<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Human voice heard underwater last night in San Juans</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/</link>
	<description>Environmental reporter Christopher Dunagan discusses the challenges of protecting Puget Sound and all things water-related.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:37:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tripps</title>
		<link>http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/comment-page-1/#comment-8325</link>
		<dc:creator>Tripps</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/?p=1781#comment-8325</guid>
		<description>I think the most important point Johhny B is trying to make is that there were whales nearby which DO get hurt by mid-range sonar pings in close proximity.  The Navy could easily have found out there were several cetaceans close by, but they CHOSE not to.

This test could have been rescheduled or moved to a place or time that would allow for the San Fran to test her new sonar without blasting out the eardrums of the whales.

It&#039;s not a question of sailors vs. whales; we all want our brave servicemembers to be safe as they do their jobs.  It&#039;s a question of when the powers that be in the Navy are going to start respecting the sea life in the waters they patrol.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the most important point Johhny B is trying to make is that there were whales nearby which DO get hurt by mid-range sonar pings in close proximity.  The Navy could easily have found out there were several cetaceans close by, but they CHOSE not to.</p>
<p>This test could have been rescheduled or moved to a place or time that would allow for the San Fran to test her new sonar without blasting out the eardrums of the whales.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not a question of sailors vs. whales; we all want our brave servicemembers to be safe as they do their jobs.  It&#8217;s a question of when the powers that be in the Navy are going to start respecting the sea life in the waters they patrol.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NONYA</title>
		<link>http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/comment-page-1/#comment-8230</link>
		<dc:creator>NONYA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:37:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/?p=1781#comment-8230</guid>
		<description>Jim C, thank you! Johnny B I wish you had a better understanding of how sumbarines really work. I get the impression that your experience of Navigation at sea is very limited. ALL submarines do have active sonar. As I stated before in a previous post (which you seemed to have missed time and time again) Sonar&#039;s primary purpose is NOT for navigation. Its to prevent the submarine from running into anything unexpected. 

A GPS fix is only good for as long as you are recieveing the signal. Once you submerge you must rely on your Gyro and your Dead Reckoning to Navigate. Now neither of those will tell you when you are too close to a foriegn object... only Sonar can do that. Quit confusing the reason the Navy uses sonar.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim C, thank you! Johnny B I wish you had a better understanding of how sumbarines really work. I get the impression that your experience of Navigation at sea is very limited. ALL submarines do have active sonar. As I stated before in a previous post (which you seemed to have missed time and time again) Sonar&#8217;s primary purpose is NOT for navigation. Its to prevent the submarine from running into anything unexpected. </p>
<p>A GPS fix is only good for as long as you are recieveing the signal. Once you submerge you must rely on your Gyro and your Dead Reckoning to Navigate. Now neither of those will tell you when you are too close to a foriegn object&#8230; only Sonar can do that. Quit confusing the reason the Navy uses sonar.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim C.</title>
		<link>http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/comment-page-1/#comment-8214</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim C.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/?p=1781#comment-8214</guid>
		<description>Johnny B., obviously, your knowledge of submarines is limited:

&quot;But let’s make a few things clear—active sonar is NOT required for safe navigation by submarines. Ballistic submarines for example don’t even have active sonar! Submarines have several ways to determine location without the use of any sonar–they can get a GPS fix prior to submerging, they can rely on their inertial guidance systems, and when entering/exiting ports, many times submarines will rely on pilot vessels to guide them through. When submerged, submarines can use their gyrocompasses to get a location fix. In the case of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, where water depth is more than adequate to avoid any surface ships, they can also utilize bottom contour mapping using hydrographic data.&quot;

Just some clarification from someone who actually understands and has practiced submarine navigation:

- All submarines, including the Ohio class, do have a piece of active sonar. It is called the fathometer. 

- Submarines do not use &quot;pilot vessels&quot; to exit/enter the Strait. 

- Gyrocompasses do not fix a submarines posistion.

- Bottom contour mapping requires the use of a fathometer as well as updated chart information, which is aquired best by using side-scan sonar from survey vessels.

