Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Now It's Really Hitting The Fan...

The "radioactive leak from USS Houston" story is continuing to grow -- now they've got Singapore and Malaysia involved. This new story on says that the Navy is now informing various government that USS Houston (SSN 713) has been leaking since June 2006:
Last week, Navy officials told Japan that the USS Houston, a Los Angeles-class fast attack submarine, had only made one port call -- March 2008 -- while leaking the contaminated fluid.
But after reviewing records of the sub, the Navy told Japanese officials Thursday that the Houston had been leaking much longer, since June 2006, and had made port calls to Japanese bases at Sasebo, Yokosuka and Okinawa before it was discovered.
Officials have also told the governments of Malaysia and Singapore that the sub made port calls to those countries while leaking the radioactive water, Navy officials said. The Houston also made stops in Guam and Hawaii.
The rest of it is a rehash of the original story (my post about that, with all the comments, is here). We all know how conservative Naval Reactors is; if one were to assume they were looking over the records of whatever leak checks we might to on this type of valve, and may have found a discrepancy with the last performance of such a leak check, they would have had to conservatively assume that the current leak has existed since the day after the last "good" leak check; that's my guess for why we're seeing the revised information on this. All of us nukes know this really isn't a big deal in the great scheme of things, but I'm sure anti-American politicians will continue to milk it for all it's worth.

Update 1121 08 Aug: Here's an AP article where they finally put out all the information the Navy has officially released:
The U.S. Navy released a detailed chronology of the leaks over the past two years, showing that the cumulative radioactivity released was less than 9.3 micro curies — with 8 micro curies released in Guam alone. By comparison, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the average amount of radioactivity in a smoke detector is about one micro curie, or 1 millionth of a curie.
Navy Commander Jeff Davis said the Houston is still in Hawaii being repaired and the reactor is turned off. Once the leak was discovered last month, the Navy provided detailed data to the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory — a government facility — to determine exactly how much radiation had leaked over the two year time period, Davis said.
The amount is so small, he said, that the Navy terms it a "weepage" rather than a leak. The problem was discovered on July 17, when about a gallon of water spilled onto a crew member when a fitting came loose. The water had previously come in contact with the reactor, but no radioactivity was detected on the sailor...
...According to the Navy's chronology, the Houston released 8 micro curies in its home port of Guam and .4 micro curies in Pearl Harbor. In addition to the leaks in Japan — a total of .605 micro curies at the three ports — the ship also released small amounts of radiation during port visits in Singapore, Port Kelang, Malaysia; and Saipan.
It'd be nice if the Navy could put the press release on one of its websites as well; they may have, but I couldn't find it in a quick search of the usual suspects. The smoke detector analogy is a good one to help people understand the magnitude of the incident; although us nukes recognize that an alpha-emitter like Americium-241 found in smoke detectors isn't really analogous to Co-60 (mentioned by the Navy already here [Intel source: Checks With Chart], for those of you worried about NNPI), it's a good way to show the public that it's a very small amount of radiation we're talking about here. (For those who want to know more about various radionuclides, or if you're just a nuke who who wants to geek out, here a link to a Chart of the Nuclides.) They also corrected the fallacy that had made its way into the earlier articles that the water had never been in contact with the reactor.

Anyone remember back a few years ago when some reporter at the San Diego Union-Tribune got ahold of the Discharge Log for one of the CVNs and tried to make a big deal out of the leakage? Hardly anyone remembers that; I couldn't even find mention of it with a fairly thorough Google search. I think this current problem will go away quickly, too. And for that, I credit the quick response of NR in deciding to release the information, in proper context, in a timely manner -- they stayed in front of the story, which is the right thing to do.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

So much for port visits.


8/07/2008 6:20 AM

Blogger Dan said...

Leaking nuclear radiation... IN JAPAN!!!
Oh boy...
Here we go again.

I think we should disban the CIA. They do not work anymore. We need a new branch of lying that can actually not let lies leak [pun intended].

8/07/2008 6:47 AM

Anonymous The Tick said...

Great... guess who they're going to blame the next time a giant mutant sea otter wipes out Tokyo.

8/07/2008 6:55 AM

Anonymous Short said...

I don't understand why the Navy advertising this stuff?

8/07/2008 7:21 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unbelievable! This should not have even made page 10 of the newspaper. IT IS NOT A NEWS STORY! Read the story: The leak was so small, there is more radioactivity in a bag of fertilizer (which this story is). The anti-nuke tree-huggers will jump all over this one.

8/07/2008 7:32 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Short at 7:21 AM "I don't understand why the Navy advertising this stuff?"

Because if they are up front about it, then they don't have to worry about someone blabbing and calling it a Navy cover up later.

8/07/2008 7:36 AM

Blogger Dan said...

The Navy is leaking this information because a spy spewed the information. The Navy has to come out an tell the truth and back it up scientifically by saying that it is harmless now, when in actuallity we all know that it is not.
I used to say that humans are the worst thing that has ever happened to the world's ecosystems, now, I'm pretty sure it's just the Americans.

8/07/2008 7:41 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, are you off your medication again?

8/07/2008 7:48 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan...You obviously have neither a clue, nor anything better to do but complain.

The navy's policy is to report all discharges within 12mi of land to the appropriate authorities. They don't cover it up, and they don't try to prove that it's harmless. The fact that it is actually harmless is probably beyond your comprehension, so I won't get into that aspect.

When it was discovered, they informed those who they thought were effected. When they researched more, and realized that it had been going on for a longer time than originally thought, they followed policy. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

8/07/2008 8:09 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kinda funny that they always quote these Japanese tree huggers in these stories, yet they fail to mention that at 50GW of nuclear powered electricity generation, Japan has the third largest commercial nuke program in the world.

8/07/2008 8:29 AM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

After reading between the lines, I'm thinking that the activity may (repeat MAY) have been misreported. If the period was extended significantly, then the total activity discharged should have also increased.

Now if the activity level was 0.5 uCi/mL (or even per L), then those levels, coupled with a small leak (maybe even only a few L per day) might start to add up to something a bit more significant in terms of total activity released (the theoretical amount).

