These were
all taken into account when the project got an environmental impact study.


--
Mick Nicholson

- I was wrong about Iraq and I might be wrong about this

--- and if I'm the only one to admit my errors surely I must be making
another one!


Duke of URL

unread,
Aug 11, 2004, 4:14:26 PM8/11/04
to
rich johnson wrote:
> Duke of URL wrote:
>> M.Hamer wrote:
>>
>>> LETHAL SOUNDWAVES: Military sonar 'will kill whales'
>>> Mark Townsend
>>> sending a sonic boom so thunderous experts warn it can rupture the
>>> Environmentalists believe the introduction of the new radar violates
>>
>> Oh, and we can *certainly* trust the accuracy of a reporter who
>> doesn't know the difference between RADAR and SONAR ... Suuuuurrre
>> we can.
>
> Technically speaking they are quite close in concept, just a few GHz
> apart in operating frequencies :)

LOL!

> At least they didn't say the acoustic source would be louder than a
> jet engine at take off

Hush - if they hear you, they'll start claiming it!
--
The One-and-only Holy MosesT


Arved Sandstrom

unread,
Aug 11, 2004, 4:20:34 PM8/11/04
to
"Mick Nicholson" <mick.nich...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:411a7510$0$530$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

>
> "RENABORNEY" <renab...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040811141210...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> > sonar becomes a large beacon telling
> > any target 'I am looking for you'. I don't think the whales get the
> > heebie-jeebies from sonobouys, it is the very powerful and seemingly
> > necessary active sonar that is giving whales problems.
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > My impression is that the transmitter is not intended to be
ship-mounted,
> but
> > mounted on the sea-bed, sending out incrediblle sonic pulses
>
> You are wrong. The system in question is Sonar 2087. Its not a submarine
> sonar but an ASW sonar used on surface ships. There is nothing incredible
> about the sound levels. Note that there are many other sources of loud
low
> frequency sounds underwater, some of them aren't even man made. These
were
> all taken into account when the project got an environmental impact study.

I'm very cynical about environmental impact studies. They generally
correctly assess the harmful impact on the environment, and then the project
goes ahead anyway. Usually the only time it doesn't is when competing
economic interests (e.g. fisheries versus offshore oil drilling) slug it
out. But I haven't noticed any highways or subdivisions or business parks
not being built because of environmental impact studies...I assume that what
happens is that the study gets prepared, the responsible authorities look ai
it, and go "Yup, pretty much as we figured - we're going to f**k up this
much land. Let's do it, because frogs and birds and rabbits and trees don't
vote".

AHS


Anthony Garcia

unread,
Aug 11, 2004, 7:13:53 PM8/11/04
to

"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:LevSc.48226$vO1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...

[snip]

> I'm very cynical about environmental impact studies. They generally
> correctly assess the harmful impact on the environment, and then the
project
> goes ahead anyway. Usually the only time it doesn't is when competing
> economic interests (e.g. fisheries versus offshore oil drilling) slug it
> out. But I haven't noticed any highways or subdivisions or business
parks
> not being built because of environmental impact studies...I assume that
what
> happens is that the study gets prepared, the responsible authorities
look ai
> it, and go "Yup, pretty much as we figured - we're going to f**k up this
> much land. Let's do it, because frogs and birds and rabbits and trees
don't
> vote".

I pretty much agree with you though I do have to say that environmental
impact reports aren't go/no go reports. In principle it's like buying a
car. You want a Rolls but only have enough money for a Beemer. You then
can start making choices, you can either go with the Beemer or make
lifestyle choices to be able to afford the Rolls.

In the case of EIR's ... Say brine shrimp are found where you wish to
build UC Merced (an issue not far from where I live. You can:
1 - Build with the plans as they are
2 - Not build at that site
3 - Alter your plans to mitigate the impact on the brine shrimp. This
does not necessarily mean eliminate the environmental impact. It may or
may not be decided that some impact is acceptable.

M.Hamer

unread,
Aug 12, 2004, 2:32:07 AM8/12/04
to
> Active sonar has to have a target relection to get back to the sender.
> If the target is far enough away such that the target can hear the
> active sonar searching beyond the range that the returning signal can
> reach the sender then the active sonar becomes a large beacon telling
> any target 'I am looking for you'.

Totally agree with you here. Usually you know the target is there and you
use your active sonar to keep track of it. They also know they've been
found. I'm guessing this new sonar is simply a way of sending out a much
bigger pulse over a wider area to say, "hey we know where lot's of you are".
A kind of umbrella effect.

> I don't think the whales get the
> heebie-jeebies from sonobouys, it is the very powerful and seemingly
> necessary active sonar that is giving whales problems.

I don't think this is buoy based, I think it's ship based. Normally you use
passive buoys in combination in an energy mapping system to simply listen to
enemy subs. Little chance of enemy detection using passive means.

Mel Hamer


Jack Linthicum

unread,
Aug 12, 2004, 6:43:14 AM8/12/04
to
"Anthony Garcia" <axgar...@go.com> wrote in message news:<RKxSc.3758$PB5...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...

In Florida the environmental impact is usually upon some official's
wallet or off shore bank account. Locally the scrub jay is a protected
species. The school district sorted out where the best location for a
new elementary school would be and sent the project forward for
environmental agency approval. Nixed, two scrub jays on the 30-40 acre
property which adjoined---scrub. So about a block away from this site
is a commercial development, similar size with no back up to scrub
land. Developer had gotten approval to make slight changes prior to
environmental study. The changes involved destroying the nesting area
of the scrub jays. Project approved.

I am a fan of Carl Hiaasen's novels about Florida, latest is called
Skinny Dip and involves an environmental worker hired by the state
agency but also 'supplemented' by the owner of the land being
monitored. Hiaasen says he can document all of the very strange things
he reports in his books with actual cases.

Arved Sandstrom

unread,
Aug 12, 2004, 8:41:13 AM8/12/04
to
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7164002b.04081...@posting.google.com...
[ SNIP ]

> In Florida the environmental impact is usually upon some official's
> wallet or off shore bank account. Locally the scrub jay is a protected
> species. The school district sorted out where the best location for a
> new elementary school would be and sent the project forward for
> environmental agency approval. Nixed, two scrub jays on the 30-40 acre
> property which adjoined---scrub. So about a block away from this site
> is a commercial development, similar size with no back up to scrub
> land. Developer had gotten approval to make slight changes prior to
> environmental study. The changes involved destroying the nesting area
> of the scrub jays. Project approved.

A municipal or provincial official around here ignores developers at his
peril. About the only thing keeping suburbia and exurbia from burgeoning
rampantly is the need to protect the watersheds, and supply services. Those
are the only reasons that the local developments (say, one for 1500 homes)
are done in multiple phases over many years. The environmental impact study
merely assesses the fact that so much forest will be wrecked, but it's not
close to the reservoir lakes, and who cares about a salamander anyway, or
traditional biking and hiking routes?