- the area that submarines conduct post overhaul sea trials is not so deep and avoidance of surface vessels in that area as well as the entire Strait is paramount.

- This area has been used by submarines for many, many decades. The first time I used it was in 1983.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Johnny B., obviously, your knowledge of submarines is limited:</p>
<p>&#8220;But let’s make a few things clear—active sonar is NOT required for safe navigation by submarines. Ballistic submarines for example don’t even have active sonar! Submarines have several ways to determine location without the use of any sonar–they can get a GPS fix prior to submerging, they can rely on their inertial guidance systems, and when entering/exiting ports, many times submarines will rely on pilot vessels to guide them through. When submerged, submarines can use their gyrocompasses to get a location fix. In the case of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, where water depth is more than adequate to avoid any surface ships, they can also utilize bottom contour mapping using hydrographic data.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just some clarification from someone who actually understands and has practiced submarine navigation:</p>
<p>- All submarines, including the Ohio class, do have a piece of active sonar. It is called the fathometer. </p>
<p>- Submarines do not use &#8220;pilot vessels&#8221; to exit/enter the Strait. </p>
<p>- Gyrocompasses do not fix a submarines posistion.</p>
<p>- Bottom contour mapping requires the use of a fathometer as well as updated chart information, which is aquired best by using side-scan sonar from survey vessels.</p>
<p>- the area that submarines conduct post overhaul sea trials is not so deep and avoidance of surface vessels in that area as well as the entire Strait is paramount.</p>
<p>- This area has been used by submarines for many, many decades. The first time I used it was in 1983.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Granny</title>
		<link>http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/comment-page-1/#comment-8187</link>
		<dc:creator>Granny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 03:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/?p=1781#comment-8187</guid>
		<description>Do you people really think these Sailors don&#039;t care about marine mammals? Do you really believe they want to negatively impact this environment that they share with you, AND their family and friends? Do you really think they are unfeeling robots, the same people willing to risk their lives unconditionally, day in and day out for ALL of us- no questions asked?  We would all love to live in a world where there was no greed, and we all got along. I&#039;m disappointed that some of you feel the risks already taken for us aren&#039;t enough.  You have the rights you do, because these men and women protect those rights.  Any military person reading this, THANK YOU for all you do for me and my family and friends.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you people really think these Sailors don&#8217;t care about marine mammals? Do you really believe they want to negatively impact this environment that they share with you, AND their family and friends? Do you really think they are unfeeling robots, the same people willing to risk their lives unconditionally, day in and day out for ALL of us- no questions asked?  We would all love to live in a world where there was no greed, and we all got along. I&#8217;m disappointed that some of you feel the risks already taken for us aren&#8217;t enough.  You have the rights you do, because these men and women protect those rights.  Any military person reading this, THANK YOU for all you do for me and my family and friends.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johnny B</title>
		<link>http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/comment-page-1/#comment-8184</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnny B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/?p=1781#comment-8184</guid>
		<description>Nonya, I will agree with you on one point--there has to be better technology that will allow submarines to do what they do without causing harm to marine life. 

 But let&#039;s make a few things clear---active sonar is NOT required for safe navigation by submarines.  Ballistic submarines for example don&#039;t even have active sonar!  Submarines have several ways to determine location without the use of any sonar--they can get a GPS fix prior to submerging, they can rely on their inertial guidance systems, and when entering/exiting ports, many times  submarines will rely on pilot vessels to guide them through.  When submerged, submarines can use their gyrocompasses to get a location fix.  In the case of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, where water depth is more than adequate to avoid any surface ships, they can also utilize bottom contour mapping using hydrographic data.  

In this particular case, a surface vessel was in attendance with the submarine.  So the use of active sonar to detect any vessels in the area was not required.  The submarine was in regular contact with the surface vessel as evidenced by the communications picked up between the two vessels.  

