Plans are accelerating to pursue an Internet of Underwater Things and the increased militarization of the oceans, including the use of sonar.
As noted in yesterday’s article, EMF/RF/5G/Internet Of Underwater Things: Devastation To Whales Is Warning Us, although the story has received little coverage in the mainstream, the Court recently ruled that the FCC’s decision not to review its radio frequency exposure limits was arbitrary, capricious, and not evidence-based. The ruling was in regard to human exposure limits.
A three-part detailed examination of environmental effects of non-ionizing radiation has also been published recently in Reviews on Environmental Health.
Regulators, engineers, and scientists aiming for the oceans are doing an inadequate job of safeguarding humanity from damage caused by RF exposures. We cannot extend these errors to the seas.
Microwave Hearing Harms
The mainstream culture and medical field have not recognized the effects of “microwave Hearing” perceived outside the species’ so-called “auditory range.”
Reports of harm emerged when individuals began “hearing” frequencies from the smart grid, as noted in “Sandaura’s Blog The Hum Heard Around the World is Explained and We are All Being Lied To.” Smart meter health damages remain unaddressed.
Military and industry researchers propose that the underwater ecosystem can be protected by determining a tolerance level for noise and adopting a noise measurement as the determination for “safety.”
Chrono-biology is the Key
Society has not recognized the difference between noise perceived through the sense organs of hearing, the ears, vs. “noise” that assaults an organism via microwave hearing.
This is resulting in wide-scale impairment of sleep for humans, which impairs immunity. Rather than being harmonized by, and to, the changing frequencies of the planet, -which choreograph all physiological functions from digestion to wake and sleep cycles, chrono-biology itself is subject to widespread disruption and pollution.
We cannot extend these cognitive errors to the oceans.
Sound in the Oceans is Much More Complex Than Sound in the Air – Channeling
How far does sound travel in the ocean? The distance that sound travels in the ocean varies greatly, depending primarily upon water temperature and pressure. While sound moves at a much faster speed in the water than in air, the distance that sound waves travel is primarily dependent upon ocean temperature and pressure. While pressure continues to increase as ocean depth increases, the temperature of the ocean only decreases up to a certain point, after which it remains relatively stable. These factors have a curious effect on how (and how far) sound waves travel. Imagine a whale is swimming through the ocean and calls out to its pod. The whale produces sound waves that move like ripples in the water. As the whale’s sound waves travel through the water, their speed decreases with increasing depth (as the temperature drops), causing the sound waves to refract downward. Once the sound waves reach the bottom of what is known as the thermocline layer, the speed of sound reaches its minimum. The thermocline is a region characterized by rapid change in temperature and pressure which occurs at different depths around the world. Below the thermocline “layer,” the temperature remains constant, but pressure continues to increase. This causes the speed of sound to increase and makes the sound waves refract upward. The “Sound Channel” The area in the ocean where sound waves refract up and down is known as the “sound channel.” The channeling of sound waves allows sound to travel thousands of miles without the signal losing considerable energy. In fact, hydrophones, or underwater microphones, if placed at the proper depth, can pick up whale songs and manmade noises from many kilometers away. – NOAA
Marine Noise Pollution
The July 2021 Marine Pollution Bulletin reports,
“Underwater noise in the ocean and its impact on marine animals is an important global conservation issue (Duarte et al., 2021).
Underwater noise has a variety of effects on marine life, including acoustic masking (Clark et al., 2009; Erbe et al., 2016), behavioural disturbance (Gomez et al., 2016; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007), increased stress hormone levels (Rolland et al., 2012), hearing loss (Finneran, 2016; Southall et al., 2019), and even death (McCauley et al., 2017).
The impacts of underwater noise have been studied most in marine mammals (Gomez et al., 2016; Southall et al., 2007, Southall et al., 2019), and have also been studied in fish (Cox et al., 2018; de Jong et al., 2020; Slabbekoorn et al., 2010) and invertebrates (McCauley et al., 2017; Murchy et al., 2020).
