tagged w/ Bomb Detection
-
ONE day, there may be more than X-ray machines and full-body scanners awaiting you at the airport. Listen out for the snuffling of sniffer mice as you pass through security.
The critters will not be angling for a snack, though. They are part of a bomb-detecting unit created by Israeli start-up company BioExplorers, based in Herzeliya, which claims that trained mice can be better than full-body scanners and intrusive pat-downs at telling a bona fide passenger from a terrorist carrying explosives.
Eran Lumbroso conceived the mouse-based explosives detector while serving as a major in the Israeli navy. Along with his brother, Alon, he founded the company and built a device that looks much like an average airport metal detector or full-body scanner.
Along one side of an archway, a detection unit contains three concealed cartridges, each of which houses eight mice. During their 4-hour shifts in the detector, the mice mill about in a common area in each cartridge as air is passed over people paused in the archway and through the cartridge. When the mice sniff traces of any of eight key explosives in the air, they are conditioned to avoid the scent and flee to a side chamber, triggering an alarm. To avoid false positives, more than one mouse must enter the room at the same time.
"It's as if they're smelling a cat and escaping," Eran says. "We detect the escape." Unlike dogs, which are often trained for explosives and drugs detection, mice don't require constant interaction with their trainers or treats to keep them motivated. As a result, they can live in comfortable cages with unlimited access to food and water. Each mouse would work two 4-hour shifts a day, and would have a working life of 18 months.
What's more, mice beat dogs for olfactory talent, and by much more than a nose: dogs have 756 olfactory receptor genes, while mice have 1120, resulting in a more acute sense of smell.
Attacks such as the recent bombing of Domodedovo airport in Moscow, Russia, are fuelling interest in exploring new methods for keeping travellers safe. Low-tech alternatives may appeal to people who fear new full-body scanners are exposing them to harmful radiation and invading their privacy. "Animals' noses are always a good solution, and the mice don't see you naked," says Bruce Schneier, who runs the blog Schneier on Security.
However, Schneier adds that there are drawbacks that could prevent their widespread use. For instance, their cages need regular cleaning, and new mice would have to be trained all the time because of their short working life. And while useful for explosives, they could never replace current baggage scanners and metal detectors.
Nonetheless, the company ran its first field test in December last year at Azrieli Center, a large shopping mall in Tel Aviv. More than 1000 people passed through the detector, 22 of whom were asked to hide mock explosives in pockets or under shirts. All 22 packages were detected, the Lumbrosos claim, adding that the false-alarm rate was less than 0.1 per cent.
Like a moth to an explosive
Moths have an exquisite sense of smell, so their ability to sniff out improvised explosive devices was recently tested by Andrew Myrick and Tom Baker at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.
The team built a detector using four live moths which were immobilised in thin, aerated tubes.
Different chemicals produce distinct voltages on the antennae that the moths use to sense aromas, so the team wired up the moths to record these levels.
Software inferred the explosive source's direction and distance based on the strength of signals coming from the insects. The detector was then able to home in on it to within 20 centimetres from 23 metres away.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927985.700-sniffer-mice-have-a-nose-for-explosives.htmlONE day, there may be more than X-ray machines and full-body scanners awaiting you at... more
-
-
Drones, metal detectors, chemical sniffers, and super spycams - forget ‘em. The leader of the Pentagon's multi-billion military task force to stop improvised bombs says there's nothing in the U.S. arsenal for bomb detection more powerful than a dog's nose.
Despite a slew of bomb-finding gagdets, the American military only locates about 50 percent of the improvised explosives planted in Afghanistan and Iraq. But that number jumps to 80 percent when U.S. and Afghan patrols take dogs along for a sniff-heavy walk. "Dogs are the best detectors," Lieutenant General Michael Oates, the commander of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, told a conference yesterday, National Defense reports. That's not the greatest admission for a well-funded organization - nearly $19 billion since 2004, according to a congressional committee - tasked with solving one of the military's wickedest problems.
Improvised explosive devices continue to rise in Afghanistan. There were 1,062 successful bomb attacks in the first eight months of 2010 there, compared to 820 during the previous period in 2009. Making matters worse in Afghanistan is the fact that most homemade bombs there are powered by fertilizers and chemicals, rendering metal detectors useless.
Picking up the chemical signature of those bombs should be relatively straightforward - just a matter of picking up the stray molecules that float away from unstable explosive material. In practice, it hasn't been so easy. In 1997, a young program manager at Darpa launched the "Dog's Nose" progam, to develop a bomb-sniffer as good as a canine's. Today, that program manager, Regina Dugan, runs the entire agency. And Darpa is still has a project on the books to "leverag[e] the components of the canine olfactory system to create a breakthrough detection system."
Detection is a "significant challenge," Oates tells National Defense.
So rather than continuing a potentially futile search for a silver bullet, JIEDDO is now recommending other, non-technological, ways to combat IEDs, such as improved training and deeper understanding of the local sociopolitical landscape where IED planters are created much faster than U.S. forces can find them.
And JIEDDO is still spending big money on gadgets to spy on and disrupt every part of the IED network. Drones in the skies over Afghanistan hunt teams of bomb-planting insurgents. Forensics teams match latent fingerprints on bombs with Afghan bad guys whose thumb-scans and eye-prints are stored in biometric databases. JIEDDO pays for radio jammers to stop the frequencies insurgents might use to detonate the bombs.
The Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar is a $138 million aircraft-mounted sensor that tracks moving targets like scampering insurgents from the skies. JIEDDO has also outfitted over 500 vehicles with special sensors to spot bombs at night (cost: $51 million); sponsored a "Wolfhound" sensor for dismounted infantrymen to detect insurgents' personal communication devices (cost: $15 million); and an "enhanced optics system" called Keyhole that helps marksmen hit their bombmaker targets (cost: undisclosed). At yesterday's conference, Oates said aerial sensors, particularly those creating full-motion video of bomb-heavy areas, were "enormously useful" in the fight against IEDs.
Congress, however, isn't pleased. In March, the House Armed Services Committee questioned how well JIEDDO spent the $18.77 billion it's received since its 2004 inception. "It is still difficult to associate funds spent with positive effects," the committee wrote in a memo critical of the organization's "inability to clearly articulate what it has been able to accomplish." Last month, the Senate Appropriations Committee, while supportive of JIEDDO overall, cut nearly $442 million out of the Pentagon's requested budget for the organization next year, finding that "certain programs" it operates "fall outside [an] IED-specific focus." That's in line with years of Hill disillusionment about the organization over its bureaucracy and dependence on contractors.
The core problem: the bombs are still proliferating - and not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but globally. According to statistics Darpa provided Danger Room last month, for the last six months, there have been an average of 273 monthly IED incidents around the world excluding Iraq and Afghanistan. It's hard to believe anyone would have such a problem with JIEDDO's budget if the threat from the cheap, easy-to-rig bombs were receding.
http://gizmodo.com/5670289/pentagon-spends-19-billion-only-to-discover-that-the-best-bomb+detector-is-a-dogDrones, metal detectors, chemical sniffers, and super spycams - forget ‘em. The... more
-
-
Getting caught up on this story from yesterday in the NY Times: Apparently security forces in Iraq are using bomb detecting "wands" that the Pentagon thinks are useless. All those checkpoints that are supposed to keep Iraq's cities safe from car bombs might not be having much of an effect at all.
The Iraqis, however, believe passionately in them. “Whether it’s magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,” said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior’s General Directorate for Combating Explosives.
Dale Murray, head of the National Explosive Engineering Sciences Security Center at Sandia Labs, which does testing for the Department of Defense, said the center had “tested several devices in this category, and none have ever performed better than random chance.”
Iraq is in the middle of a delicate transition period. Things have begun to seem more stable, less violent. US troops have pulled back to their bases, out of the cities. And blast walls in the capital have even come down. But with recent bombings in Baghdad - bomb detection is a really critical part of maintaining security. The New York Times described the wands as working on the "same principle as a Ouija board" - by the power of user suggestion.
On Tuesday, a guard and a driver for The New York Times, both licensed to carry firearms, drove through nine police checkpoints that were using the device. None of the checkpoint guards detected the two AK-47 rifles and ammunition inside the vehicle.
During an interview on Tuesday, General Jabiri challenged a Times reporter to test the ADE 651, placing a grenade and a machine pistol in plain view in his office. Despite two attempts, the wand did not detect the weapons when used by the reporter but did so each time it was used by a policeman.
“You need more training,” the general said.
Recently on the Current News Blog:
- 20 more weeks of unemployment
- Tune in tonight for Vanguard's Sri Lanka: Notes from a War on Terror
- 2009 election round-up: NYC, NY-23, NJ and VA, Maine
- The Real Recovery – A collaborative investigation
- Man Makes it Snow in China (Video)Getting caught up on this story from yesterday in the NY Times: Apparently security... more
-
-
Getting caught up on this story from yesterday in the NY Times: Apparently security forces in Iraq are using bomb detecting "wands" that the Pentagon thinks are useless. All those checkpoints that are supposed to keep Iraq's cities safe from car bombs might not be having much of an effect at all.
From the NY Times:
"The Iraqis, however, believe passionately in them. “Whether it’s magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,” said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior’s General Directorate for Combating Explosives. Dale Murray, head of the National Explosive Engineering Sciences Security Center at Sandia Labs, which does testing for the Department of Defense, said the center had “tested several devices in this category, and none have ever performed better than random chance.”
Iraq is in the middle of a delicate transition period. Things have begun to seem more stable, less violent. US troops have pulled back to their bases, out of the cities. And blast walls in the capital have even come down. But with recent bombings in Baghdad - bomb detection is a really critical part of maintaining security. The New York Times described the wands as working on the "same principle as a Ouija board" - by the power of user suggestion.
From the NY Times:
"On Tuesday, a guard and a driver for The New York Times, both licensed to carry firearms, drove through nine police checkpoints that were using the device. None of the checkpoint guards detected the two AK-47 rifles and ammunition inside the vehicle. During an interview on Tuesday, General Jabiri challenged a Times reporter to test the ADE 651, placing a grenade and a machine pistol in plain view in his office. Despite two attempts, the wand did not detect the weapons when used by the reporter but did so each time it was used by a policeman. “You need more training,” the general said."
On the Current News Blog: http://blogs.current.com/news/2009/11/05/iraqs-bomb-detectors-are-useless/
The story in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html
Image: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/11/04/world/04sensors_CA1.htmlGetting caught up on this story from yesterday in the NY Times: Apparently security... more
-
-
Investigators carrying bomb-making equipment passed through U.S. airport security checkpoints without detection, the Government Accountability Office said Wednesday.
It added devices built from the smuggled ingredients could have caused "severe damage to an airplane and threatened the safety of passengers."Investigators carrying bomb-making equipment passed through U.S. airport security... more
-