Well, to be fair, the other reason they often do multi-phase development of
a subdivision is to suck people in. First phase, develop every other lot on
every other strip - lots of green space. People in the first phase love it -
peace, and quiet, and lots of trees. Then, in the second phase, you develop
lots of the green space...people in the first batch start grousing about how
they now have a neighbour behind them and not forest, but they can live with
it. In the third phase you develop the intervening lots - now the first
phase people have houses next to them that they can practically reach out
and touch. Of course, at this point, they've been there for maybe 5 years
and really don't want to sell the house. So they've been suckered.

> I am a fan of Carl Hiaasen's novels about Florida, latest is called
> Skinny Dip and involves an environmental worker hired by the state
> agency but also 'supplemented' by the owner of the land being
> monitored. Hiaasen says he can document all of the very strange things
> he reports in his books with actual cases.

I'm going to have to check out the book. I have no doubt that he's correct.
I've always had doubts about our own local municipal planners - a lot of
them seem to go to work for developers after retiring early.

AHS


Mick Nicholson

unread,
Aug 12, 2004, 9:13:21 PM8/12/04
to

"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:LevSc.48226$vO1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> I'm very cynical about environmental impact studies. They generally
> correctly assess the harmful impact on the environment, and then the
project
> goes ahead anyway. Usually the only time it doesn't is when competing
> economic interests (e.g. fisheries versus offshore oil drilling) slug it
> out. But I haven't noticed any highways or subdivisions or business parks
> not being built because of environmental impact studies...I assume that
what
> happens is that the study gets prepared, the responsible authorities look
ai
> it, and go "Yup, pretty much as we figured - we're going to f**k up this
> much land. Let's do it, because frogs and birds and rabbits and trees
don't
> vote".
>
> AHS
>
Well I sort of agree. But them I'm much more cynical of environmental
impact staements made by greenies. "IT might cause this and IT might do
that and you cannot prove ITdoesn't so you must stop IT right now! At
least the official type tends to regard the issue as shades of grey, not the
black and white tabloid headlines of the greeny version.

Jack Linthicum

unread,
Aug 13, 2004, 7:02:08 AM8/13/04
to
"Mick Nicholson" <mick.nich...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<411c15dd$0$520$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>...

> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
> news:LevSc.48226$vO1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > I'm very cynical about environmental impact studies. They generally
> > correctly assess the harmful impact on the environment, and then the
> project
> > goes ahead anyway. Usually the only time it doesn't is when competing
> > economic interests (e.g. fisheries versus offshore oil drilling) slug it
> > out. But I haven't noticed any highways or subdivisions or business parks
> > not being built because of environmental impact studies...I assume that
> what
> > happens is that the study gets prepared, the responsible authorities look
> ai
> > it, and go "Yup, pretty much as we figured - we're going to f**k up this
> > much land. Let's do it, because frogs and birds and rabbits and trees
> don't
> > vote".
> >
> > AHS
> >
> Well I sort of agree. But them I'm much more cynical of environmental
> impact staements made by greenies. "IT might cause this and IT might do
> that and you cannot prove ITdoesn't so you must stop IT right now! At
> least the official type tends to regard the issue as shades of grey, not the
> black and white tabloid headlines of the greeny version.

Problem, with greenie approach you lose money or can't finish a
project, on the other side you get a lot of dead whales or old growth
timber cut down to make furniture crates.

Mark Test

unread,
Aug 14, 2004, 9:57:33 AM8/14/04
to
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7164002b.04081...@posting.google.com...
>
> Problem, with greenie approach you lose money or can't finish a
> project, on the other side you get a lot of dead whales or old growth
> timber cut down to make furniture crates.

I don't know what country you all are in, but many development
projects, roads, etc., get cancelled due to environmental "concerns"
on a daily basis in the US.

Mark


Arved Sandstrom

unread,
Aug 14, 2004, 12:09:43 PM8/14/04
to
"Mark Test" <mgt...@the-i.net> wrote in message
news:cfl5o...@enews4.newsguy.com...

"Many" in an absolute sense, likely so, but in a percentage sense? I doubt
it. Most projects that are cancelled are for financial or political reasons
(in the same way that most that are approved are also for financial and
political reasons). There's no question that environmentalists have some
clout, but they don't have *that* much clout, not in Canada, not in the US,
not anywhere.

If you see a project get cancelled, you might want to ask yourself whether
that cancellation was simply prompted by a NIMBY reaction (typically related
to worries about traffic, property values etc etc).

AHS


Fred J. McCall

unread,
Aug 14, 2004, 2:37:59 PM8/14/04
to
renab...@aol.com (RENABORNEY) wrote:

:I don't think the whales get the


:heebie-jeebies from sonobouys, it is the very powerful and seemingly
:necessary active sonar that is giving whales problems.

The evidence for this is quite weak, in fact.

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

Jack Linthicum

unread,
Aug 14, 2004, 3:25:26 PM8/14/04
to
"Mark Test" <mgt...@the-i.net> wrote in message news:<cfl5o...@enews4.newsguy.com>...

You must then watch very carefully as that cancelled project becomes
vital to the nation's security or a part of a regional developmental
plan that will spur the economy.

ZZBunker

unread,
Aug 14, 2004, 4:57:33 PM8/14/04
to
jackli...@earthlink.net (Jack Linthicum) wrote in message news:<7164002b.04081...@posting.google.com>...

Well, the biggest problem with the Greenie approach
is that they're the one's who keep saying the Earth
has no problem sustaining a population of 10 Billion people,
and greenie buisness.

So it's all the banker's problem with their
car's, paper, and pollution.
So if we shot down all the power plants, every thing
will work. The trees will grow again, all the
whales will be smarter than the computers
and sattelites, and will talk to us with
AT&T universal connectivity. And there will
no problem cross-breeding our whales
with elephants, so that they walk again
and be free forever from the misery of the
human assault on the environment.

Kevin Brooks

unread,
Aug 14, 2004, 5:14:09 PM8/14/04
to

"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:nRqTc.49412$vO1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...

> "Mark Test" <mgt...@the-i.net> wrote in message
> news:cfl5o...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:7164002b.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Problem, with greenie approach you lose money or can't finish a
> > > project, on the other side you get a lot of dead whales or old growth
> > > timber cut down to make furniture crates.
> >
> > I don't know what country you all are in, but many development
> > projects, roads, etc., get cancelled due to environmental "concerns"
> > on a daily basis in the US.
>
> "Many" in an absolute sense, likely so, but in a percentage sense? I doubt
> it. Most projects that are cancelled are for financial or political
reasons
> (in the same way that most that are approved are also for financial and
> political reasons). There's no question that environmentalists have some
> clout, but they don't have *that* much clout, not in Canada, not in the
US,
> not anywhere.

Ever heard of the "snail darter"?

>
> If you see a project get cancelled, you might want to ask yourself whether
> that cancellation was simply prompted by a NIMBY reaction (typically
related
> to worries about traffic, property values etc etc).