Specific Species Sensitivities – Land-based Research
“Species sensitivities to a global pollutant: A meta-analysis on acoustic signals in response to anthropogenic noise” noted, “Anthropogenically driven environmental changes affect our planet at an unprecedented rate. Among these changes are those in the acoustic environment caused by anthropogenic noise, which can affect both animals and humans. In many species, acoustic communication plays a crucial role to maintain social relationships by exchanging information via acoustic signals. However, how species relying on acoustic communication differ in their adjustments to anthropogenic noise is little understood. Yet, this is crucial because protecting species effectively depends on our capability to predict how species differ in their response to human-induced environmental changes. Using a phylogenetically controlled meta-analysis, we quantified differences in adjustments of acoustic signals to anthropogenic noise among species. The effect sizes included in the analysis were obtained from noise exposure experiments, as only carefully controlled experiments allow to establish cause-and-effect relationships. We found that animals changed acoustic signals when exposed to noise, but the magnitude and the direction of adjustments differed among species. Given the importance of communication in the animal kingdom, these adjustments can affect social relationships in many species. The diversity of responses among species highlights the necessity to assess the effect of environmental stressors not only for a few species, because an effect may be positive in one species but negative in another depending on the species’ biology. Thus, an effective conservation approach to protect different species is to preserve natural soundscapes of ecosystems to which species have adapted to by reducing or mitigating the emission of anthropogenic noise into the environment.”
In their conclusion, the researchers state;
“Animals experimentally exposed to anthropogenic noise adjusted their acoustic signals. Given the importance of communication across the animal kingdom, noise has the potential to affect social relationships among individuals in many species. We found different patterns of response among species within trait components, which highlights the need to disentangle the underlying mechanisms why species differ in their sensitivity to human-induced environmental changes. The difference in response among species has important implications for legislative bodies to enable effective conservation: it is simply not enough to assess the consequences of environmental stressors such as noise based on a few species because a ‘one size fits all legislation’ does not guarantee to protect species effectively due to differences in species sensitivities. Conservation is traditionally concerned with preserving biodiversity and the habitats that organisms are dependent upon. Given the effects of noise on animals across taxa, natural soundscapes to which species have adapted to are crucial to ensure effective conservation. [ ] There is no doubt that tackling human-induced environmental changes, such as noise pollution, is a crucial societal and economic challenge that will ultimately determine the health of both ecosystems and organisms, including humans.”
Global Change Biology published, “Sound the alarm: A meta-analysis on the effect of aquatic noise on fish behavior and physiology.” The aquatic environment is increasingly bombarded by a wide variety of noise pollutants whose range and intensity are increasing with each passing decade. Yet, little is known about how aquatic noise affects marine communities. To determine the implications that changes to the soundscape may have on fishes, a meta-analysis was conducted focusing on the ramifications of noise on fish behavior and physiology. Our meta-analysis identified 42 studies that produced 2,354 data points, which in turn indicated that anthropogenic noise negatively affects fish behavior and physiology. The most predominate responses occurred within foraging ability, predation risk, and reproductive success. Additionally, anthropogenic noise was shown to increase the hearing thresholds and cortisol levels of numerous species while tones, biological, and environmental noise were most likely to affect complex movements and swimming abilities. These findings suggest that the majority of fish species are sensitive to changes in the aquatic soundscape, and depending on the noise source, species responses may have extreme and negative fitness consequences. As such, this global synthesis should serve as a warning of the potentially dire consequences facing marine ecosystems if alterations to aquatic soundscapes continue on their current trajectory.”
What we have not done, on land or at sea, is pay enough attention to microwaves and sonar.
Whale researcher Kenneth Balcomb witnessed stranding of beaked whales in the Bahamas, caused by the military, in the late 1990s. Tomorrow we will look at his ignored discoveries regarding “resonance.” The whales warned us.