Laura Pezzini
lpezzini@mustangdaily.net
Proposed seismic testing near the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in Avila Beach has created controversy since early 2011, due to a number of concerns surrounding the issue. Opinions vary between those who are for the tests, against them due to concern for environmental impact and opposed to the nuclear power plant being open at all.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) proposed a plan in April 2011 to begin conducting seismic tests in the waters around Diablo Canyon. The tests are intended to gather information to create a 3-D map of the fault line the plant sits on, with hopes that earthquakes can be better predicted, according to an Environmental Impact Report issued by the California State Lands Commission.
Seismic testing in this case involves extending a series of eighteen “airguns” approximately 50 to 75 feet behind a research vessel, according to California Coastal Commission environmental scientist Cassidy Teufel. These guns will fire sound waves at the ground, and hydrophones at the surface of the water will receive the waves that reflect back to the surface, he said. The information received by the hydrophones can then be analyzed by a computer program to create a 3-D map of the ocean floor.
“Essentially they use pressurized air to generate sound pulses,” Teufel said.
Environmentalist groups, such as the Surfrider Foundation, have expressed strong opposition to the project, claiming the extremely loud sound created when the airguns fire affects the behavior and health of marine life. The San Luis Obispo Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation issued a statement in March expressing its opposition to the testing.
“Surfrider questions the overall value of the project, especially considering PG&E has failed to review existing onshore and offshore data to determine geologic hazards,” Surfrider representatives wrote in the statement. “It will have major impacts to marine life and may expose ocean users to harmful noise levels.”
The Cal Poly Surfrider Club plans on calling attention to the issue by gathering people to attend a meeting between PG&E and the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 30, according to Surfrider Club president Adam Rianda.
“It can cause major damage to marine life, to local fisheries and just to the environment of the whole Central Coast,” Rianda said of seismic testing.
Though research on how seismic testing affects marine life is scarce, the information available shows it does affect animal behavior, according to a study published in the Marine Technology Society Journal. Marine animals, especially mammals, have shown a tendency to avoid areas where they detect seismic equipment or machinery — the study shows responses including “startle and fright, avoidance and changes in behavior and vocalization patterns.”
Teufel echoed these assertions.
“Marine mammals especially are very sensitive to underwater sound,” Teufel said. “That’s how they hunt. That’s how they mate. That’s how they find their young.”
Besides the immediate safety of marine life, another concern raised by environmental groups is that the animals in the Avila Beach area would be without their habitat. The area the seismic testing would affect spans across the Cambria State Marine Conservation Area, which is intended to be a safe habitat for marine life.
PG&E has taken into account the concerns of wildlife activist groups and has responded by promising to take precautions that will protect marine life.
A statement made by PG&E, in response to issues brought to them by the California State Lands Commission, detailed several ways in which the company planned on conducting its research with the least environmental impact possible. These efforts include having a thorough oil spill response plan and conducting research 24 hours a day to cut down on the number of research days. The company acknowledged that seismic testing may be dangerous to wildlife, but deems it a necessary risk to better serve the safety of the citizens around Diablo Canyon.
In the case that the project moves forward, PG&E plans to monitor animal activity in the research area, Teufel said. This would involve keeping a monitor on the research vessel and ensuring there is a procedure ready in case any marine life strays too near the airguns.
Though seismic testing is the heart of the issue, some claim the real issue is that the power plant should be shut down altogether, rather than conduct more studies.
“The seismic testing doesn’t make any sense,” said physics instructional faculty member Antonio Garcia, who has done research on local fault lines. “I don’t think they’re going to learn anything new because what we already know should be enough to shut it down. … Basically they’re already ignoring something very dangerous.”
Some students have a similar sentiment.
“It’s scary that they even built a nuclear power plant on top of a fault line to begin with,” biomedical engineering senior Princess Rivera said. “Whatever happens, safety is clearly the main issue here.”
In this article you mention that by conducting these studies it will leave marine life without their habitat. This is a drastic exaggeration of circumstances, and does not take all the facts into account. This is known as a slippery slope logical fallacy. Just because PG&E is conducting these tests, does not mean the effects of these tests will cause a loss of habitat. The time frame in which these tests will be conducted will not result in such drastic consequences. This statement could also be seen as an oversimplification of situation because there was not adequate facts to support such a conclusion.
Wrong- it is no exxageration at all because the animals will be exhausted (at least!!!) and all their food will be gone and all their foods food and their foods foofds food (plankton). No exxageration here- this is total obliteration and must never go forward. Its all oil company pressure.
On facebook: Stop the Diablo Canyon Seismic Testing
@Alex, Your comment is a “drastic exaggeration.” The article’s author reports neutrally that environmental activists have raised concerns about the safety of marine life. She does not state it as a fact or make any “drastic exaggerations.” Are you the same person (Nico) who just commented on an older MD article using terms like “logical fallacy” and “oversimplification”?? Nothing to do but try to undermine good and fair reporting, huh??
