Talk:Ocean acoustic tomography

Airguns and marine mammals

There is quite a lot of literature documenting concern about airguns and marine mammals, the article cites a recent publication in a major oceanographic journal to this effect. There are other ways this sound might affect critters than absolute signal levels. I propose modifying some of the surrounding language to make the statement less absolute. (I changed wording to "may", for example.) I do not accept the argument that "there is no evidence" - wikipedia is based on sources/citations, and there are endless publications that demonstrate concerns about airgun shots. There are also various types of airgun shots - some louder than others, I presume. I hope we can reach an accommodation with appropriate phrasing. Thx. Bdushaw (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I've taken a stab at rewording; perhaps the text is better now? Bdushaw (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In Lucke et al 2009 there are measurements of a temporary hearing threshold shift in the harbour porpoise induced by a single airgun shot. Worth a mention? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Three are countless such references - the issue is likely a can of worms. My opinion is to not make that big a deal about it in this article, to keep the discussion focused on ocean acoustic tomography (rather than marine mammals and ocean sound). I was recalling that there are some geophysical surveys that use great arrays of airguns - these arrays make sound that is quite explicitly a danger to marine life. The airgun issue is not one that can be discounted. Bdushaw (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Acoustic transmissions and marine mammals

This section appears biased and a primary contributor may have a conflict of interest. From the second sentence onwards, it emphasizes misconceptions on the part of the advocates for marine mammals. I'm not saying that any of the statements are necessarily untrue, but the overall tone doesn't sound entirely objective, and the last few sentences are unsourced. I am going to review this section and make any changes that are needed. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I may well have a conflict of interest, but that is perhaps an inherent problem with technical articles - the experts are the most involved, hence have a conflict of interest. (You sent me an e-mail, but it went to an old address; updated now.) Happy to work with you, while standing aside/deferring to your judgement. I can locate citations for the last two sentences, I believe. The article has heretofore attracted little other attention by editors. I've reread the section (written mostly by me quite a while ago to be sure), and with the benefit of a long hiatus...it still seems correct. There was quite a lot of passion on the marine mammal side back in the day, most of it misdirected; please tread carefully and scientifically. The ultimate conclusion from the multi year study was that the acoustic signals from tomography were "no significant biological impact". But citations are needed! Thanks for your interest and attention. Bdushaw (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

A Citation: Philip Yam, The Man Who Would Hear Ocean Temperatures, Scientific American, Vol. 272, No. 1, January 1995, p. 38, 40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/24980133

That's a good start. Ironically, though, the "no significant biological impact" quote is one of my biggest concerns because it is not in any of the sources after that quote. The closest thing I found was in the executive summary: "The MMRP found no obvious catastrophic short-term effects as a result of transmissions from either source, such as mass strandings or mass desertions of source areas." However, less drastic impacts may occur. The executive summary also says that "regulation of sound in the ocean is based on inadequate information and that more information needs to be collected", and "Developing an understanding of the effects of low-frequency sound on marine mammals will require a more sustained and integrated approach than has been the case in previous research." RockMagnetist(talk) 00:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Oooff...I wish you wouldn't remove the primary sources. Between you and me, which doesn't count for much but still, the scientists involved with the MMRP were appalled at what a political football that report became and how distorted others on the panel described things; people were still fishing for effects, as you note. That is now an old report. I won't edit war, nor get too involved - I just get upset :( . But those that wish to show an effect have an obligation to provide a citation to that effect - to my knowledge none exist. ATOC Pacific ran for 10 years and ended about 15 years ago; no effects on marine mammals that I know of, no citations. As I once commented on a different topic, science is not about proving what is not there. I could argue that you typing on the keyboard is a danger to marine mammals, for example, and require you to prove that is not so... I won't go on and on, but just note that for THIS article, the issue is mentioned for (1) historical purposes, and for (2) those that want to know the possible effects on marine mammals from tomography (tomography! not sound in general) transmissions. I object to a discussion that concludes there may be effects, when after all this time there is nothing to show adverse (or any) effects; no citation. (Politically is it not unlike Trump suggesting the Biden's were corrupt in Ukraine - so does one write an article suggesting that still might be so?) For more recent see: here. Perhaps a conflict, but note that it is a peer-reviewed paper in a premier oceanographic journal, hence established as fact (until other publications show otherwise.) I trust your judgement, happy to try to answer questions you may have, but already I see I have to stand down. Bdushaw (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, the "no significant biological impact" is what scientists of the marine mammal ATOC project told me to say, years ago. So, indeed, there is to citation for that statement (other than this last citation) - the subject needs a good objective review paper, but that is lacking. You are on your own with the article now, I note. I will only try to answer specific questions if I can. Bdushaw (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It does look like stepping back is the right choice. But I'll reply to the above statements, so you know where I stand. I have no objections to the primary sources being cited, per se, but any citation should clearly support the text it follows. And although I can relate to your point about the difficulty of proving that something is not there, that doesn't justify providing a quote ("no significant biological impact") that is not in the source. I don't think it's necessary to overstate the conclusions; acoustic tomography experiments still continue, so apparently funding agencies aren't all that worried about the impacts. As for your linked paper, if I choose to cite it, it won't be a conflict! RockMagnetist(talk) 01:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