FYI. The EPA limit for for beta emitters in drinking water is 4mREM/year EDE (after dose modeling using the actual activity).

Obviously, the key piece of information missing is the actual leak rate, and even with my extensive NNPI background, I can't remember what the "spec" or "tolerance" was (if any).

A bit more help.....

Hehehehehehe..... Dumbasses!

8/07/2008 8:39 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

As in an unrelated story...I was wondering where the US Navy gets their nuclear fuel from....from mining to centrifuging. We hope not from Russia?

How come the sea water didn’t leak in when submerged?

Peoples daily online (China) Aug 6, 2006
Growing concerns over U.S. nuclear submarines' leakage

The frequent occurrence of nuclear-related accidents shows that "the safety myth the U.S. Navy (equipped with nuclear-powered submarines) has been boasting has collapsed," says a noted Japanese commentator on world affairs. And Japan should beef up the exercise of its sovereignty over safety supervision and keep improving its notifying mechanism. Moreover, along with the lengthening of the Iraq war, an excessive recruitment of GIs with their service duration extended in Iraq, he acknowledged, their morale has been sinking low, with lax disciplines and a disarrayed military order, so that accidents of this sort are on rise.

8/07/2008 8:44 AM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

Oh, and for all those "Well the ocean isn't drinking water" type of folks, it's just the best limit I know of. If you are less than the EPA limits, you are way, way less than the NRC limits, and thusly less than any DOE/NR limit.

That and EPA&NRC limits are peer reviewed, so they stand the test of "public exposure" vs. "occupational exposure".

Keep in mind, I'm definately not saying that there's IDLH there (other than the salt in the water), but it's probably not as insignificant as NR will make it out to be. Plus the general assumption of "infinite plume" probably works pretty well for an operational submarine.

And there's the whole "I'm >12 miles so I'm not really discharging anything that I need to tell you about" part too.

All and all, a very complicated problem that seems like it should be pretty easy on first glance.

8/07/2008 8:49 AM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

Former ELT -- The initial story was clear that the 0.5uCi wasn't an activity concentration; it was the product of the concentration (times) the leak rate (times) time. Actual activity concentration probably would have been in the picocurie per milliliter range (i.e. 1 x 10E-6 uCi/ml)

8/07/2008 9:07 AM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...


Normally I'd agree with you, but there's been no revision in the total activity discharged. That, and the total activity in reactor coolant is different than the values reported by the ship (think Mare Island Sample). The ship typically reports only the largest variable (as in the most varying activity) as a function of "what's in my coolant", but there are definately other items.

Think in terms of long-lived (what you learned), then there's the really really long lived.

And remember that the ship can't analyze for the other constituents that could be captured by the Na+, Cl-, H+, or OH- in the water, things like gasses.

So in my mind, from an normal discharge standpoint, the usual method is probably ok, but from a "woops!" moment, think more like an inadvertent degassing process.

That's where I was above the pCi/mL range.

It wouldn't be beyond the realm of possible activities to assume 0.5 uCi per day either. Hard to notice leaks and all~ (plus don't forget about the tritum from a nuclear reactor).

Look for groundwater EIR/EIS from Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Hanford, or INEEL. There's a history of possible "intermediate" terms dose rates.

8/07/2008 9:24 AM

Anonymous ETC(SS) said...

Natural uranium is dissolved in the oceans at an average of 3E-3 ppm in water and 1 ppm in marine mud. There is an estimated 4000 million tons of uranium dissolved in the oceans. Anyone care to guess on total activity because of this? I think they'd rather fool themselves in thinking the oceans are "clean" and just blame America, or the Navy, instead. Now, I am not absolving the Houston of any responsibility in whatever circumstance led to this "incident". I am just getting tired of the chicken littles running around making this a bigger issue than it should be.

8/07/2008 9:33 AM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

FYI. I wasn't claiming any of it was uranium from the HOUSTON since that would imply a completely different problem.

And in terms of excess life/cancer risk, it's always expressed in terms of "increase above background".

So if there's 1 billion pCi/L of 23P in the ocean, and the HOUSTON added 500 million Ci 23P , the argument isn't "well there's already so much, so why do we care". (And I picked a pretty harmless isotope for this expression).

8/07/2008 9:39 AM

Anonymous Short said...

Navy cover-up later?! Are you serious? Heck if the Navy is worried about not being up front about what it is and isn't doing, They might has well publish every mission details every boat has ever done so we don't call that a cover-up as well.

This can only have negative repercussions and cause more hate and discontent with American nuclear military presents overseas to be better ready for rapid mission response. (i.e. GW in Japan, overseas ports, etc.)

Last I remembered, because of that, stuff like this should be classified and be disclosed to the people that really need to know, not the general public via CNN or other media outlets, regardless of "how much" was leaked.

8/07/2008 10:24 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

A pico is 10^-12 (aka micro-micro). A micro is 10^-6. Geez, bubblehead, I'd love the see the chemistry logs on YOUR plant.


8/07/2008 11:07 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

natrually occuring uranium oxide is not all that radioactive due to it's enormous half-life. It takes about 3000kg to get one Ci of activity.

8/07/2008 11:10 AM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

In bubbleheads defense, 1 x 10-6 uCi/mL = 1 pCi/mL = 1 nCi/L

He had the units right, it's just he was only recalling what 08 wanted him to recall.

And for the poster that thinks that the USN should keep stuff like this close, where's the cutoff?

1 femto Currie of something, or 3 Curries? Who decides what should be considered de minimus? Who decides what's safe?

There is actually a need for more transparency in NR. There's really nothing they do with the day-to-day operation of reactor plants (including chemistry, RAM, transient ops) that should be classified. That's why it's NNPI, and not Secret or higher.

8/07/2008 11:17 AM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

Next to last anonymous: See, I was right. It's true I don't go off and always use the "correct" terminology because this is, after all, an unclassified board. I encourage others to do the same.

8/07/2008 11:41 AM

Anonymous Short said...

