To me, studies like these tend to generate more questions than answers.
Who actually conducted this study - the Navy or a contractor paid by the Navy? Was there an expected or desired outcome from this study?
What methodology was used? Was most of it done using modeling and simulation on a computer? Who performed the tasks involved in this study: data techs, interns, new hires (from Craig's List?), or someone with actual experience and wisdom in this field?
Buzzwords and phrases like: "temporary", "short term", "negligible long-term effects", and "not having any significant impact on the environment" in the context of this article tend to raise flags.
But what's more important, our national security or a the lives of a "negligible" number of dolphins and whales? There are always trade-offs. If this testing is important, what possible additional steps can be taken to minimize "collateral damage"?
They should send that Paul Watson guy against the Navy.. that guy is a joke. Too bad that the military is no joke.. god luck trying to get them to really change their policy. Plus do you want ruskies and nazis piloting submarines to new york?
Humans are ****s to the planet. The military is pretty much the leader in not caring about the environment. If we don't care about vaporizing an entire island, why would we care about a few whales/dolphins?