That latest citation uses the quote in question - it is what the biologists told me to use... Bdushaw (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Some citations:

• LA Times 3/22/1994 RICHARD C. PADDOCK, Undersea Noise Test Could Risk Making Whales Deaf : Science: Scripps Institution researchers propose the experiment to study global warming. Critics voice alarm. LA Times, March 22, 1994. The Potter citation points out the errors in this article - errors that caused quite a furor.
• LA Times 5/3/1994 RICHARD C. PADDOCK, COLUMN ONE : Beneath the Not So Silent Sea : Big ships, oil exploration make the ocean so noisy that some researchers say Big Sur loudspeaker test wouldn’t make much difference. Critics fear whales, other creatures already are at risk. Los Angeles Times, May 3, 1994.
• Washington Post, 4/11/1994 Boyce Rensberger, A DROP OF NOISE IN THE OCEAN TO MEASURE GLOBAL WARMING?, Washington Post, April 11, 1994. There was a lot of misinformation and confusion in the early days.

These are all quite old - appearing in the heyday of the political furor. I don't know of any recent review, or any citation documenting any effect at all by the tomography transmissions; the issue sort of faded away, or meandered to other effects. The trick for the article is how to represent this issue fairly, without undue weight to it, and without adding further fuel to the (erroneous) fire. There is a carefully crafted statement in the Munk article lede that I thought fairly represented the situation. It also wouldn't do to get this scientific article bogged down in this issue (see previous section above), or to have the discussion extend beyond the particular sounds the tomography acoustic sources make. The sound in the ocean topic is broad indeed these days. Bdushaw (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, but remember that with the COI you shouldn't be coaching me on how to handle this. That said, I think you'll be happy with the final result. Sorry it's taking so long - real life intrudes! RockMagnetist(talk) 22:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through the section, COI or not, and fixed the more egregious elements, updating or adding citations. On the one hand, I do have a COI, on the other hand I am an expert and the flag of COI/bias has been there for 6 months...perhaps to be there indefinitely. Much more could be done to develop or correct the section to be sure. A proper discussion of the issue suffers from a lack of up to date citation/review papers, alas. I don't believe the discussion is biased; the issue got to be an astonishing circus in the 1990s. (I removed the 10000 747s, though I'm pretty sure that was said; couldn't find the citation) Bdushaw (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

On the Topic of Making a Dedicated Page for the Acoustic Mid-Ocean Dynamics Experiment / AMODE

• I was reading up on this and related topics a bit ago. I sort of lost my train of thought pre-documenting what i found/was thinking about, but here is a link i found that i'll leave here for Future Me, or someone else to take a look at!

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA311588.pdf