@ former_elt_2jv

You're missing my point which is, regardless of how small the levels are, this is only damaging to foreign affairs.

Most normal people don't know what acceptable levels are, but mention nuclear leak, and all of a sudden everyone is worried. You can explain to people until you're blue in the face that this is okay, but the damage is already done.

All I'm trying to understand is why did we put ourselves out in the open about this?

8/07/2008 12:09 PM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...


Let's hypothetically say that the increase in lifetime risk of cancer to average person of Shanghai for a USS HOUSTON was 1 x 10-4 (or 100 x 10-6).

If the US Navy was responsible for 100 additional cancer deaths per 1,000,000 residents to the population who lives completely in the plume, then it's appropriate to let people know. It might be hard to say "I died of cancer because of this problem, and I'm one of the 100," but that still doesn't negate the USN role in their problems.

Covering up contamination problem is what they did at Santa Susanna. If you need to know more about it, read the Wikipedia article.

I understand that calculated risk is different from perceived risk, but like the Highway Patrolman says, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

I guess uncle Rickover would say, "Don't spill the coolant if you don't want to piss off the Japanese."

The problem is not, "This level of spill is so small, that we shouldn't tell anyone because it doesn't matter. Why should we inflame a foreign government?"

The problem is, "Why are we spilling radioactive water at a rate greater than the designed value?"

The answer is, "What are we doing to fix it?"

I'd like to recall my previous stance on the dumbassed-ness of RL-Div on the HOUSTON. They did what they were supposed to do, and in the end, they were better ELT's than I was.

8/07/2008 12:35 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was also in the Navy as a "nuke". I understand the uproar just because I lived that life, but in reality... this "leak" is less than news worthy. I personally put more radioactivity into the ocean during degases prior to pulling into every port!!!

8/07/2008 12:39 PM

Anonymous anan e. moose said...

My motto as CRA:
Dilution is the solution to pollution.

8/07/2008 1:12 PM

Anonymous Short said...

@ former elt_2jv

Comparing this situation to Santa Susana Field Laboratory incident in what information should/shouldn't be disclosed is like comparing a squirt gun to a cannon, however, I hear what you're saying.

I totally agree that the problems really is "Why are we spilling radioactive water at a rate greater than the designed value?" but this should be between the U.S. and the foreign governments, not in the public which is my concern (for reasons stated earlier.)

8/07/2008 1:17 PM

Blogger ttk3 said...

Unfortunately, the actual amount of the leak and its severity will surely get buried by media speculation of nuke safety...

8/07/2008 1:56 PM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...


I agree with the squirt gun analogy, but once an organization with very little outside oversight starts to "It's not very important"-ize things, then it's a very slippery slope into the nuclear cannon ( hehehehehe, no pun intended - See here). And it only takes one covered-up 'double-ended **...' to end it all.

And once we have to tell Singapore, Korea, the Governors of Hawaii and Guam, Japan, China, Australia, &c., then it becomes very hard to not consider it a "public" or "media" item.

Openness in government is a good thing. And remember that NR is more government than military.

8/07/2008 2:07 PM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

We've sure put out a lot of bonus money over the years. Would think that for all that cost the nukes could have stopped a wee water weep ... and would quit whining about the consequences if some of their number do screw up, whether through failed maintenance and operating procedures as in this case or downright dishonest gundecking of the records as in one previously.

As Captain Bob maxwell said many years ago, "That's sure a lot of fuss just to boil water." Well, if the water-boilers insist on all the fuss and get paid extra for it, dammit get it right.

8/07/2008 2:35 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

We think it a more fundamental problem than small amounts of radiation or valve leaking...a Thresher or Scorpion event is right around the corner. How many fires have been aboard submarines since the beginning of the year?

The chair shuffling with senior navy staff has been mind boggling

Could we lose a aircraft carrier or other ship?

8/07/2008 4:05 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't we teach nuclear power in high school? I find it absolutely hilarious how otherwise intelligent people turn into complete morons when they start talking about issues like this. This stuff is not rocket science. In particular, I love the headline that reads "radiation leak" - unless you have a perfect shield, there is always "radiation leaks". The article should really read "contaminated water leak". The reporters and general population are too friggin stupid to understand the difference so the Navy doesn't bother to correct them.

8/07/2008 6:17 PM

Blogger jblog said...

Assuming 0.5 uCi was released, can we estimate the total volume of liquid released without getting to classified information?

Order of magnitude: millilitres? litres?

8/07/2008 6:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


NO is the simple answer to your question. That would reveal classified material, not appropriate for this blog and could get it shut down.

8/07/2008 7:50 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Mike Mulligan: How many fires have been aboard submarines since the beginning of the year?

OK Mike, I give up. Just how man fires have we had onboard sumbarines since the beginning of the year?

If you are going to ring the bell, at least tell us you have checked your facts.

Chief Torpedoman

8/07/2008 8:08 PM

Blogger Pat said...


Kinda funny that they always quote these Japanese tree huggers in these stories, yet they fail to mention that at 50GW of nuclear powered electricity generation, Japan has the third largest commercial nuke program in the world.

This makes it even more amusing considering that the US and the Japanese have stated that the amount leaked was less than that of one Commercial Nuclear Plant on a daily basis.

8/07/2008 8:18 PM

Blogger Pat said...

The Tick.....

Great... guess who they're going to blame the next time a giant mutant sea otter wipes out Tokyo.


8/07/2008 8:19 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Chief Torpedo man,

Chief, you don’t think I have some prior semblance of knowledge with the facts before I open my big fat mouth on this site?

How about 5?


“So far this year, 13 fires have been reported on Navy subs and ships.... That's nearly five times the cost of all Navy fires afloat over the past five years.”

