Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0449.032 2000-2002 J8N-07-2002 12_37 PM LIGHT WORKER CENTER 808 934 9609 P. 01 a ~ ~1~1 ~ rj ~ ~ 1 SLY Sinkin _ 1 fox 944 ~ 1Q, Flawai' i 96721 ~~}i a ~ r= . ~;~,f,~:~66-9646 January 7, 2002 Chairman Leningrad ~lariono~ and Members of the Committee on Public Works and Intergoverntnetatal Relations County Council wilding Hilo, I-lawai' i 9b720 I3Y FA.K: 961-8912 bear Chairman Trlariono~ and Meaxtbers of the Gomtnittee, i am writing to urge your support for Resoluti®n No. 155 O1 opposing the deployrraent of the U. S. Navy's Surveillance Towed Array Sensor Systerra Law >rrequency Active ~ (SUttT,~SS LFA) Sonar. When I filed the first suit challenging the testing of this technology off the Kona coast in 1Vlareh 1998, I based that suit ota the limited evidence available a4 that time. We had some reports of d-]urrtpbaclt i~lhales lcavirtg the test area, unusual behavior 19y hammerhead sharks, and other signs that the testing had disrupted the norrgaal biological activity in the area. Since that time, I have gathered far more evidence demonstrating the dangers cif this technology to ?nat~ne life and the deception conducted by the Navy to hide that reality. To provide only a few e~earnples: [n March 2000, various species cif whales stranded in the 13ahatnas with many dying. A multi-species strandit~; is itself very rare. A scictDtist on site raised the possibility that a passing U.S, Navy (Icct had conducted sonar exercises resazlting in the stratrdings and deaths. The Navy denied any connection. Itccently, the National Marine Fisheries Service released a report prepared with tha cooperation of the Navy eoncltidirag that Ll. S. Navy sonar did cause the strandings and deaths. The Bahamas event. did not, as far as we know, involve the new low frequerscy active rc1nar ([,FA). This fact actually makes the event even more important.. The Sonar responsible f®r this event is already deployed. Supposedly the Navy did an envirc~nrncntal assessment of this t.cchn®lc~gy and atever knew the damage it could do. LFA is far more powerful and penetrating than existing sonars, As to LI'A itself, wC now have scictit.if+c research to support four ways in which this sonar can d'ssrupt important biological processes, injure, or kill, 'The loud sound can cause interruption or c;essatiota of feedilig, breeding, migrating, and other Cntieal biological activities. The impact of direct exposure to the sound wave can cause deafness, which for many marine manuagals is equivalent to a death sentence, or damage ~ • Tass ~~f, ~s~ JfdN-07-2002 12:37 PM LIGHT WORKER CENTER 808 934 9609 P. 02 Chtiirmait I.enin~t°ad Elari®rtand Metn$~ers of the Corrtntittee Page 'Pwo January 7, 2002 to other critical bodily functions. if the sound wave is of the same frequency as the receiving tissue, the tissue will vibrate (resonance) and increase the impact of the sound wave We staspect that resonance played a significant role in the deaths of beaked whales in the I~Icditerraneaai and the l~ahamas during. sonar tests. itectified diffusion can be a fourth cause of datita~,e or death. lit adeep-diving whale, such as a beaked whale, the blood becomes saturated or super-saturated with nitrogen bubbles. A sound wave can begin a process that causes these bubbles to vihrat.e, which in turn causes theta to expand. A single sound exposure of very sl,ot°t duration can set in motion a proees9 that leads to blockages cif arteries, rtapture of tissues, or ether serious injury. The environmental itropae.-t statement prepared by the Navy for LFA does not even diyeuss resonance or rectified di[Yusion. laving spent more than 125 hours reviewing this lengthy document, !concluded that the document itself'is a sophisticated deception in which data and terirtinology are manipulated to reach apre-ordained conclusion, rather than presenting an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts. i prepared a 56-page critique of the CIS and the regulatory process that I would be happy to share with yc~.l, should you wish to get that far into this issue. We also naw have a study that correlated militai^y exercises with multi-species strandings and found a very high correlation. While I know that. concern for national security is heightened at this tittle, we know that there are ether technealogies already deployed or s®on to be deployed that can perform the satnc filnc?ion as LFA without the harmful side effects. New passive sonar systems are being; highly touted by Navy admirals to Congress and in other fe~natns with test res~-ills demonstrating tlicir capability to detect the silent submarine that formed the initial rationale for development of SrT1tT'R,SS LFA. Precisely because that°e is a heightened concern for national security, we aced to be esctra careful that we do not do sonicthing we regret lat.cr, such as the internment of Japanese Americans. `l'he 1l~laui Cc'unty Council has passed a resolution similar to llegolution 155 U1 because they, too, are very concerned about the impact LFA tray have on marine life. 1 encourage you to join your voice to theirs in opposing the deployment of this technology, If you have any qucst.ions, would like to review any dvcuincntation, or beer ether matters I can assist with, please contact. me at your earliest convenience. Aloha, Lanny 'kin .