The important point to take from all the uproar about this is simple--the Navy has the ability to easily confirm the presence of marine mammals, whether they be harbor porpoise, minke whales, gray whales, transient orcas, or the recently listed Southern Resident Orca Whale (on the Endangered Species list).  Yet the Navy hasn&#039;t had the best record of behavior in this regard.  2003, the USS Shoup repeatedly used mid-frequency sonar with whales in view of their vessel.  In 2005, a Naval helicopter hovered so low over a group of orcas for a photo op with a guest on their helicopter that the rotors were creating a mini-storm on the water.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nonya, I will agree with you on one point&#8211;there has to be better technology that will allow submarines to do what they do without causing harm to marine life. </p>
<p> But let&#8217;s make a few things clear&#8212;active sonar is NOT required for safe navigation by submarines.  Ballistic submarines for example don&#8217;t even have active sonar!  Submarines have several ways to determine location without the use of any sonar&#8211;they can get a GPS fix prior to submerging, they can rely on their inertial guidance systems, and when entering/exiting ports, many times  submarines will rely on pilot vessels to guide them through.  When submerged, submarines can use their gyrocompasses to get a location fix.  In the case of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, where water depth is more than adequate to avoid any surface ships, they can also utilize bottom contour mapping using hydrographic data.  </p>
<p>In this particular case, a surface vessel was in attendance with the submarine.  So the use of active sonar to detect any vessels in the area was not required.  The submarine was in regular contact with the surface vessel as evidenced by the communications picked up between the two vessels.  </p>
<p>The important point to take from all the uproar about this is simple&#8211;the Navy has the ability to easily confirm the presence of marine mammals, whether they be harbor porpoise, minke whales, gray whales, transient orcas, or the recently listed Southern Resident Orca Whale (on the Endangered Species list).  Yet the Navy hasn&#8217;t had the best record of behavior in this regard.  2003, the USS Shoup repeatedly used mid-frequency sonar with whales in view of their vessel.  In 2005, a Naval helicopter hovered so low over a group of orcas for a photo op with a guest on their helicopter that the rotors were creating a mini-storm on the water.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NONYA</title>
		<link>http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/comment-page-1/#comment-8174</link>
		<dc:creator>NONYA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/?p=1781#comment-8174</guid>
		<description>Okay, lets take a few things into consideration as I attempt to answer some of your questions Mr. Johnny B. I dont know of any descrepancies noted within the array recordings. The fact that the stronger signal shifted to different arrays doesnt mean anything. you can attribute that to a number of things such as beam width, direction, signal strength transmitted, water salinity and density..

Sonar IS REQUIRED for safe operation of a Submarine. Surface ships have the ability to fix their position within a few feet however Submarines can only do that when they are on the surface and recieving GPS. Sonar&#039;s primary function is not to Navigate on anyways, its to ensure that you dont run into anything bad (Such as the many container ships that utilize the straits or small pleasure craft). 

I am not arguing the fact that it CAN do damage... anything can. Be it in the water or your neighbors kids car. The point is that if you have 2 risks; one to possibly injure a whale... one to possibly injure 160 men who put their lives on the line every day to protect our freedoms: Which one do you think we should chose? Clearly neither is acceptable... but you HAVE to chose one... You cant just say.. Oh, no more Sonar. It doesnt yet work that way. Come up with a viable solution and people will listen instead of calling foul and jumping up and down.

The Navy shouldnt (And does not) require citizens permission to utilize sonar for legitimate purposes. In this case, the testing of a freshly repaired Submarine is more than a just reason. Look up the USS San Fancisco history... look at the pictures and see what could have been avoided had they been using this active sonar that you so greatly despise. 

No one likes the possiblity that marine life COULD be harmed. We could just as easily (Probably with about the same percentage of occurance I would be willing to bet) accidently RAM into a whale, but I dont hear anyone saying &quot;Dont patrol our waters because you might slam into a living creature&quot;. Its a calculated risk assesment and when it comes to Human life verses Animal life, animals lose. 