With fire at sea a deadly threat, Navy stays prepared

05:33 AM EDT on Sunday, July 27, 2008
Associated Press
NORFOLK (AP) -- The fire alarm blared.
"All hands man your battle stations!" shouted a voice over the intercom.
So far this year, 13 fires have been reported on Navy subs and ships, including the May 22 fire aboard the aircraft carrier George Washington. That fire raged for hours, damaged electrical cabling and other components in 80 of the carrier's spaces and injured 24 sailors. The cause is still under investigation.
The Navy estimates repairs will cost $55 million, said John Scott, a spokesman for the Navy Safety Center. That's nearly five times the cost of all Navy fires afloat over the past five years.

8/07/2008 9:30 PM

Blogger IronMal said...

Can't they just accidentally blow sans on a cruise ship to create a media diversion? It would be a "special media" diversion I guess.

8/07/2008 9:35 PM

Blogger King said...

A lot of this goes back to the Hampton, which just scratches the surface of the problems with the submarine force. I still wholeheartedly agree that 90% of boats are 80% of the Hampton.

I've heard stories first hand that, in my mind, are at least as big of breaches of integrity as what happened on the Hampton, most occurred by more senior people than were involved in the Hampton incident. The submarine force has set itself up into a position where the average boat literally can't adhere to every standard and program per the letter of the law without bending rules and blazing paperwork. There's certain pieces of paperwork and exams, that it is standard practice to blaze, partially cook, or outright cheat on. If you're a CO/XO/DH that thinks it doesn't happen on their boat, you're just too far away from it to see it. Big sub navy claims that they've made a lot of changes to the admin requirements, but I left the boat pretty damn recently and I certainly saw no signs of it...

Granted, this particular incident doesn't appear to have anything to do with cooked books, but the Hampton incident, and GW incident have landed this admittedly rather minor incident right into the middle of the public eye. I'm just glad I'm not with the sub community anymore, as I'm sure the fallout from this one will be lots of "fun".

8/07/2008 10:18 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

An honour culture is one where our individual honour or reputation is worth more than the mission of the organization. You turn the organization into servicing personal reputation...then the truth become very plastic. One could even say meeting a mission of the troops becomes meeting a individuals honour of the leaders....thus everything become a insult to a leader ego.

Bent and broken rules....if not fully voluntarily disclosed throughout the organization and to outsider...utterly destroys an organization. It’s a very potent poison.

8/07/2008 11:06 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


Pull your head out!

The difference between the sub "fires" you infer (without any obvious experience) and the surf real FIRES, is this: On a sub, the "fires" are put out by a burst of a CO2 fire extinguisher by the closest person: We don't run.

The stringent reporting adherence by the sub community still reports "smoke" put out by a burst of CO2.

With surface fires, everyone runs and it grows....

On a submarine, the XO is the fire chief and the man in charge to combat the fire and direct all hands (not just the DC party that eventually shows up after the fire has grown into a 3 deck conflaguration).

Get some time on the pond! Sorry, actually, time under the surface of the pond ;)

8/08/2008 1:21 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mulligan, Are you even a U.S. citizen? Your constatn mis-spelling of honor as "honour" and your general incorrect usage of American English and grammar lead me to suspect that you're a Euro-trash troll.

8/08/2008 6:26 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please scrub this and get rid of any NNPI. I would hate to see you or anyone get in trouble and don't want to lose a VERY good blog.

8/08/2008 6:32 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't they teach nuclear power in school? The short answer is they have a hard enough time getting the little weasels to learn basic math.

Besides, if you're too freakin' retarded to operate a car (and that's the majority, going by my experience just driving to and from work) then you're probably better off not knowing how anything more complex works.

8/08/2008 6:58 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The general take here seems to be something along the lines of:

- The MSM and public don't get nuclear power, so they are making way too big a deal out of a small leak.

But is that really the case? Joel appropriately links to a couple news articles on CNN, but it sure doesn't look like they were overly alarmist. It seems as if this leak story was greated with a big yawn by most of the public. Probably because the reporting was pretty responsible:

"Officials with knowledge of the incident could not quantify the radiation level but insisted it was "negligible" and an "extremely low level." The total amount of radioactivity that leaked while the sub was in port in Guam, Japan and Hawaii was less than a half of a microcurie (0.0000005 curies), or less than what is found in a 50-pound bag of lawn and garden fertilizer, the officials said."

Can anyone speak for the Japanese public reaction? Or that of other countries affected?

8/08/2008 7:26 AM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...


Please scrub this and get rid of any NNPI. I would hate to see you or anyone get in trouble and don't want to lose a VERY good blog.

What NNPI?? I'm pretty lost on this one.

8/08/2008 7:54 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...


Honour or honor (see spelling differences), (the latter directly from the Latin word honos, honoris) is the evaluation of a person's trustworthiness and social status based on that individual's espousals and actions. Honour is deemed exactly what determines a person's character: whether or not the person reflects honesty, respect, integrity, or fairness. Accordingly, individuals are assigned worth and stature based on the harmony of their actions, code of honour, and that of the society at large. Honor can be analysed as a relativistic concept, i.e., conflicts between individuals and even cultures arising as a consequence of material circumstance and ambition, rather than fundamental differences in principle. Alternatively, it can be viewed as nativist — that honour is as real to the human condition as love, and likewise derives from the formative personal bonds that establish one's personal dignity and character.

Dr Samuel Johnson, in his A Dictionary of the English Language (1755), defined honour as having several senses, the first of which was "nobility of soul, magnanimity, and a scorn of meanness." This sort of honour derives from the perceived virtuous conduct and personal integrity of the person endowed with it. On the other hand, Johnson also defined honour in relationship to "reputation" and "fame"; to "privileges of rank or birth", and as "respect" of the kind which "places an individual socially and determines his right to precedence." This sort of honour is not so much a function of moral or ethical excellence, as it is a consequence of power. Finally, with respect to women, honour may be synonymous with "chastity" or "virginity".

8/08/2008 9:17 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mulligan, are you a U.S. citizen or not? Today, "honor" is spelled h-o-n-o-r in the U.S. It is also spelled h-o-n-o-u-r across the pond, which is why I suspect that you are not a U.S. citizen. Are you or not? If not, I don't care what you think - period. If you are, well, you're just a bit uninformed.

