exposing fish to Uriah Heep is cruel???
HELSINKI (Reuters) - A Finnish researcher is to study fish in an aquarium while a rock group performs nearby, to see if the sound causes any ill-effects or distress.
Bands including ageing rockers Uriah Heep will perform on Friday night to about 3,000 fans in a tent just a couple of dozen metres away from the aquarium.
"I will be looking for any abnormal behaviour or activity," said researcher Mikko Erkinaro.
The 500,000-litre tank is home to salmon, trout, pike and perch and other species common in Finland's brackish coastal waters.
"It could be quite nasty to arrange such an aquarium and a performance venue (so close)," Erkinaro said, "especially when the (band) is a bit old-fashioned."
rock music is cruelty to fish
There seems to be a contingent of people who are determined to say that the glass is half empty even if it's 3/4ths full. Or maybe they are looking for "facts" regarding excuses to enforce noise pollution laws. Actually, that's the only "reasonable" reason I can think of to do these kinds of tests, other than perhaps trying to develop a sound that can kill someone from a distance. 
This way, people can have *actual* studies to have clout to say things like "Don't play your stupid music in parks... you are killing our fish."
Considering that agricultural runoff and exotic species are probably taking a much higher toll on fish populations, not to mention overfishing, I don't think this is about altrustic motives for the mental health of fish.
(Unless PETA is funding those tests...)
I mean, from the way the article is written it's hard to determine just *what* is going on with those fish. Did they die? Did they get sick? You *can* tell from careful observation what happens health-wise to the fish...
I mean, emotional trauma for FISH? Get real. Their brains are a bit more sophisticated than a snail or something of the like. I'm not saying that they don't have wants and needs, but I don't think they can get complex emotional scar tissue. My other reason to be suspicious is that water is a great insulator *against* sound. Anyone rested in a tub with your ears underwater while someone was calling your name? Even in the same room? You *might* hear it if you are lucky. Yes, the volume for live concerts is much larger, but so is the insulation on the body of water (lots of wet dirt under the body of water) and the body of water itself, not to mention the distance from the concert itself.
An even better demonstration of this notion is that you can shoot a *BULLET* into the water and it shatters from the force of attempting to penetrate the water about two to three inches in. Yes, sound is different from a bullet, but it still indicates that passing from air as a carrier medium into water is not that simple.
All things considered, it might be a strange feeling but I bet the fish *can* tell the difference from sounds emanating from outside the water and sounds produced inside the water. They ripple the water differently, and if I can tell the difference, a fish living in that soup probably can, and better than I can. After all, they live by the vibrations of water and sound.
These scientists seem to have taken a holiday from, well, science.
Biologists should have at least a high school understanding of physics at least... geez. And frankly, my analysis is rather, um, elementary.
I'm making the same mistake as the scientists, clearly... spending brainpower on a problem that's pointless. Cheers!
This way, people can have *actual* studies to have clout to say things like "Don't play your stupid music in parks... you are killing our fish."
Considering that agricultural runoff and exotic species are probably taking a much higher toll on fish populations, not to mention overfishing, I don't think this is about altrustic motives for the mental health of fish.
(Unless PETA is funding those tests...)
I mean, from the way the article is written it's hard to determine just *what* is going on with those fish. Did they die? Did they get sick? You *can* tell from careful observation what happens health-wise to the fish...
I mean, emotional trauma for FISH? Get real. Their brains are a bit more sophisticated than a snail or something of the like. I'm not saying that they don't have wants and needs, but I don't think they can get complex emotional scar tissue. My other reason to be suspicious is that water is a great insulator *against* sound. Anyone rested in a tub with your ears underwater while someone was calling your name? Even in the same room? You *might* hear it if you are lucky. Yes, the volume for live concerts is much larger, but so is the insulation on the body of water (lots of wet dirt under the body of water) and the body of water itself, not to mention the distance from the concert itself.
An even better demonstration of this notion is that you can shoot a *BULLET* into the water and it shatters from the force of attempting to penetrate the water about two to three inches in. Yes, sound is different from a bullet, but it still indicates that passing from air as a carrier medium into water is not that simple.
All things considered, it might be a strange feeling but I bet the fish *can* tell the difference from sounds emanating from outside the water and sounds produced inside the water. They ripple the water differently, and if I can tell the difference, a fish living in that soup probably can, and better than I can. After all, they live by the vibrations of water and sound.
These scientists seem to have taken a holiday from, well, science.
Biologists should have at least a high school understanding of physics at least... geez. And frankly, my analysis is rather, um, elementary.
I'm making the same mistake as the scientists, clearly... spending brainpower on a problem that's pointless. Cheers!