We should focus our attention on developing new technology and or methods that benefit both sides of the argument instead of watching the Navy and waiting to cry foul. Just my 2 cents.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, lets take a few things into consideration as I attempt to answer some of your questions Mr. Johnny B. I dont know of any descrepancies noted within the array recordings. The fact that the stronger signal shifted to different arrays doesnt mean anything. you can attribute that to a number of things such as beam width, direction, signal strength transmitted, water salinity and density..</p>
<p>Sonar IS REQUIRED for safe operation of a Submarine. Surface ships have the ability to fix their position within a few feet however Submarines can only do that when they are on the surface and recieving GPS. Sonar&#8217;s primary function is not to Navigate on anyways, its to ensure that you dont run into anything bad (Such as the many container ships that utilize the straits or small pleasure craft). </p>
<p>I am not arguing the fact that it CAN do damage&#8230; anything can. Be it in the water or your neighbors kids car. The point is that if you have 2 risks; one to possibly injure a whale&#8230; one to possibly injure 160 men who put their lives on the line every day to protect our freedoms: Which one do you think we should chose? Clearly neither is acceptable&#8230; but you HAVE to chose one&#8230; You cant just say.. Oh, no more Sonar. It doesnt yet work that way. Come up with a viable solution and people will listen instead of calling foul and jumping up and down.</p>
<p>The Navy shouldnt (And does not) require citizens permission to utilize sonar for legitimate purposes. In this case, the testing of a freshly repaired Submarine is more than a just reason. Look up the USS San Fancisco history&#8230; look at the pictures and see what could have been avoided had they been using this active sonar that you so greatly despise. </p>
<p>No one likes the possiblity that marine life COULD be harmed. We could just as easily (Probably with about the same percentage of occurance I would be willing to bet) accidently RAM into a whale, but I dont hear anyone saying &#8220;Dont patrol our waters because you might slam into a living creature&#8221;. Its a calculated risk assesment and when it comes to Human life verses Animal life, animals lose. </p>
<p>We should focus our attention on developing new technology and or methods that benefit both sides of the argument instead of watching the Navy and waiting to cry foul. Just my 2 cents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orca Network</title>
		<link>http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/comment-page-1/#comment-8169</link>
		<dc:creator>Orca Network</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/?p=1781#comment-8169</guid>
		<description>The fact the sonar was taking place in the Strait of Juan de Fuca rather than Haro Strait is even more disturbing because 1) that is where the reports of Transients, a minke, &amp; 2 gray whales were; &amp; 2) if the sonar was happening in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, &amp; it was being picked up so loudly at Lime Kiln &amp; NW San Juan Island, then it must have been much louder closer to the source in the Strait...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fact the sonar was taking place in the Strait of Juan de Fuca rather than Haro Strait is even more disturbing because 1) that is where the reports of Transients, a minke, &amp; 2 gray whales were; &amp; 2) if the sonar was happening in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, &amp; it was being picked up so loudly at Lime Kiln &amp; NW San Juan Island, then it must have been much louder closer to the source in the Strait&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/comment-page-1/#comment-8167</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/?p=1781#comment-8167</guid>
		<description>4 8 15 16 23 42</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>4 8 15 16 23 42</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johnny B</title>
		<link>http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/comment-page-1/#comment-8160</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnny B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/?p=1781#comment-8160</guid>
		<description>OK, first off--if the Navy was indeed operating in the Strait of Juan de Fuca as claimed, why the discrepancy in the recordings on the arrays.  At one point, the strongest returns were being picked up by the Lime Kiln array.  Shortly thereafter, the hydrophone at Orcasound (nearer to Kellett Bluff on Henry Island) was the stronger signal carrier.  Then orcasound faded and Lime Kiln grew stronger again.  

Even more worrisome, if these recording (of which I submitted several) were of naval ships operating out in the Straits, how loud were the pings at the locus of sound?  There were multiple reports of transients near and around Race Rocks just 2 hours before the start of operations by the naval ships.  It would only have taken the Navy a minute to call Orca Network, The Center for Whale Research, or even just scan the VHF for whale watch vessels talking to each other to discover that whales were in the area.  Not to mention all the porpoises, gray whales, and minke whales that are all in the area right now.

Ships can operate without the use of mid-frequency sonar.  Contrary to what Nonya states, the use of sonar is not required to safely operate a submarine.  With today&#039;s modern technology, military ships can fix their locations within a few feet.  And no, mid-frequency is not just an annoyance--It kills.  It&#039;s not just loud.  Try 250db loud.  Enough to burst eardrums, and in a cetacean, that leads to disorientation and death.  Those of us listening into the hydrophones had the ability to turn down the volume when the pinging started.  The whales and other cetaceans don&#039;t have that ability.  

