Updated 12:00 PM ET May 4, 2001 

By Aaron Schoenewolf 
Daily Texan 
U. Texas-Austin 


(U-WIRE) AUSTIN, Texas -- The University of 
Texas-Austin's major defense research centers are well 
known for producing various amazing and indispensable 
new technologies every year, many of which have 
applications in both military and commercial areas. 

On rare occasions, however, there are new technologies 
developed at these research centers that draw 
criticism from certain groups. Some members of the UT 
community go as far as to question whether academic 
institutions should participate in defense research 
at all. 

One particular project of the UT Applied Research 
Laboratory is linked to an ongoing national 
controversy over a recently proposed defense 
procurement. 

The defense program in question is the U.S. Navy's Low 
Frequency Active Sonar system. Designed to locate and 
track hidden enemy submarines using large pulses of 
acoustic noise, the LFAS system has been prototyped 
and tested by ARL researchers over the last decade. 

According to a report published last year by the Earth 
Island Institute, a national nonprofit environmental-
protection group, the system's potential long-term 
effects on marine mammals and humans could be 
disastrous. 

The report concluded that "the deafeningly loud sound 
pulses generated by [the LFAS system] will prevent 
marine mammals from feeding, from navigating 
successfully to calving grounds [and] from finding 
members of their families." 

The LFAS system is deployed in conjunction with the 
Navy's Surveillance Towed Array Sonar System, which 
consists of underwater megaphones suspended from 
surface ships, which broadcast very loud pulses of low 
frequency sound into the ocean water. The sound 
travels readily through the ocean and echoes off solid 
objects, submarines among them. The rebounding sound 
is then picked up by an array of microphones towed 
underneath Navy vessels. 

The Navy's claim is that the LFAS system will allow a 
surface fleet to detect even the quietest submarines 
as they lie on the bottom of the ocean waiting to 
ambush unsuspecting aircraft carriers. 

However, the Earth Island Institute report stated that 
there is "abundant and increasing evidence" that the 
Navy's preliminary LFAS testing has harmed marine 
mammals before. 

The report cites an incident that occurred on March 
15, 2000, when thirteen whales beached themselves in 
the Bahamas during a series of nearby Navy sea 
exercises. Autopsies of the dead whales found that 
"two whales were bleeding from the eyes, suggesting 
acute trauma," the report stated. 

The Navy has publicly denied any connection between 
the whale deaths and LFAS testing, but officials 
remained unable to comment as they did not return The 
Daily Texan's phone calls. 

Clark Penrod, executive directive of ARL, said he 
understands the concerns that some people have about 
the LFAS issue, but he is not sure how harmful the 
system might be. 

"I can't say whether there is a risk or not to marine 
mammals," Penrod said. "I think the evidence is 
contradictory. There is quite a bit of 
[Navy-sponsored] research that is oriented [toward] 
trying to understand how much of a threat these things 
are." 

The Navy has temporarily delayed any decision to 
deploy the LFAS system while the system's effects are 
being researched, Penrod said. 

"I would have to say that given what I know about the 
Navy ... they are very much concerned," he said. "I 
know that a number of the programs that they have been 
working on for a long time have been put on the shelf 
until they get this resolved." 

Penrod said the underlying issues associated with the 
system are really medical and physiological in nature, 
not acoustics or engineering-based. 

"That is just not an area that we have any expertise 
in at ARL," he added. 

One ARL senior researcher, F. Michael Pestorius, 
conducted a 30-month-long experimental study on the 
effects of LFAS on Navy divers in the mid-1990s. 

Pestorius studied 453 test dives using 87 different 
Navy divers and found that only one diver showed 
symptoms from exposure to the system. The affected 
diver experienced dizziness, irritability and residual 
tingling in his arms. He received medical attention on 
the spot and recovered, only to suffer a relapse an 
hour after the event and another while driving home. 

Most recently, researchers at ARL have been estimating 
the performance of data collected during Navy-managed 
open sea testing of the LFAS system. Occasionally, an 
ARL engineer will act as an observer or adviser during 
the Navy tests. 

However, as a result of the LFAS controversy, some of 
ARL's diagnostic work has been postponed. 

In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee March 20, Vice Admiral James Amerault said 
the Navy needs to move forward with the LAFS system to 
counter the nearly 200 diesel-electric submarines 
owned by the navies of potentially unfriendly 
countries. 

"The serious safety and mission threat posed by the 
presence of quiet, hostile submarines makes it 
essential for us to conduct antisubmarine warfare 
training operations," Amerault said. "This training 
requires the activation of sonars that are under 
increasing scrutiny." 

Amerault said the $350-million LFAS system, which is 
already in use by Russia and France, has not been 
deployed despite the positive results of a two-year, 
$10-million Navy-funded research project demonstrating 
the environmental compliance of the system. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service is holding a 
series of a public hearings about its proposal to 
issue a permit to the Navy to "take" or otherwise 
harass, hunt, capture or kill marine mammals when 
using the LFAS system. The Marine Mammal Protection 
Act allows the issuance of such permits when small 
numbers of whales and dolphins will be harmed in 
limited geographical areas. 

Some members of the UT community believe that academic 
institutions have no business developing military 
technologies like those being researched by ARL. 

Sean Forkner, Asian studies junior and president of UT 
Students for Non-violence, said he is personally 
opposed to such work. 

"I understand that any research institution, including 
The University of Texas, is going to include some 
contracting from the government," he said. "But just 
because something might have dual benefits for the 
military [and others] doesn't mean that it should be 
researched at academic institutions." 

(C) 2001 Daily Texan via U-WIRE