8/08/2008 9:25 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information (NNPI) is a category of intellectual capital defined by the United States Navy to be "that information and/or hardware concerning the design, arrangement, development, manufacturing, testing, operation, administration, training, maintenance, and repair of the propulsion plants of Naval Nuclear Powered Ships including the associated shipboard and shore-based nuclear support facilities."[citation needed]

We think this an artifact of the monolithic cold war...where we were seconds away from incineration. Naval nuclear propulsion is generally a mature technology where in the 1960’s in was brand new. There was a tactical necessity with two adversaries loaded to the gills with nuclear weapons.

Today we think NNPI and like systems generally protects the senior managers of the Navy and the is a national security threat because we really don’t know the conditions of the fleet and durability of the organizations.

All accident in organizations...if you get really deep into this...the accident is caused by a close system and giving normal peoples the ability to play with the facts. I know full disclosure would give information to our competitor...but transparency would strengthen the organization more than giving competitors some tactical knowledge.

Transparency is like forces you to become better and make you stronger than in hiding information.

I know you have to follow the navy rules and regulations...but I am trying to talk about the outcome of unproductive barriers.

8/08/2008 10:01 AM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

I've looked through the comments and my original post, and I honestly don't see any NNPI that hasn't already been put out into the public domain by the Navy. So far, I think we're keeping the conversation on safe grounds. Anyone who sees something I'm not can, of course, E-mail me at: joel(dot)bubblehead(at)gmail(dot)com.

8/08/2008 10:32 AM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...


Thanks for the quick check. I didn't think any lines were crossed (above those that are discussed at a Nuclear Engineering class at Berkeley), but I wanted to check. Nuclear power is nuclear power, radiation is radiation, and sometimes it's hard to remember where the information in my head came from.

In regards to NNPI:

Maybe uncle Rickover had it in his mind that we should classify NNPI separately so that in 1960 it was equivalent to Secret/Top Secret, but in 2000 it could be NOFORN/UNCLASS.

When does, or should, NNPI start a systematic review of why things are classified? Do you think it's time that the USN largely unclassify the "operation" of the Naval Reactor? (Obviously components the components always were the technology to protect)

Is my time in the Navy NNPI? I mean, I was involved directly in the operation, maintenance,&c. of a Naval Reactor. Do I tell people that [quoting Steven Segal], "...I also cook...", since telling them otherwise might be NNPI?

I would imagine largely that NNPI should transition into a DOE Q/L level. The OADR of NNPI always seemed a little silly to me anyway.

8/08/2008 10:47 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Mr Anonymous,

Are you a orthodox duelist? I hope you are not a Zoroastrian.

I am a buddies are laughing on the floor at me because they know I get it... on another issues. They called me a manichean and I thought they were calling me a Manchurian candidate.


8/08/2008 10:58 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike Mulligan:
Chief, you don’t think I have some prior semblance of knowledge with the facts before I open my big fat mouth on this site?

How about 5?

“So far this year, 13 fires have been reported on Navy subs and ships.... That's nearly five times the cost of all Navy fires afloat over the past five years.”
Mike I looked at that story several times and still don't see where it says there were five fires on US Navy subs this year.

It does says that "That's nearly five times the cost of all Navy fires afloat over the past five years", not five fires.

Let's assume there were five firec on US subs this year. What is your point? Did all of them involve a nuclear reactor? Did any of them cause radiation to be released? How many were small fires in non vital (read non nuclear) spaces that were quickly put out? I remember reading about one fire in a sub ballest tank started by a welder. Hard to connect that with a Nuclear Accident or Incident isn't it?

If you have further information to show a casue and effect here, please post it.


Cheif Torpedoman

8/08/2008 11:09 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Mike Mulligan,

Starting several Bubblehead posts ago I started to notice that your comments seemed like just a bunch of wind. The term "Bromide" comes to mind.

From Wikipedia, "A bromide is a figure of speech, referring to a phrase, or person who uses such phrases that has been used and repeated so many times as to become either insincere in its meaning, or seem like an attempt at trying to explain the obvious. It can also mean the unnecessary insertion of an (often irrelevant) cliché into a conversation, designed to make the speaker sound more authoritative."

Dude, learn to get your point said in 75% fewer words. Otherwise I'll continue to skip your timewasting comments.

8/08/2008 11:47 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And still the Troll Manichean Mulligan refuses to answer the simple, yet telling question, "Are you a U.S. citizen? Again, your usage of U.S. leads me to believe that you are not. Furthermore, nothing that you've added here has made one inkling of a point. It's akin to the ChiComs making much ado over "the leak" on the Houston. What exactly is the point that "we" is attempting to make - or do you just have a turd in your pocket?

8/08/2008 11:51 AM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...


Thanks for the update. I figured that 0.5 uCi seemed low.

I'm still thinking that they may be discounting the net effect of other intermediate and really-long lived isotopes, but it's a better number.

If NR said that the net release was 20 mCi of tritium, I wouldn't think much of it, but that's obviously not in the 0.5 uCi range.

Do you notice that the more "hardcore" nuke stories tend to elicit more responses than the "Congressman Bill Sali" stories, or the USS North Dakota ones?

Maybe we all just miss FTN and the EM-Log a little too much, and have to live vicariously through the current sea-stories of the active-duty guys via CNN and the Navy times.

Our TSSBP letter:


1. We here at TSSBP would like to congratulate you on you recent incidents. They have provided much fodder to the "former" Navy nuke community.

2. As a consequence of your actions, they have made all of us glad that we were definately not you, thereby negating the loss (in cyberspace) of our former, former-shipmate FTN of the EM-Log.

3. Until FTN returns, please continue to remind us why we chose to leave the USN. Your incidents illustrate why we are definately glad that 'we're not there'.

4. Suffer in silence.

Very Respectfully,


8/08/2008 12:54 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

I find it fascinating reading what my competitors are saying about me. Generally they take a fragment of the truth and twist it around. I am interested in that fragment of the truth.

The, if I am a USA citizen is ridiculous...after all, my real name is on my post. See, I can’t start calling you names because my honor is on the line...what will everyone think of me? Is your real name Anonymous and did you behave like that on your submarine?