I have the utmost of respect for those who serve and put their lives on the line to protect my freedoms.  But this was another example of an avoidable mistake on the part of the Navy operating in a sensitive marine ecosystem.  Next time Navy--make the call before you start blasting your sonar.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, first off&#8211;if the Navy was indeed operating in the Strait of Juan de Fuca as claimed, why the discrepancy in the recordings on the arrays.  At one point, the strongest returns were being picked up by the Lime Kiln array.  Shortly thereafter, the hydrophone at Orcasound (nearer to Kellett Bluff on Henry Island) was the stronger signal carrier.  Then orcasound faded and Lime Kiln grew stronger again.  </p>
<p>Even more worrisome, if these recording (of which I submitted several) were of naval ships operating out in the Straits, how loud were the pings at the locus of sound?  There were multiple reports of transients near and around Race Rocks just 2 hours before the start of operations by the naval ships.  It would only have taken the Navy a minute to call Orca Network, The Center for Whale Research, or even just scan the VHF for whale watch vessels talking to each other to discover that whales were in the area.  Not to mention all the porpoises, gray whales, and minke whales that are all in the area right now.</p>
<p>Ships can operate without the use of mid-frequency sonar.  Contrary to what Nonya states, the use of sonar is not required to safely operate a submarine.  With today&#8217;s modern technology, military ships can fix their locations within a few feet.  And no, mid-frequency is not just an annoyance&#8211;It kills.  It&#8217;s not just loud.  Try 250db loud.  Enough to burst eardrums, and in a cetacean, that leads to disorientation and death.  Those of us listening into the hydrophones had the ability to turn down the volume when the pinging started.  The whales and other cetaceans don&#8217;t have that ability.  </p>
<p>I have the utmost of respect for those who serve and put their lives on the line to protect my freedoms.  But this was another example of an avoidable mistake on the part of the Navy operating in a sensitive marine ecosystem.  Next time Navy&#8211;make the call before you start blasting your sonar.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NONYA</title>
		<link>http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/04/08/human-voice-heard-underwater-last-night-in-san-juans/comment-page-1/#comment-8156</link>
		<dc:creator>NONYA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/?p=1781#comment-8156</guid>
		<description>Whats so significant about underwater communications and sonar pings being heard? Why are you people making such a big deal about this, seriously? I understand your concern for the sea life in the area however I feel that the majority of you dont truly understand the reasoning behind the use of this technology and how it is REQUIRED to safely operate a submarine. Ever try driving your car blindfolded? So say you guys &quot;Win&quot; and the Navy stops using active sonar pings; who is to blame when they accidently have a collision at sea? What if that collision at sea happens to take some human life? Sure, if you are close to the source of the noise, its going to be loud. It wont kill you. Its one hell of an anoyance I am sure... but I would rather annoy some sea life than lose the lives of those who are defending my freedom or innocent civilians out enjoying the beautifull scenery our area has to offer. 

Theres nothing sinister about this. Just a Submarine testing its repaired equipment. Equipment that saves their lives, others lives, and in the long run.. maybe your life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whats so significant about underwater communications and sonar pings being heard? Why are you people making such a big deal about this, seriously? I understand your concern for the sea life in the area however I feel that the majority of you dont truly understand the reasoning behind the use of this technology and how it is REQUIRED to safely operate a submarine. Ever try driving your car blindfolded? So say you guys &#8220;Win&#8221; and the Navy stops using active sonar pings; who is to blame when they accidently have a collision at sea? What if that collision at sea happens to take some human life? Sure, if you are close to the source of the noise, its going to be loud. It wont kill you. Its one hell of an anoyance I am sure&#8230; but I would rather annoy some sea life than lose the lives of those who are defending my freedom or innocent civilians out enjoying the beautifull scenery our area has to offer. </p>
<p>Theres nothing sinister about this. Just a Submarine testing its repaired equipment. Equipment that saves their lives, others lives, and in the long run.. maybe your life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