Not necessarily, and that is one reason the greenies are sometimes so hated
locally--they stick their long noses into issues which the locals sometimes
readily support. One example being the old spotted owl versus timbering
issue a few years back--you would have been hard pressed to find anywhere in
those northwestern states where the local populace, with its dependence upon
the timber industry, had any really significant support for the greenies who
invaded to do battle with those nasty timber concerns (no doubt while
shutteling back and forth from their own timber-framed domiciles, in their
gasoline burning vehicles...hypocrisy and environmentalism often go
hand-in-hand). Or a better example is the "North Shore Road", now known as
the "Road to Nowhere", which was under construction in the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park back when I was a wee little fella--and has STILL not
been completed (thirty five or so years later) thanks to outside
enviro-activists whining about the possible increase in stream acidity
levels due to runoff from this dinky little two-lane, gravel surfaced road
project. The locals have always been hankering to see it finished--after
all, it was part of the agreement that led to families leaving their farms
and relocating to make room for the Fontana Dam project, which cut off their
access to their homeplaces (and family cemetaries) when the reservoir later
filled (the road was promised as a way for the families and their
descendents to visit the sites). It was the outside factor that has held up
this project (Trout Unlimited being a prime party still working to keep it
from completion--which is why this "dyed in the wool" trout fisherman
refuses to join that group). Here in Virginia we sometimes can't win for
loosing when it comes to trying to placate the enviro-weenies; they have
harped and whined about coal-fired and nuclear power generators (they are
now fighting the expansion of the North Anna reactor system), yet when a
power company proposed to develop a freakin' WIND FARM in the nearby
Appalachians, they then took up arms about *that* proposed project as well!
Claimed it would negatively impact the "viewshed"... I know of a shed most
of those whackos should be taken to and given a good hiding--and it ain't
the "viewshed"!

Brooks

>
> AHS
>
>


Jack Linthicum

unread,
Aug 14, 2004, 6:00:56 PM8/14/04
to
Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<oumsh0daseoleukgc...@4ax.com>...

> renab...@aol.com (RENABORNEY) wrote:
>
> :I don't think the whales get the
> :heebie-jeebies from sonobouys, it is the very powerful and seemingly
> :necessary active sonar that is giving whales problems.
>
> The evidence for this is quite weak, in fact.

Tell me, Fred, where do you get this stuff?

http://www.ocean.com/Fetures/2001/10/Sonar/Default3.asp
http://www.ocean.com/Fetures/2001/10/Sonar/Default4.asp
http://www.ems.org/whales/sonar.html
http://www.rain.org/pipermail/sanctuary-naturalist-corps/2001-April/000020.html

http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1998/03/04/01.asp
Greek scientists say sonar tests caused rare whale beaching.
Researchers at the University of Athens say they are virtually certain
that a May 1996 beaching of 12 rare, Cuvier beaked whales was caused
by U.S. led sonar tests. The scientists say the beaching came just
days after NATO tested a special, high power sonar called Low
Frequency Active Sonar. It uses an extremely loud and tightly focused
beam of sound to locate enemy submarines, but lately it's been tested
to see what its effects are on marine mammals. Because the Cuvier
beaked whale is seldom found in shallow waters and almost never
beaches itself, the Athens researchers say there is a 99.93 per cent
certainty that the tests caused the beaching.

STUDY: SONAR KILLING WHALES
The Navy has been tussling with environmentalists for years over a new
breed of ultra-loud sonars and how they effect whales.

Now, a new Nature study "provides some of the most direct evidence to
date that sonars can kill marine mammals."

"A team led by Paul Jepson of the Institute of Zoology in London
concludes that 14 whale deaths off the Canary Islands last year may
have been caused by decompression sickness after the animals shot to
the surface to escape sonars during Spanish-led international naval
exercises. The team says the sonar appears to have caused gas bubbles
to form in the blood, damaging the whales' livers and kidneys.

John Hildebrand, with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, tells
Nature that "this report has the potential to be the 'smoking gun' on
the cause of sonar-related mammal strandings."

But, according to Knight-Ridder, other top marine mammal watchers are
skeptical. Darlene Ketten, with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
tells the news service unlikely that whales getting decompression
sickness seems unlikely.

"We expect that these animals over 50 million years evolved to avoid
problems resulting from diving," Ketten says.

October 9, 2003 01:34 AM


1.1.1 Background
There is evidence that some anthropogenic sounds can disturb marine
mammals by interfering with their communication, echolocation, or
other important natural sounds. In addition, public concern for the
protection of marine mammals from underwater anthropogenic noise has
increased over the last few decades. Largely as a result of this
increased concern about the potential effects of anthropogenic noise
on marine mammals, numerous government and private organizations
around the world have developed programs to research the issue.
Shipping, marine geophysical surveys, oil and gas drilling, use of
explosives for construction, demolition or military ordnance
exercises, and some high-power sonar are among the human activities in
the ocean that could affect marine mammals by increasing the amount of
sound to which they are exposed. High-powered low-frequency sound
sources such as air-gun arrays commonly employed in oceanographic and
geophysical research are becoming more pervasive. Two hundred vessels
worldwide tow seismic arrays and over 200,000 miles are surveyed each
year in this manner in the Gulf of Mexico alone (MMS data). However,
shipping is the overwhelmingly dominant source of manmade noise in the
ocean (Green et al., 1994). It is estimated that ambient noise levels
in the ocean at one location off California increased by 10 dB between
the 1960s to the 1990&#146;s, largely due to increases in commercial
shipping, including the advent of &#147;supertankers&#148; (Andrew et
al., 2002).
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:HGc2_6zrNiIJ:www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/readingrm/Applications/Stein_EA_final_12-23-03.doc+%22high+power%22+sonar+effect+on+whales+raytheon&hl=en&start=7

Jack Linthicum

unread,
Aug 14, 2004, 7:21:43 PM8/14/04
to
"M.Hamer" <mha...@yeahright.com> wrote in message news:<cff316$b2s$1...@rdel.co.uk>...

this is a 'whale hugger' site but the first article is by a sonar
scientist with experience in the field.
(www.maui.net/~pacwhale/alerts/LFA_articles.html)
the fourth article raises an interesting point: if you avoid using
this sonar in certain environmentally sensitive areas what the hell
good is it?

Arved Sandstrom

unread,
Aug 15, 2004, 8:51:16 AM8/15/04
to
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NZmdnTRK_fc...@adelphia.com...

>
> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
> news:nRqTc.49412$vO1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
[ SNIP ]

> > "Many" in an absolute sense, likely so, but in a percentage sense? I
doubt
> > it. Most projects that are cancelled are for financial or political
> reasons
> > (in the same way that most that are approved are also for financial and
> > political reasons). There's no question that environmentalists have some
> > clout, but they don't have *that* much clout, not in Canada, not in the
> US,
> > not anywhere.
>
> Ever heard of the "snail darter"?