Again, in the battle between good and evil...are we suppose to eradicate evil. Or did god create this perfect system of good and a means to get us to enlightenment...that we would eventually know that evil contains no truth and it’s a hollow structure.

8/08/2008 1:09 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

WTF???!! Oh how I long for a simpler time, when our resident philosopher was the AER oiler on the 4 X 8 watch.

Keep a zero bubble......


8/08/2008 2:35 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously Muligan never did time beneath the pond. Spewing giblets like those he's posted here would have found him duct-taped, greased, and worse. 8-)

8/08/2008 2:42 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

All I'm saying is that if your primary source is Wikipedia, well....

8/08/2008 3:17 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...


I know why you are so cranky....your so old your first submarine was the Turtle?

By the time you striped the tape from the roll, you’d be out of breath and in heart attack...forget the grease, you would forget what the use of the it was for fiddling with the tape.

My brother was stationed on a Navy oiler.


8/08/2008 3:56 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You'd think $350 million (out of a $200 million initial budget) and 34 months (out of a 22 month initial timeline)could buy you a high-quality refueling overhaul.

Guess not!

I am glad not to be a Houston sailor anymore. Seeing NRRO every day is no fun even in good times, and I'm guessing that in bad times it's downright horrible.

8/08/2008 4:35 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My brother was stationed on an oiler."

That's kinda like, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."

8/08/2008 5:08 PM

Blogger King said...

Sort of off topic, but submariner's do not "duct tape, grease, or worse" anymore... so if he's junior he may never have seen it. I only know about it from stories through my dad (who's also a submariner). But have never seen anybody do it themselves. I have seen someone lose a stripe for tacking on a guy's dolphins, however, if you think those two things might be connected, you'd probably be right.

8/08/2008 5:32 PM

Blogger Pat said...

Mr Mulligan,

I have a hard time following any of your ramblings. You seem to have a point at the beginning of your posts but they quickly turn to some off the wall rhetoric.

Not sure why you decided to bash a retired AMERICAN submariner that (by history of postings) obviously is much more in touch with the submarine community and happenings than you.

I can't speak, nor will I try, about the surface Navy being as I have never even stepped foot on a Target but the vast majority of fires onboard subs are caused by shipyard welders..... in drydock...... external to the hull. Usually in either a ballast tank or Mudd Tank. The few that happen internally by ships force or equipment are extremely rare and are almost always immediately put out. Your lack of knowledge on this subject and your obscure speculation make you stick out like a sore thumb.

Sorry for highjacking the thread.... I just feel that if you don't know what your talking about you should'nt act like you do.
"My brother was stationed on an oiler."

That's kinda like, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."

WELL PUT! I think his association with someone who was once on a Navy ship gives this guy the idea that he has some knowledge about the Navy. It would be ammusing if it was'nt so pathetic.

8/08/2008 6:29 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Who put the lights out and why is that blanket over my head.

These past few post is reflective of an honour culture.

But the name of the game is to turn this into defending myself.

8/08/2008 6:38 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Nope, I just reminding people of my family’s heritage with the Navy. My father was drafted in WW II...became a pharmacy-mate...traveled all around the world during the war time. He got out of the Navy and then was quickly required under a national emergency to re-enter the Navy during the Korean conflict. He was not at all happy about that. I am a product of his pent up energy after coming back from Korea. I was born in June 1953.

Out of his three children...all of his males volunteered to serve in the Navy...I in submarines, and my younger brother on a Navy oiler. We were all enlisted brothers.

For the record.

8/08/2008 6:39 PM

Blogger Pat said...

So being that your service was during the early 1970's and diesel boats were around until the mid 1980's, not sure how giving a jab at a diesel boat guy makes any sense.....

As for your knowledge (or lack there of) about what's going on with or how the Submarine fleet operates today....... I dont know what to say, you're out of touch.

8/08/2008 9:21 PM

Anonymous The Tick said...

NNPI is controlled because what seems simple and obvious to us is actually the result of billions of dollars of research and over fifty years of effort that makes putting a man on the moon look like a science fair project. Very few countries out there have the resources to duplicate our efforts on their own, which is why finding out how we are so successful is their top priority.

Even simple stuff, which isn't classified, is extremely useful in that it eliminates all the other possible ways something *could* be done. Selecting one option from all the variations and saying "this is how the US Navy does it" is NNPI, classified or not.

Keep all this in mind, folks. The only thing (and I mean the ONLY thing) keeping us safe is that we have a technological advantage over virtually every other country out there - friend and foe. You have only to look at once-was British Empire to see what happens when you lose that edge.

They don't call us the Silent Service because we whisper. Nothing about what we do, NNPI or not, needs to be shared with people outside the family.

8/08/2008 9:21 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

USS Midway and Vietnam

(We was talking about Scorpion....I picked up it was a current Navy operational problem...I went nuts?)

November 13, 2007 11:01:06 AM

I'm personally sad to see the departure of Mr. Mulligan, although I understand and support his removal. He was a distraction. However, he was neither the greatest nor the only distraction, and he was correct in stating that it was MY choice to experience him as a distraction. More appropriate behavior on my part might have been to simply ignore his ramblings when my patience was too short to search his postings for the slivers of gems he buried in his communication excess.

What gem? Several of Mike's emails caused me to rethink a notion I held since my first day observing this august body. That notion was that "can do," "make do," "go the extra mile," "not on my watch" were the necessary and appropriate watchwords of military service during the 60s and 70s, a time when an increasingly unpopular war was being financed very often out of operational, training and maintenance budgets, a time when the insanity of "Mutually Assured Destruction" became understandable, ergo, possible. These ill conceived notions caused us to devalue human life by wagering death and injury against "national security," and "getting the job done."