An Atom bomb that leaves a 6000′ wide crater 200′ deep is 257db. This is 260db and it’s underwater and it’s every 13 seconds for two weeks day and night.
It is you who are over-simplifying Alex M. Whales historically spoke across oceanic distances by virtue of their low (2Hz) voices. They will be instantly deafened but die a lot more slowly and painfully. Ever busted an ear drum? Ouch.
This is all about looking for oil and everybody already knows the Diablo Plant is a ticking catastrophe of historic proportions. Maybe we should be going solar instead? Oh wait- the SLO Supervisors wouldn’t allow panels on our home rooftops, instead opting to put them on Carrizzo in the most environmentally damaging location so they could be near PG&E wires so they could steal our solar and sell it back to us. I think it’s called organized crime? Anyway- if this were about safety the 64 million would go to plant upgrades instead of marine mammal 4th of july pyrotechnics.
On facebook: Stop the Diablo Canyon Seismic Testing
I would like to also point out two fallacies I found in this article in regards to how much the equipment harms the marine animals. It was stated many times that the equipment disrupts the animals and can cause them to lose their habitat, but there is no factual evidence provided by this article that explains how.
I cannot be completely sympathetic without seeing logical statistics or research that has shown seismic testing equipment, such as the giant “airguns”, to being harmful to the marine animals. I’m sure the equipment may affect them in some way but unless there has been previous research done to prove this equipment to be as harmful as groups like the Surfrider Foundation claim it to be, I believe the only way we can find out is if they actually use it.
There is no real hard evidence because the evidence that exists was not ‘official’ in Peru. The oilies waited weeks b4 autopsies of dolphins that washed in by the hundreds. Enviros did autopsy after 2 days and the evidence was all there, but not ‘official’ because it wasn’t oil funded. Same thing here with this un permitted otter vivisection. Funded by PG and E, an outrage.
On facebook: Stop the Diablo Canyon Seismic Testing
I am going to point out a few fallacies that are scattered throughout this article. If you start a point with “Though research on how seismic testing affects marine life is scarce” you are setting yourself up for a clear hasty generalization. If the research is “scarce”, the sample size is far to small to draw any conclusions from. It also doesn’t help that you don’t provide any of the facts, statistics, or variables used in the research, as you use an oversimplification in the process. We can not assume that the only reason the wildlife was affected is due to the seismic testing if you do not provide any of the information from the given research.
The quotations used towards the end of your article that bring up the point of danger surrounding the plant being on a fault are also riddled with fallacies. There is a major appeal to fear and tradition in the first quotation as Garcia looks past what can be learned from the testing and attacks the plant as a whole on the basis of those that own it are “ignoring something very dangerous” and he brings up that “what we already know should be enough to shut it down,” even though there may very well be new safety regulations in place that make “what we already know” less dangerous than what we could know.
Sorry Jonathan, got to clue you and everyone else in. The knowledge is there and has been a long time. First, let me say that you don’t need science to take the place of common sense. Common sense says no seismics –
Now let’s do science shall we?
Jim Brune (awarded the Medal of the American Seismological Association in 1997) is a siesmologist who now lives in Nevada working on earthquake prediction, etc. He was forced to leace California some years ago when PG&E relentlessly attacked him, ruining his career. Why?
He went public with his then-theory of ‘En-echelon’ faults. Faults that run parallel to each other. Like they do off Diablo. He predicted that en echelon faults could interact with each other, giving vertical acceleration to energy, creating much larger earthquakes than the faults could alone. Here’s how it works- go to the beach and watch a wave come in. It laps the shore then draws back out again. As it does, it meets the next wave coming in, and wham! They meet, and shoot a plume of water straight into the air.
On his way out of town, Brune predicted that if his theory were right, scientists would eventually discover ‘shatter cones’ beneath the soil. They did find them.
This en echelon science is being 100% ignored. So, yes, the science has long been known to shut the POS down.
Joey Racano
On Facebook: Stop the Diablo Canyon Seismic Testing
After skimming through this article, it was easily apparent that a big hasty generalization was made. When explaining how the marine life was in danger after saying how “research on how seismic testing affects marine life is scarce” perfectly puts the author into a position where they will make a hasty generalization. You can’t tell us how big of a problem it is for marine life after saying how little research has been done. In my opinion, that quote hurts the argument of the article more than it does help it.
A 40-year old nuclear power plant set on top of faultlines in CA. How scientifically (or even logically) sound is that? Seismic testing may or may not cause the marine life/local economic devastation that some of us think may happen. No one knows for sure. The question remains: why not sink the $64 million that ratepayers will pay out-of-pocket for upgrading the plant to make it safer rather than using controversial seismic testing that may or may not do damage to our area? Let’s conserve and not chance destruction.