I am appalled at what I have been reading about the Navy’s request for a permit from the National Marine Fisheries Service to operate low-frequency active sonar in the oceans for detection of quiet submarines, without any kind of meaningful scientific testing of the environmental impacts this would have on marine and human life.

Just the few examples of anecdotal observation that have been reported indicate that LFA sonar, even at half the decibel level marine mammals can supposedly tolerate, would have a devastating effect on submerged whales, porpoises, humans, and who knows how many other species.

From a human perspective on sound pollution, I know that not just my ability to concentrate and perform any kind of productive creative work, but my very sense of peace and well-being, are greatly impeded by unwanted background noise of any kind – from voices on the radio or television, to machinery, to music.

Worst of all are deep, resonant, amplified bass lines, and the relentless drones of ATVs, motor boats and jet skis. And these are just quality-of-life issues for humans. To a marine mammal submerged and deeply diving in sonar-resonant waters, the biological impacts are a matter of life and death.

What is missing in both situations is a lack of consideration for the rights of other beings. I can ask my housemate to turn off the radio, or I can do something that doesn’t require concentration; I can avoid the noise pollution by going somewhere else. But marine mammals don’t have a choice – the sound reverberates over vast areas of their home element. Their only escape from the physically damaging resonance is death.

It was certainly unwise of the Navy to invest so much effort – and taxpayers’ money – in developing the sonar without undertaking an environmental impact study. Overweening doesn’t even begin to describe it. And now that they have invested some $350 million in the project, they don’t want to admit they presumed too much and let go of the project.

And yet Rear Adm. Malcolm Fages, director of the Submarine Warfare Division, has testified that the Navy now has other options for detecting quiet submarines using passive-listening systems. Why not just go with those methods, and leave the marine mammals in peace?

What with all the conflicting egos and purposes of the world’s governments and corporations, the planet is getting smaller all the time for the rest of us who are not backed by big money from private or government sources. It is in all our best interests to conserve the Earth’s precious resources and have a clean, unspoiled environment – and yet it seems that every day brings countless new threats from the many entities that want to take for themselves what rightfully belongs to all of us.

The shame of it is that the burden, more often than not, falls on those who do not want something, to fight against it, to beg appointed officials who are supposed to look out for the good of the whole to do their job rather than lean in favor of powerful interests.

That is what we must do now, as statements made by a representative of the National Marine Fisheries Service (as quoted in an article in the May issue of the Fishermen’s Voice) indicate that NMFS is inclined to “grease the track” for the Navy.

The comment period has been extended to May 18, and I would urge anyone so moved to take the time to write and beg NMFS to deny the Navy’s request, and force them to use non-invasive passive-listening methods to detect submarines; address comments to Donna Whiting, Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Md. 20910.

Meanwhile, extensive scientific research should be undertaken by several independent consulting bodies to determine all impacts of sonar resonance on marine life before any kind of sonar permit is granted to anyone, Navy or otherwise.

Jane Crosen Washburn lives in Penobscot.