8/09/2008 1:58 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

It led us to several deaths, and near loss of Enterprise, to a very preventable fire, essentially caused by the lack of a jet starter hose of sufficient length to keep the starter engine exhaust a safe distance from missile warheads held on an F4's wing. Starter hoses were in short supply, so when the hose developed holes or breaks, it was common practice to simply shorten the hose. It led to my crash one night on the flight deck of USS Midway, killing 5, injuring dozens, destroying 8 aircraft, all for the shortage of operable Multiple Ejector Racks (MERs). The MER's failure caused two 500-lb bombs to be hung up on my starboard wing; normal procedure would have had me jettison both the bombs and the MER, but since MERs($4,000) were in short supply, the decision was made to bring the bombs and attendant MER aboard, a common decision primarily determined by the skill and experience of the pilot. Unfortunately, my starboard axle failed upon touchdown, and I rode the aircraft into the pack of parked aircraft, having lost the arresting cable. We must be constantly reminded of the atmosphere under which Scorpion was operating. I had minimized and discounted this "constantly scrambling and always behind" atmosphere as "Standard Operating Procedure." Mr Mulligan reminded me to not overlook the operating tempo of the time. I accuse no others of requiring this same reminder, but I owe Mike an apology for my discounting of him.

8/09/2008 2:00 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

What other distraction? Ego. Ego is a VERY necessary virtue of the warrior ethos; it is ego which is constantly alert to the dangers(both real and perceived) which face us during war and the training which precedes war. However ego significant disadvantages because it is basically fear-based. Next time an ego pops up, ask yourself what the ego fears. In fact, it is my experience that ego is ONLY of significant value in athletic and political contests, or the survival situations for which it was designed. Undisciplined ego displayed in a group such as ours has some VERY undesirable effects. It stifles open discussion, opining there IS such a thing as a stupid question (a concept discarded by every lecturer I've ever heard), demeaning the questioner, and threatening the timid to withhold knowledge only they(the timid) might have. It is an established concept that the wisdom of a group is ALWAYS greater than the wisest individual IN that group. OUR performance as a group will most certainly surpass the best possible performance of the largest egos in the room. The contributions of EACH of us must only be judged by the Collective wisdom of all of us, and not by the trembling egos shouting in the night.

Mike, with my apology,

Very Respectfully,

8/09/2008 2:04 AM

Blogger Pat said...


I agree that our technology still isnt releasable due to the facts that you pointed out.

On another note, what are your thoughts about the drastic increase in Russias defense budget and particularly the submarine aspect with regards to their plans for increasing the production of fast attack as well as missile boats. We are still far ahead of them since they have been on the back burner for a while and are still attempting to finish the construction of their former boats that were started ages ago but I think they will be something to be concerned with (depending on how our relations pan out) due to the fact that we lost so much of our technological lead with John Walker and Toshiba.

8/09/2008 3:15 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm confused was it micro curries or micro-micro curries?

EM3 (SU)

8/09/2008 4:11 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's all the same, really. 0.5 micro, 500000 micro-micro 0.0005 milli. I propose we get rid of all this crazy SI mumbo-jumbo (made worse by the fact that a Curie is not an SI unit of decay at all, a Becquerel is. So micro-curie is like saying giga-foot!) and use the system proposed a while back on the Simpsons: rods to the hogshead. That particular case being a distance per volume, but you get the idea.

8/09/2008 8:38 AM

Blogger chen.dean.2007 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8/09/2008 2:17 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


I don't take Russian or Chinese Naval buildup seriously for this one reason: You can build all the skimmers and subs you want, however if you don't go to sea A-LOT, and practice, practice, practice you not gonna be any good--period. Chinese and Russians do not have blue water navies. they don't operate that much in international waters. Outside of USN in Pacific, I think the real deal when it comes to blue water warriors is the JMSDF. I was in Sasebo on an MSC ammo ship the day after North Korea detonated their Nuclear Device in 2006. The JMSDF DesRon home ported there cycled 6 DD's through their ammo anchorage loading out and the entire squadron departed two days later. You know where the went.....

My two cents..............

Keep a zero bubble...............


8/09/2008 7:55 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Over half of our nuclear electricity comes from comes from the megetons to megwatts program...what if they cut us off? They got us by the short hairs.

That would threaten 10% of our electricity...I wonder if they war gamed that?

8/10/2008 12:44 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't a "mulligan" something you take when you screw up?

We don't get "electricity" from them, we get enriched fissile materials used to make fuel for civilian reactors. If they cut us off, and we had no other external sources that were cheaper, we could just go back to mining it inside the U.S, where around 25 - 40% of the world's known supply exists.

8/10/2008 8:04 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the clarification.

EM3 (SU)

P.S. Any tips to make quals easier?

8/10/2008 2:21 PM

Blogger Pat said...


Thanks for the clarification.

EM3 (SU)

P.S. Any tips to make quals easier?

Get hot and finish them. The farther you are ahead of the curve, the easier it gets.

8/10/2008 3:05 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

A mulligan is something your shipmate gives you....because they like you. Everyone gets a “mulligan” now and then....a freebee. There is no such thing as a screw up...just a learning of the most valuable types of the way we gain wisdom.

You just got to endure all the crap; you are going to have to deal with a lot of personalities....just keep plugging at it and never give up. Make yourself a pain in the butt and learn to be gracious...beg if you have too. There is no way to make it’s just the difficult cost of being a submariner.

Make it’s the hard times that you will carry with you the rest of your’s the hard times that will be the true structure that builds the rest of your life.

Being the old mike, if I could control the puppet strings of the young mike...I would torment the heck out of me, just above the point of making young mike jump off the cliff. I’d make me dance on the razor’s edge of that cliff.

8/10/2008 3:06 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

By the way...why did we get kicked out of the Garden of Eden? Is technological innovation like always yearning for hungering for sex and the birth of our new future?

Did god know we need the hardships of this world...the jungle? Does the hardship of tranparency lead to growth and development/ stimulation of neurons....technological innovation.

Is our only national security defense our ability to creatively out technologically innovate...where the security of barriers allows the status quo and stagnation.

Let’s talk the Mark 48 torpedo?

8/10/2008 6:30 PM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

To EM3 (SU):

Make friends with the following people.