Sure. It's one of the better known cases, just like that owl in the
Northwest. The reason it's well-known is because a lot of environmentalist
resources went into publicizing it and making it a cause celebre. There have
been other species, or areas of forest, too, that received lots of
attention. But the majority of development projects pass under the Green
radar.

> > If you see a project get cancelled, you might want to ask yourself
whether
> > that cancellation was simply prompted by a NIMBY reaction (typically
> related
> > to worries about traffic, property values etc etc).
>
> Not necessarily, and that is one reason the greenies are sometimes so
hated
> locally--they stick their long noses into issues which the locals
sometimes
> readily support. One example being the old spotted owl versus timbering
> issue a few years back--you would have been hard pressed to find anywhere
in
> those northwestern states where the local populace, with its dependence
upon
> the timber industry, had any really significant support for the greenies
who
> invaded to do battle with those nasty timber concerns (no doubt while
> shutteling back and forth from their own timber-framed domiciles, in their
> gasoline burning vehicles...hypocrisy and environmentalism often go
> hand-in-hand).

Well, I lived in Washington State for a year back in the early '90's. Also
travelled extensively in the area, including through Oregon. And I don't
mean I lived in a major 'burg, or just visited Seattle or Portland. So I did
get some sense for that area. Seems to me, generally speaking, that a local
populace with an economic dependence on something, will generally not
support the "greenies" who threaten their livelihood. Doesn't mean the local
populace is ethically correct, or that they can't be challenged by people
from elsewhere. And how local is local? Am I allowed to care about
development 10 klicks away? 50 klicks away? What if one of my favourite
mountain bike areas 25 klicks away is being developed? Am I local to that?
What about a favourite fishing stream or lake being wrecked by a subdivision
or logging or farming 100 klicks away? Am I local enough to interfere?

You're always going to have competing concerns. And "greenies who invaded to
do battle" is a loaded term - it implies that you have to live at 118 Smith
Street, Smalltown, USA in order to have any jurisdiction over the backyard
of 118 Smith Street, but you ought'nt concern yourself with the quality of
life anywhere else.

And, you know, the "greenies" have to live in something, and drive in
something, so I hardly consider that hypocrisy.

> Or a better example is the "North Shore Road", now known as
> the "Road to Nowhere", which was under construction in the Great Smoky
> Mountain National Park back when I was a wee little fella--and has STILL
not
> been completed (thirty five or so years later) thanks to outside
> enviro-activists whining about the possible increase in stream acidity
> levels due to runoff from this dinky little two-lane, gravel surfaced road
> project.

How "outside" could they have been? If it's a dinky two-lane road surfaced
with gravel, very very few environmental activists from away would complain
about it.

> The locals have always been hankering to see it finished--after
> all, it was part of the agreement that led to families leaving their farms
> and relocating to make room for the Fontana Dam project, which cut off
their
> access to their homeplaces (and family cemetaries) when the reservoir
later
> filled (the road was promised as a way for the families and their
> descendents to visit the sites). It was the outside factor that has held
up
> this project (Trout Unlimited being a prime party still working to keep it
> from completion--which is why this "dyed in the wool" trout fisherman
> refuses to join that group).

Hey, sounds to me like the environmental movement already failed. Seeing as
how the dam got built and the reservoir filled up. There is nothing as
destructive to habitat as large-scale hydroelectric projects. If they are
managing to hold up construction of this road they must have a damned good
reason.

As a "dyed in the wool" trout fisherman you'll at least acknowledge that
logging companies would probably still have clearcuts down to the edge of
streams (making them too sunlit for trout, plus silted up), and mining
operations and factories would still be turning streams various shades of
the color palette and more toxic than Draino (also not good for trout), if
it weren't for environmentalists.

> Here in Virginia we sometimes can't win for
> loosing when it comes to trying to placate the enviro-weenies; they have
> harped and whined about coal-fired and nuclear power generators (they are
> now fighting the expansion of the North Anna reactor system), yet when a
> power company proposed to develop a freakin' WIND FARM in the nearby
> Appalachians, they then took up arms about *that* proposed project as
well!
> Claimed it would negatively impact the "viewshed"... I know of a shed most
> of those whackos should be taken to and given a good hiding--and it ain't
> the "viewshed"!

Yes, not all environmentalists hold consistent viewpoints. Me, I consider
myself quite strongly Green, and that's why I *support* nuclear power. I've
never been able to join an environmental group, or vote Green, precisely
because I do support nuclear power. And you could put up wind farms in a
national park for all I care - I think they look cool, they are clean tech,
and AFAIK the greatest hazard for birds is flying into windows in urban
areas.

AHS


Kevin Brooks

unread,
Aug 15, 2004, 10:34:23 AM8/15/04
to

"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:h1JTc.49750$vO1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...

Not necessarily. If you extend the definition of Green to their historic
preservation brthren (not a wild leap in some cases), then between the two
they manage to nitpick or slam plenty of projects every year. Growth is a
big subject right now in our county, given our past spurt that has placed us
near the very top in terms of statewide comparison, and it is not uncommon
to see "outsiders" get heavily involved (the Civil War Preservation Trust
(IIRC that is their moniker) being one that has repeatedly stuck its nose in
here locally). The requirements can become downright stupid--back around
1990, when I was playing in the municipal engineering game, we wanted to
improve/pave a town owned parking lot, and had to first jump through the
"archeological assessment" hoop (of course they found absolutely *nothing*
of historical significance during their "exploratory dig"). It all adds up
to a great deal of anti-development inertia (and who would be the first Sad
Sams when it comes to bemoaning the lack of affordable housing and the
number of homeless? That's right... the same weenies who are out using the
environmental/historic/etc. restrictions to kill or delay projects...more
hypocrisy, IMO).

I was responding here to your assertion that it was the NIMBY syndrome that
often leads to cancellation and not enviro weenies. Your comments above seem
to back that up in this example case.

And how local is local? Am I allowed to care about
> development 10 klicks away? 50 klicks away? What if one of my favourite
> mountain bike areas 25 klicks away is being developed? Am I local to that?
> What about a favourite fishing stream or lake being wrecked by a
subdivision
> or logging or farming 100 klicks away? Am I local enough to interfere?

How far are you gonna drag out the "NIMBY" cordon?

>
> You're always going to have competing concerns. And "greenies who invaded
to
> do battle" is a loaded term - it implies that you have to live at 118
Smith
> Street, Smalltown, USA in order to have any jurisdiction over the backyard
> of 118 Smith Street, but you ought'nt concern yourself with the quality of
> life anywhere else.
>
> And, you know, the "greenies" have to live in something, and drive in
> something, so I hardly consider that hypocrisy.

It is when they are living in a home they can afford thanks to cheap timber
prices, and then want to bump the prices for others by tying up a
significant part of the industry. "I got mine, but you can't have yours..."

