Clean Ocean Action,Tom Fagan's specific questions
Posted by Michael Drake on 11/20/2014, 12:14 pm, in reply to "Re: This is cool"
Dear Tom Fagan of Clean Ocean Action, |
I write again to address some of the specifics of your message.
"Concerning the decibel levels effect on marine life," like anyone should, I share the environmental concern about both Seismic and sonar on marine life; there is a lot to read and learn about noise in the ocean about which many are in active dialogue. Reading everything available on these subjects, I am not writing here to play up or down or in any way distort the risks of human activity that makes loud ocean noise-- that's for a separate discussion. I am taking specific issue with your insinuation that the Rutgers project somehow supports oil and gas exploitation.
Regarding "who is behind this sonic survey," the names of the people who have been exploring climate and sea level change have been published; regarding the stated concern that U Texas Austin is primarily interested in extractive industries, the backgrounds of the two Texas scientists involved are of geologists interested in climate science, not oil and gas.
There is no reason to downplay the roles of any of the participants, or to hide any aspect of it. Texas is "interested in the Jersey Shore" because people at that university are associated with a long term study of sea-level change, a lot of which is posted on line.
The use of FB (with the IODP 313 site) to present he background is probably a mistake. That is my own inexperienced effort to independently bridge the gap between hard science and social networking; the subjects are difficult, and it's hard to reduce the ideas in away that can be easily explained. When board members of Clean Ocean Action use that to make up imaginary conclusions that support your agenda, it just makes the problem of explaining science harder.
Regarding "artificial beaches," this is a reference to the expensive process of dredging for beach nourishment, a process that creates unnatural beaches that are, in the context of the natural state of the shore islands, artificial.
Clean Ocean Action supports this dredging process--turns its back to the boats that monitor their work with a variety of high frequency sonar acoustics while they slurp up millions of tons of subsea sand before blowing it across New Jersey's shore. This kind of dredging kills marine life and destroys fish-spawning habitat on a massive scale.
Regarding Clean Ocean Action being "real estate sponsored," the real estate interests within the membership are there, among hundreds of others, including "fishermen, divers, surfers, business & labor" but there is a clear agenda regarding not just protecting the ocean from that which dirties it, but using activism's tools to protect coastal properties built on sand. It is not just my own observation that propertied interests limit Clean Ocean Action's activist activities; COA's director of 30 years, Cindy Zipf, has said as much.
To be sure, most of what that coalition does has been fantastic, particularly with sludge in the 1980s.
Regarding the timing of an oceanographic research project, it is really a question for the participants and the regulators, a process which is in place.
Regarding your post being six months ago, I'm reading everything about sandy hook science and activism going back to the 1960s when people very close to me were involved with both the Littoral Society and Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory.
I believe in community activism .I share your concern for the sea. But your misleading statements here about oil & gas need correcting: Otherwise you will continue to get away with propagating junk science.