1. A senior 2nd class A-ganger
2. A senior 2nd class ELT
3. A senior 2nd class MS (or whatever they are now)

If you can buy these people a beer, your life will become very easy.

Best of luck on those pesky grounds!

8/10/2008 6:53 PM

Anonymous gomerb said...

Hey EM3 (SU),

Ditto to Pat and ELT2JV. They're dead on. Another couple of suggestions...

*Read the DC manual cover to cover. Learn every power supply you can find on board. Your qual board you may give look-ups out the wazoo for everything else, but they may be forgiving if it seems like they could sleep easy knowing you're good in an emergency.

*Don't whine if you get a tough checkout. Bloody now means easier later.

*Special note if your a nuke type: Spend time with your buds in the cone. Just go sit hang out in sonar, the TR, the shack, the messdecks. You'll make friends and learn tons.

*As for watchstation quals, stand UI's whenever you can, not just whenever you must.

Good luck, sparky...

8/11/2008 2:48 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

17 out of 86 comments to this particular post (almost 20%) have come from Mr. Mulligan. And almost 75% of all of the words used in the 86 comments were from Mr. Mulligan. And Mr. Mulligan says virtually nothing that means anything with all those words. What a waste. And by the way, a mulligan is both something you get when you screw something up, and it's also something that gets flushed through the ball valve and into San1.

And why is it, Mr. Mulligan, that after seeing your blogsite, I get the feeling that you've made a career out of whistle blowing, not for the betterment of mankind, but for the financial betterment of Mr. Mulligan?

8/11/2008 12:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

To: EM3(SU)
Fr: MMC(SS)(Ret.)
SUBJ: Your quals

Get off the internet and study!


8/11/2008 3:21 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

From: EM3(SU)

If you had left the Goat Locker once in a while you might have actually retired with a little more rank! But...I guess that those above you already figured that one out!

To: Mike Mulligan.
I know that Bubblehead has created a blog that everyone can post comments freely on but I think that you should just STOP! Seriously, Just STOP! It is so freaking painful to read what you write that I just don't bother any more. you just sit at home all day and try and come up with the stupidest responses. Please do all of us regulars here a favor and Shut the &^%$ up!

8/11/2008 3:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry the anonymous at 3:45 had to hide behind my name. Thanks for all the tips.


8/11/2008 5:13 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

My biggest project was a 400 million dollar fraud issue….put a bunch on executives in jail. Did it for the fun of it….because it was the right thing to do.

Think of the interest I am playing with…the political interested and the defense establishment…the militarily careers…the whole ball of wax.

I see we have gotten our congressional investigation on the material and maintenance readiness of the fleet…and especially our submarine fleet. Is this the opening rounds of the restructuring of our Navy?

I think the fleet is in terrible conditions, with any world wide contingencies. I think it's in the interest of both political parties to hide it.

I heard this negativity so is so boring .

8/11/2008 8:47 PM

Blogger King said...

There are many many issues with the fleet in general and the submarine fleet in specific, but this isn't one of them. The congressional investigation is just to save political face with our ignorant allies (and general public).

I don't think there's anything here to blow the whistle on...

Also, Mr. Mulligan, where did you learn to write? Your prose is positively painful to peruse. Half the time I can't even really figure out what you're trying to say.

8/11/2008 10:02 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Mr. King,

I got this off your web page and you wrote it.

"What is the difference between a Jew and a pizza? Pizzas don't scream when they get in the oven."

Why did you put this joke on your web page and why do you think it’s funny?



Why his fixation on religion…do we have any religious Kings on this page?

“All that I see in comedy is that Catholics and Jews have the best jokes...

What does that tell you? One thing. Those Muslims do actually have it right.”

8/11/2008 11:15 PM

Anonymous The Tick said...

Quals? Spend every waking moment (when you're not doing nub stuff like smashing trash) working on watchstation quals. Think of it like grinding up your toon in WoW or whatever. Don't worry about your fish - if you've got a good rep, it will sort itself out. A typical boat is chock full of guys just doing the minimum to get by, so if you're the guy who volunteers to do stuff like coke runs, it will be hard for anyone back aft to think of you as a NON-useful body.

Finally, you're going to screw up from time to time. Don't make excuses or try to weasel out of it - then it becomes a whole different problem. Some people (a lot of whom go on to make chief) never learn that simple lesson and everyone suffers for it.

8/12/2008 7:08 AM

Blogger King said...

Actually, my blog is defunct someone just started a new one with the same name and it's still listed in my profile as my home page.

A quick check would reveal that blog is maintained in Tallahassee, FL by a college student, whereas my profile suggests that I'm a 27 year old Submarine Officer in Omaha, NE. You can even click on the profile from the blog and see that it is clearly a different person.

I suppose I could be posing as a submarine officer, just as you are posing as someone with first-hand knowledge of submarines and a basic understanding of the English language.

8/12/2008 7:10 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm all for voting Mike Mulligan off the "Island"!

8/12/2008 8:13 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Mr King,

Oh brother, I can’t write but I am not stupid. It’s completely keyed off your disclosed e-mail and a 8 digit comes up automatically on your profile.

That errant blog of yours has the same theme of anger and hated as your recent complaints about’s got your identical emotional tag on all of them.

8/12/2008 1:33 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, when you're a loser, everyone else looks like a bully.

Mulligan, you want to pretend you're a submariner? Lemme introduce you to one of our favorite customs. It involves EB green, pression blue, and not a little bit of sobbing on your part. Go elsewhere, troll bait, or get ready for a cyber-taping.

8/12/2008 8:08 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

You got much of a violence ideation in the modern sub fleet?

8/12/2008 8:29 PM

Anonymous The Tick said...

Ideation: the capacity for or the act of forming or entertaining ideas

Violence Ideation: Forming an entertaining idea about violence towards a loser troll wannabe like Mr. Mulligan.

Yes, I think your little pedantic display captures the moment perfectly.

8/13/2008 7:00 AM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

OK, this comment thread has clearly run itself out. Closing comments...

8/13/2008 7:48 AM


<< Home