>
> > Or a better example is the "North Shore Road", now known as
> > the "Road to Nowhere", which was under construction in the Great Smoky
> > Mountain National Park back when I was a wee little fella--and has STILL
> not
> > been completed (thirty five or so years later) thanks to outside
> > enviro-activists whining about the possible increase in stream acidity
> > levels due to runoff from this dinky little two-lane, gravel surfaced
road
> > project.
>
> How "outside" could they have been? If it's a dinky two-lane road surfaced
> with gravel, very very few environmental activists from away would
complain
> about it.

How outside could they have been? Very. Had you done a poll of the locals
back in the seventies, I doubt that you would have found a number hitting
the double digits (percentage wise) who opposed that project. In fact, even
NOW, thirty five years later, the LOCAL sentiment is still overwhelmingly in
support of completing the project. TU is a big group, and their pleas
nationwide to oppose the project speak to where the resistance is coming
from.

>
> > The locals have always been hankering to see it finished--after
> > all, it was part of the agreement that led to families leaving their
farms
> > and relocating to make room for the Fontana Dam project, which cut off
> their
> > access to their homeplaces (and family cemetaries) when the reservoir
> later
> > filled (the road was promised as a way for the families and their
> > descendents to visit the sites). It was the outside factor that has held
> up
> > this project (Trout Unlimited being a prime party still working to keep
it
> > from completion--which is why this "dyed in the wool" trout fisherman
> > refuses to join that group).
>
> Hey, sounds to me like the environmental movement already failed. Seeing
as
> how the dam got built and the reservoir filled up. There is nothing as
> destructive to habitat as large-scale hydroelectric projects. If they are
> managing to hold up construction of this road they must have a damned good
> reason.

What? The dam and reservoir were not points of contention here--just the
*road*. The dam was built back in the late thirties IIRC, maybe completed a
bit after 1940.

>
> As a "dyed in the wool" trout fisherman you'll at least acknowledge that
> logging companies would probably still have clearcuts down to the edge of
> streams (making them too sunlit for trout, plus silted up), and mining
> operations and factories would still be turning streams various shades of
> the color palette and more toxic than Draino (also not good for trout), if
> it weren't for environmentalists.

Not necessarily. I am a big fan of "common sense" management, and what you
are saying is that had it not been for enviro weenies opposing projects like
the North Shore Road then we would have eco-disaster? Nope, not hardly.
Implementing "best management practices" (BMP's) in terms of stream
protection is fine and dandy--hats off to the folks from both sides (enviro
and industry) who have developed them. But this is an example of the enviro
side run amok.

>
> > Here in Virginia we sometimes can't win for
> > loosing when it comes to trying to placate the enviro-weenies; they have
> > harped and whined about coal-fired and nuclear power generators (they
are
> > now fighting the expansion of the North Anna reactor system), yet when a
> > power company proposed to develop a freakin' WIND FARM in the nearby
> > Appalachians, they then took up arms about *that* proposed project as
> well!
> > Claimed it would negatively impact the "viewshed"... I know of a shed
most
> > of those whackos should be taken to and given a good hiding--and it
ain't
> > the "viewshed"!
>
> Yes, not all environmentalists hold consistent viewpoints. Me, I consider
> myself quite strongly Green, and that's why I *support* nuclear power.
I've
> never been able to join an environmental group, or vote Green, precisely
> because I do support nuclear power. And you could put up wind farms in a
> national park for all I care - I think they look cool, they are clean
tech,
> and AFAIK the greatest hazard for birds is flying into windows in urban
> areas.

Ah, but you are a common sense environmentalist--sadly, you are yourself an
"endangered species" in that regard!

Brooks

>
> AHS
>
>


M.Hamer

unread,
Aug 16, 2004, 5:40:31 AM8/16/04
to
> > :I don't think the whales get the
> > :heebie-jeebies from sonobouys, it is the very powerful and seemingly
> > :necessary active sonar that is giving whales problems.
> >
> > The evidence for this is quite weak, in fact.
>
> Tell me, Fred, where do you get this stuff?

He gets it from his background in the US Navy. Whales shouldn't get in the
way of the progression of a country's military industrial complex. Anyone
who thinks otherwise forms part of the standard Fred J.McCall post of:

A: What are you smoking?
B: What reality do you belong to?
C: Are you a commie left wing pinko?
D: Anyone other than the Republican party is a liar.
E: Plonk this zealot so he can surround himself with normal happy
war-mongerers like himself
F: All of the above

He's as predictable as he is naive. His usual comments towards people smacks
of someone who never saw action but wanted to. It wouldn't surprise me if he
belonged to some navy cadet organisation during his youth and then spent the
rest of his life unemployed, reading navy books. That was until he found out
about computers and newsgroups.

Mel Hamer


Arved Sandstrom

unread,
Aug 16, 2004, 11:18:59 AM8/16/04
to
"M.Hamer" <mha...@yeahright.com> wrote in message
news:cfpvja$ln$1...@rdel.co.uk...

> > > :I don't think the whales get the
> > > :heebie-jeebies from sonobouys, it is the very powerful and seemingly
> > > :necessary active sonar that is giving whales problems.
> > >
> > > The evidence for this is quite weak, in fact.
> >
> > Tell me, Fred, where do you get this stuff?
>
> He gets it from his background in the US Navy. Whales shouldn't get in the
> way of the progression of a country's military industrial complex. Anyone
> who thinks otherwise forms part of the standard Fred J.McCall post of:
>
> A: What are you smoking?
> B: What reality do you belong to?
> C: Are you a commie left wing pinko?
> D: Anyone other than the Republican party is a liar.
> E: Plonk this zealot so he can surround himself with normal happy
> war-mongerers like himself

I believe, myself, that he actually plonks no one. They are just virtual
plonks. He's enough of a curmudgeon that he wants to keep the people that
piss him off around.

> F: All of the above
>
> He's as predictable as he is naive. His usual comments towards people
smacks
> of someone who never saw action but wanted to. It wouldn't surprise me if
he
> belonged to some navy cadet organisation during his youth and then spent
the
> rest of his life unemployed, reading navy books. That was until he found
out
> about computers and newsgroups.

I believe that he's been doing what he says he's been doing, which is
working on weapons development. He strikes me as having a bit of a Tom
Clancy psyche. A majority of guys who have been in the military like the
service - they no longer like the idea of war...a lot of civilians get real
rambunctious though. I see Fred curled up on his couch at the end of the day
designing weapons reading his copy of Starship Troopers.

AHS


M.Hamer

unread,
Aug 16, 2004, 11:46:50 AM8/16/04
to
> I believe, myself, that he actually plonks no one. They are just virtual
> plonks. He's enough of a curmudgeon that he wants to keep the people that
> piss him off around.
>
I believe he does. I'm pretty sure that I'm still in his killfile. That's
why I can say what I like with little regard for what he might say back.

> I believe that he's been doing what he says he's been doing, which is
> working on weapons development. He strikes me as having a bit of a Tom
> Clancy psyche.

