On October 12, 2012, The New York Times published an unattributed editorial in their op-ed section with the headline “Marine Mammals and the Navy’s 5-Year Plan.” This editorial is singularly ill-informed. The misstatements are inflammatory and unnecessarily hazardous to both the Navy’s activities and to the scientific efforts related to monitoring such activities and to understanding the effects of sound from all forms of human activities in the oceans. It is distressing that a publication of the quality of The New York Times would publish an editorial on this topic without seeking review from a professional, reliable resource and, thereby, get the facts right.

In the editorial, The New York Times brings up the concept of “take” but does not explain in any reasonable level of detail that the permitting process recognizes, categorizes and weights differentially “takes” according to severity, thus examining carefully the possibility of an animal actually being significantly disturbed or harmed before providing any permit. The top numbers The New York Times quotes are for the potential for a simple perception of any underwater sound by any animal, one or more times, during the proposed operations. They do not imply, nor should anyone infer, that millions of animals will be harmed by these “exposures.” They are the equivalent of hearing a car pass in the streets. There is no real potential for any significant disturbance to the overwhelming majority of animals in the area, much less injury or death as the editorial suggests.

The statement that sound “travels much faster through water than it does through air, magnifying its impact” is inaccurate, revealing that the author of this piece has no understanding of the physics of sound in air vs. water, much less how ears or any tissue may be impacted by sound. Painting a picture of ruptured eardrums, hearing loss, ship strikes, etc., is irresponsible based on what is known about underwater sound hazards, and it overlooks the caveats in interpreting the numbers the op-ed reports. Similarly, chiding the Navy for providing “an exhaustive list of potential injuries” is duplicitous, pushing the reader to think these are equally important possibilities. On the contrary, this list demonstrates that the Navy examined and considered the potential for even the most remote hazard, as should any responsible permit applicant. One is reminded of the “comprehensive” warnings on drug labels that list everything from hangnails to excess hair growth, most of which are equally unlikely.

In truth, it is appropriate for anyone and any organization operating in the oceans to proceed with caution and care. Sonar exercises have, as the public well appreciates, resulted in serious and regrettable disturbances to marine animals. Yes, there have been strandings, and those strandings have resulted in the deaths of some animals. Those are cases that alarm us and which have taught a costly lesson, but it is the responsibility of scientists and journalists alike to keep this in perspective and to report responsibly.

There have been fewer than 400 animal deaths in more than 50 years that are known to be attributable to sound exposures, directly or indirectly, not millions and not even thousands. Equally important, the majority of these did not involve the U.S. Navy but rather a wide range of human activities. These numbers are far overshadowed by the millions of animals dying in nets worldwide and by those exposed to the continuous thrum of shipping and other activities in the Ocean. There is NO known case of direct, lethal tissue injury and death to any marine mammal from any sound. These speculations of deaths from “sonic chaos” that The New York Times promulgates in its alarmist editorial are unfounded and do harm to legitimate and regulated activities in our Ocean.

I urge The New York Times to provide counterpoints to its editorial and in the future to temper its first impressions with real facts, thus seeking the information a priori and avoiding such scientific gaffes.

In addition, the signatories below are also concerned that The New York Times editorial “Marine Mammals and the Navy’s 5-Year Plan” published Oct. 12, 2012, conflates exposure to underwater sound with serious, even lethal acoustic impacts. The undersigned, therefore, believe it is critical for both scientists and journalists to report the facts and avoid hyperbole for us to wisely address these concerns.

Signatories:Darlene R. Ketten, PhD Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, Mass. 02543 USA & Assistance Clinical Professor Department of Otology & Laryngology Harvard Medical School Boston, Mass. 02114 USA dketten@whoi.edu	Professor Ian BoydCollege Gate University of St. Andrews St. Andrews, Fife, KY16 9AJ United Kingdom	James H. Miller, D.Sc.Professor of Ocean Engineering and Oceanography University of Rhode Island Narragansett, RI 02882 USA
Walter Monk, PhDResearch Oceanographer Scripps Institution of Oceanography La Jolla, CA 92093 USA	John A. Orcutt, PhDDistinguished Professor of Geophysics Cecil & Ida Green Institute of Geophysics & Planetary Physics Scripps Institution of Oceanography La Jolla, CA 92093 USA	Arthur N. Popper, PhDProfessor, Department of Biology Co-Director, Center for Comparative and Evolutionary Biology of Hearing University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 USA
Gail ScowcroftAssociate Director Inner Space Center Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island Narragansett, RI 02882 USA & Executive Director Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (National COSEE Network)	Tim Stanton, PhDSenior Scientist Applied Ocean Physics & Engineering (AOPE) Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, Mass. 02543 USA	Peter F. Worcester, PhDResearch Oceanographer Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093-0225 USA