I work in the same area but I don't have such right-wing, military dominant
views.

> A majority of guys who have been in the military like the
> service - they no longer like the idea of war...a lot of civilians get
real
> rambunctious though.

I haven't been in the army but my father was whilst I was growing up. I
don't like the idea of war although it's necessary. However, Fred does tend
to disregard any peaceful means to a problem. He hates the UN and doesn't
believe in World law or morals.

> I see Fred curled up on his couch at the end of the day
> designing weapons reading his copy of Starship Troopers.

That's exactly how I see him! I reckon he'd love to live in that sort of
society. When I read that book I read it as a warning as to what could
happen to our society in the not too distant future. He'd probably read it
as a sort of bible for military utopia. For a book that was written in the
1950's it's much more accurate in today's society. If we're not too careful
we could see our society's democratic system being turned over to the
military. I'm trying not to sound too paranoid but we've already been
involved in a war that the majority of people didn't want (UK).

Mel Hamer


Anthony Garcia

unread,
Aug 16, 2004, 6:50:45 PM8/16/04
to

"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NZmdnTRK_fc...@adelphia.com...
[snip]

> > "Many" in an absolute sense, likely so, but in a percentage sense? I
doubt
> > it. Most projects that are cancelled are for financial or political
> reasons
> > (in the same way that most that are approved are also for financial
and
> > political reasons). There's no question that environmentalists have
some
> > clout, but they don't have *that* much clout, not in Canada, not in
the
> US,
> > not anywhere.
>
> Ever heard of the "snail darter"?
[snip]

Sí ... indeed I have. It is not a simple question regardless of what side
of the fence you are on. The snail darter perhaps may seem insignificant,
does serve as a surrogate for the harm that does/has occurred due to
pumping of delta water. Without getting into the geology, federal
interventions, local will, southern california influence peddling, etc,
etc the snail darter issue is not just about fish.


Fred J. McCall

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 12:43:29 AM8/17/04
to
"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote:

:"M.Hamer" <mha...@yeahright.com> wrote in message


:news:cfpvja$ln$1...@rdel.co.uk...
:> > > :I don't think the whales get the
:> > > :heebie-jeebies from sonobouys, it is the very powerful and seemingly
:> > > :necessary active sonar that is giving whales problems.
:> > >
:> > > The evidence for this is quite weak, in fact.
:> >
:> > Tell me, Fred, where do you get this stuff?
:>
:> He gets it from his background in the US Navy. Whales shouldn't get in the
:> way of the progression of a country's military industrial complex. Anyone
:> who thinks otherwise forms part of the standard Fred J.McCall post of:
:>
:> A: What are you smoking?
:> B: What reality do you belong to?
:> C: Are you a commie left wing pinko?
:> D: Anyone other than the Republican party is a liar.
:> E: Plonk this zealot so he can surround himself with normal happy
:> war-mongerers like himself
:
:I believe, myself, that he actually plonks no one. They are just virtual
:plonks. He's enough of a curmudgeon that he wants to keep the people that
:piss him off around.

Wrong. Apparently Mr Hamer was sufficiently an ass persistently
enough that he made my list, since I didn't see his original post.

:> F: All of the above


:>
:> He's as predictable as he is naive. His usual comments towards people smacks
:> of someone who never saw action but wanted to. It wouldn't surprise me if he
:> belonged to some navy cadet organisation during his youth and then spent the
:> rest of his life unemployed, reading navy books. That was until he found out
:> about computers and newsgroups.

Mr Hamer seems confused. He needs to make up his mind whether I "get
it from my background in the US Navy" or never served at all except as
some sort of Sea Cadet or something.

See why Mr Hamer made my "not worth bothering with" list? He can't
even keep his mindless attempts at insults consistent from one
paragraph to the next.

:I believe that he's been doing what he says he's been doing, which is


:working on weapons development. He strikes me as having a bit of a Tom
:Clancy psyche. A majority of guys who have been in the military like the
:service - they no longer like the idea of war...a lot of civilians get real
:rambunctious though. I see Fred curled up on his couch at the end of the day
:designing weapons reading his copy of Starship Troopers.

Sorry to disappoint you both, but I did 6 years of active duty and 9
or so in the Naval Reserve. Been shot at. Didn't particularly like
it. Got to shoot back on occasion. Wasn't real wild about that,
either.

But bottom line, I'm still here and they're not, and that's how I
wanted it to come out. You and Mr Hamer are just going to have to get
used to that.

--
"I thought dying for your country was the worst thing that could
happen to you. I think killing for your country can be a lot
worse. Because that's the memory that haunts."
-- Senator Bob Kerrey

Arved Sandstrom

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 1:54:59 AM8/17/04
to
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:oh23i0l8a15svt5fh...@4ax.com...
> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
[ SNIP ]

> Sorry to disappoint you both, but I did 6 years of active duty and 9
> or so in the Naval Reserve. Been shot at. Didn't particularly like
> it. Got to shoot back on occasion. Wasn't real wild about that,
> either.
>
> But bottom line, I'm still here and they're not, and that's how I
> wanted it to come out. You and Mr Hamer are just going to have to get
> used to that.

Nothing for me to get used to. If everybody agreed with me all the time, or
was foulmouthed consistently, or puerile, or clearly very uninformed, debate
would be pointless, and it wouldn't be much fun. We may not agree often, but
you obviously know your stuff (as much as I'd like to think I know mine),
and you attempt to demolish the argument, not the individual. Which I
appreciate. Believe it or not, I have actually changed my mind on some
things because of points you have made...I am non-Vincian.

Still pretty sure you like your dog-eared copy of Starship Troopers.

AHS


M.Hamer

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 3:18:24 AM8/17/04
to
> Nothing for me to get used to. If everybody agreed with me all the time,
or
> was foulmouthed consistently, or puerile, or clearly very uninformed,
debate
> would be pointless, and it wouldn't be much fun. We may not agree often,
but
> you obviously know your stuff (as much as I'd like to think I know mine),
> and you attempt to demolish the argument, not the individual. Which I
> appreciate. Believe it or not, I have actually changed my mind on some
> things because of points you have made...I am non-Vincian.
>

What!!!!! If he loses an argument he either doesn't bother answering you or
he plonks you. Pathetic.

> Still pretty sure you like your dog-eared copy of Starship Troopers.

Still agree with you here though.

Mel Hamer

Alan Lothian

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 5:16:39 AM8/17/04
to
In article <GYOdnRrmZ9X...@adelphia.com>, Kevin Brooks
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:

<wholesale snippaggio of an interesting and even-tempered discussion
twixt Mr Sandstrom and Mr Brooks, with both of whom I find myself in
much agreement>


>
> Not necessarily. If you extend the definition of Green to their historic
> preservation brthren (not a wild leap in some cases)


Hmm. John Muir? Like many greenies, his attitude towards humans was to
say the least ambivalent. And the green European roots are, again to
say the least, more than somewhat dodgy. A Hitler-run fUSSR would have
been a greenie paradise, if you ask me.

> The requirements can become downright stupid--back around
> 1990, when I was playing in the municipal engineering game, we wanted to
> improve/pave a town owned parking lot, and had to first jump through the
> "archeological assessment" hoop (of course they found absolutely *nothing*
> of historical significance during their "exploratory dig")

Well, with respect, there's not a lot of Old Stuff in the USA. Which is
why essentially trivial [dons asbestos suit] cultures like the Anasazi
are such a big deal. But I take your point.


<snippaggio>

> That's right... the same weenies who are out using the
> environmental/historic/etc. restrictions to kill or delay projects...more
> hypocrisy, IMO).

IMO also. But it isn't just the weenies. There's also the Statist
Bullshit Factor. My wife runs a small publishing company in London. It
once had about 25 full-time employees, and is now down to a dozen (the
rest are freelance) partly, admittedly only partly but most assuredly
partly, because of bullshit like the following:

Small & Beautiful Publishing Co is obliged to produce endless
quantities of paper on the subject of Employee Rights, Sex
Discrimination, yabba yabba yabba. Interestingly, it was pretty well
obliged also to produce an Environmental Policy Statement. ("Pretty
well" means not a formal legal requirement but lots and lots of hassle
from assorted state-paid clowns if you don't do it.)

Now, this company's offices are in a run-down part of London (small
outfits can't afford anywhere else) where it takes two months and
letters to Members of Parliaments to get the local council to change
burnt-out streetlamp bulbs. There is, however, no shortage of well-paid
and well-pensioned smug buffoons to check our your Enrivonmental Policy
Statement.

I wrote a draft for her.

"Small&Beautiful publishing" supports in the short term the
strip-mining and deforestation of most of the London Borough of
Hackney, labour to be provided by the volunteer services of the
region's squatter community, who are always complaining about
underemployment. SBP recognizes that this policy is only viable in the
short term and proposes future energy needs be met by the massive
construction of RBMK nuclear reactors cheaply available in knock-down
form from our Ukrainian partners....."

She wouldn't speak to me for about a week, and eventually hired some
hack to write the usual yabba yabba yabba. What's interesting about
this is the huge amount of toxic waste (aka bullshit) involved:
everyone employed to write it knew it was bullshit, everyone employed
to read it knew it was bullshit, and everyone who heard anything about
it knew it was bullshit. Pharmaceutically pure bullshit. Yet bark
though the dogs did, the Green PC Caravan moved on, hoovering up tax
pounds. Thus are poisoned (or rather, debauched) the wells of political
discourse. Conscience makes cowards of us all, and the native hue of
resolution is sicklied o'er by the pale case of thought, in this case
the thought of a bien-pensant politically-correct pension for the
bullshitmeisters.


<snip to Brooks on Sandstrom>


>
> Ah, but you are a common sense environmentalist--sadly, you are yourself an
> "endangered species" in that regard!

Can't disagree with that. Although it has to be said, "Whenever I hear
the word Green, I reach for my Browning."

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

Arved Sandstrom

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 6:23:32 AM8/17/04
to
"Alan Lothian" <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:170820041016394545%alanl...@mac.com...

> In article <GYOdnRrmZ9X...@adelphia.com>, Kevin Brooks
> <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
[ SNIP ]

> I wrote a draft for her.
>
> "Small&Beautiful publishing" supports in the short term the
> strip-mining and deforestation of most of the London Borough of
> Hackney, labour to be provided by the volunteer services of the
> region's squatter community, who are always complaining about
> underemployment. SBP recognizes that this policy is only viable in the
> short term and proposes future energy needs be met by the massive
> construction of RBMK nuclear reactors cheaply available in knock-down
> form from our Ukrainian partners....."

ROTFLMAO.

I would also have added:

"Small&Beautiful Publishing plc has no requirement for clean water, as we
only drink tea or coffee prepared from bottled commercial stuff, so stop
wasting our money on cleaning up the Thames. It's a nasty big sewer
anyways - let's ignore it. And what about those damned birds - they keep
crapping on my car, and bouncing off my office windows...we suggest a
full-scale harvest of songbirds using nets, a la southern Europe - the
carcasses can feed the squatters of Hackney, since starlings and jays are
dainty delicacies when well prepared, and pigeons are toothsome when done in
a light sauce. The trees really do need to go - they have nasty pollen, and
they shed in the autumn. SBP plc also requests that the 12 lane highway
through the historic part of Hackney (yes, we'll have to demolish the
historic part) be completed forthwith, so that we can commute more
efficiently".

[ SNIP ]


>
> <snip to Brooks on Sandstrom>
> >
> > Ah, but you are a common sense environmentalist--sadly, you are yourself
an
> > "endangered species" in that regard!
>
> Can't disagree with that. Although it has to be said, "Whenever I hear
> the word Green, I reach for my Browning."

I lost respect for the radical environmentalists when they opposed nuclear
power so fanatically. Here I am, an avid angler, and they are blocking
technology that would reduce acid rain and other pollution.

AHS


Keith Willshaw

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 6:35:16 AM8/17/04
to

"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:F2lUc.50683$vO1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...

Hackney has a historic part !

How did the council miss redeveloping it in the 60's ?

Keith

Kevin Brooks

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 9:14:10 AM8/17/04
to

"Alan Lothian" <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:170820041016394545%alanl...@mac.com...
> In article <GYOdnRrmZ9X...@adelphia.com>, Kevin Brooks
> <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
<snip>

LOL! What you might find more amazing is that such a writeup might actually
fly through the approval channels over here on some dinky projects that
require an Environmental Impact Statement--one wonders if anybody actually
*reads* the raw poundage of meaningless bureaucraticly generated "make work"
stuff that is often required.

>
> She wouldn't speak to me for about a week, and eventually hired some
> hack to write the usual yabba yabba yabba. What's interesting about
> this is the huge amount of toxic waste (aka bullshit) involved:
> everyone employed to write it knew it was bullshit, everyone employed
> to read it knew it was bullshit, and everyone who heard anything about
> it knew it was bullshit. Pharmaceutically pure bullshit. Yet bark
> though the dogs did, the Green PC Caravan moved on, hoovering up tax
> pounds. Thus are poisoned (or rather, debauched) the wells of political
> discourse. Conscience makes cowards of us all, and the native hue of
> resolution is sicklied o'er by the pale case of thought, in this case
> the thought of a bien-pensant politically-correct pension for the
> bullshitmeisters.
>
>
> <snip to Brooks on Sandstrom>
> >
> > Ah, but you are a common sense environmentalist--sadly, you are yourself
an
> > "endangered species" in that regard!
>
> Can't disagree with that. Although it has to be said, "Whenever I hear
> the word Green, I reach for my Browning."

You know, I recall one case where that was not *too* far from what happened.
The reserve unit I was working for out in the mountains of the southwestern
part of my state was using an old coal stripmine site for the conduct of
annual weapons qualification. The site was owned by a former unit member who
had nothing better to do with the land at the time. We had constructed a
25-meter range, which we used for zeroing weapons and sometimes running
quals (using the old alternate range targets that supposedly simulated
longer range engagements). It had been cleared per Army Regulations for
firing 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and .45 cal/9mm ammunition. Things went on quite well
for years, and then some greenie decided he wanted to shut down the range
(which was located in a ravine in the middle of *nowhere*, with the nearest
home maybe a mile or more away), so he sends a letter off to some
bureauweenie complaining about possible lead contamination due to our
projectiles which were being embedded back into the base of this cliff. The
owner, who was a wealthy and rather gruff sort, was called out to meet some
DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality, the state level "EPA" so to speak)
yutz at the site, which he did. As the yutz started whining about the
potential of lead, etc., ol' George cut him off and told him he was being a
horse's ass, and that if he ever caught him on his land again he'd shoot
him. I thought, "Holy crap, now we are gonna find ourselves in the middle of
some kind of legal nightmare." But the funny thing was that was the end of
the matter--neither we nor George ever heard of the matter again, and AFAIK,
that is the way the situation still stands some ten or eleven years later.
Now, you would not get away with that kind of thing in a more "civilized"
area, but it does happen on occasion in the more rural and down-to-business
areas (similarly, a few years ago some locals in a western state defied the
Federal government when they took a bulldozer and pushed through an access
road they had been trying to get built but which was refused by the
Clinton-era Bureau of Land Management or National Forest Service (can't
recall which)--the local deputies and sherrif who had been called out just
stepped aside and said it was not their responsibility to enforce federal
dictates on federal land, IIRC).

Brooks

Fred J. McCall

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 9:42:51 AM8/17/04
to
"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message


:news:oh23i0l8a15svt5fh...@4ax.com...
:> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
:[ SNIP ]
:> Sorry to disappoint you both, but I did 6 years of active duty and 9
:> or so in the Naval Reserve. Been shot at. Didn't particularly like
:> it. Got to shoot back on occasion. Wasn't real wild about that,
:> either.
:>
:> But bottom line, I'm still here and they're not, and that's how I
:> wanted it to come out. You and Mr Hamer are just going to have to get
:> used to that.
:
:Nothing for me to get used to. If everybody agreed with me all the time, or
:was foulmouthed consistently, or puerile, or clearly very uninformed, debate
:would be pointless, and it wouldn't be much fun.

It's nice that some people realize that 'disagreement' needn't equate
to an assumption that the other party is stupid, evil, or both.
People are SUPPOSED to disagree. That's what differing backgrounds
and experience tends to lead to.

Some people just don't seem to tolerate it very well. Perhaps this is
because of their inability to actually put forward a case for their
own positions (whether they are right or wrong) based on anything
other than personal slurs and untruths.

[For Mr Hamer's benefit, when I started playing in the dirt I got my
platoon leader training from a Force Recon lieutenant out in
California. Mr Hamer probably has no clue what that might mean, but
as an ex-Marine (assuming one accepts that there is such a thing) I
expect that you do. He was pretty much the tiniest Marine I ever
recall seeing; about 5'4" and slightly built. Everyone treated him as
if he was 6'2" and a body builder.]

:We may not agree often, but


:you obviously know your stuff (as much as I'd like to think I know mine),
:and you attempt to demolish the argument, not the individual.

Well, I have to say that it's refreshing to see someone that can
differentiate between someone saying that a position is stupid and
saying the person holding it is stupid. It seems that many can't or
won't.

:Which I


:appreciate. Believe it or not, I have actually changed my mind on some
:things because of points you have made...I am non-Vincian.

Thank Ghu!

:Still pretty sure you like your dog-eared copy of Starship Troopers.

True. I tend to reread it in conjunction with rereading The Forever
War. I like the different perspectives.

--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.

Arved Sandstrom

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 2:38:15 PM8/17/04
to
"Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4121decf$1...@127.0.0.1...
>
[ SNIP ]

> Hackney has a historic part !
>
> How did the council miss redeveloping it in the 60's ?

They didn't. But since it's 40 years or so old, it's historic. And I'm
telling you, we are driving that superhighway (call it M-666) right through
that unprepossessing mass of soon-to-be desaparecido buildings. A section of
the newer housing is going to be turned into a massive mall and parking lot
complex.

Next we're going after Tower Hamlets.

AHS


Arved Sandstrom

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 3:35:08 PM8/17/04
to
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:k124i0dmltr73oo5o...@4ax.com...
[ SNIP ]

> [For Mr Hamer's benefit, when I started playing in the dirt I got my
> platoon leader training from a Force Recon lieutenant out in
> California. Mr Hamer probably has no clue what that might mean, but
> as an ex-Marine (assuming one accepts that there is such a thing) I
> expect that you do. He was pretty much the tiniest Marine I ever
> recall seeing; about 5'4" and slightly built. Everyone treated him as
> if he was 6'2" and a body builder.]
[ SNIP ]

If I'm not mistaken, 5'4" is minimum height for a Marine - 64 inches. It may
have changed. One of the toughest Marines I ever knew just squeaked in over
the height limit (next to me, at 6'2" and 175 pounds, he was a midget (*)).
He was able to carry his load and do it damned well. I remember one time
when they selected our battalion for an endurance test - how much can troops
carry up mountains in the winter? Something like a 5,000 foot vertical climb
(much more in actual distance), everyone carrying well over 100 pounds, not
to mention their clothing and weapons. Well, I happened to spend most of my
time trudging next to this little guy, who literally weighed as much as what
he was moving along on his body, because he was one of my buds. He was
crying with frustration, because this was a _really_ painful road march, but
the little SOB did not give up, and made it all the way...a lot of bigger
lads didn't.

AHS

* Compared to another one of my buddies in the Marines, _I_ was a midget.
This Vermont lad was about my height but about 230 pounds, and solid muscle,
and he could have cleaned the clocks of about any five of us at the same
time. Oddly enough he was the guy that I used to have K-Bar fights with in
the squadbay, and for all that they were friendly fights, they got damned
serious...let's just say that I have a few scars. Heck, when you are cooped
up in a Marine squadbay with 40 or 40 other guys, you start getting pretty c
razy - not sure I can adequately describe it. A few times, these two guys
that had air pistols engaged in combat indoors and .17 inch lead pellets
discharged from highly jacked up air pistols are no joke - they leave dents
in wall lockers. So we were all diving for cover, and crawling out through
the doors to safety.

Nobody actually ever seemed to mind the thrown K-Bar's or the occasional
gunfights. After all, this a group mentality where you yell "Fire in the
hole" *after* you flush the toilet, and then hear the guys in the shower
scream when the water flashes to steam.


Brian Sharrock

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 4:55:54 PM8/17/04