Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Science

Super-Sensitive Spray-On Explosive Detector 154

Posted by kdawson from the pssssst-bang dept.
esocid writes "US scientists have designed a new spray-on explosive detector sensitive enough to detect just a billionth of a gram of (nitrogen-containing) explosive. After treatment, the explosive glows blue under UV light, making the detector perfect for use in the field. The silafluorene-fluorene copolymer can detect explosives at much lower levels than existing systems because it detects particles instead of explosive vapors, and is able to show the difference between nitrate esters (trinitroglycerin) and nitroaromatic explosives (TNT). The team is currently working on a similar system to detect peroxide-based explosives and say they hope to be able to investigate perchlorates and organic nitrates, too."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Super-Sensitive Spray-On Explosive Detector More

Super-Sensitive Spray-On Explosive Detector

Comments Filter:

  • This Just In... (Score:4, Funny)

    by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @11:28AM (#23518956) Homepage
    Explosive material found on every bedsheet of every hotel in America!

  • Won't this creat a lot of false positives? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @11:29AM (#23518968) Journal
    95% percent of our paper money contains microscopic amounts of cocaine, imagine if we use such sensitive equipment to detect it. We'd all be locked up. Mmmm...maybe that's the intention.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by argent ( 18001 )
      I thought cocaine could only blow your mind. It's explosive too?

    • DOS attack (Score:5, Interesting)

      by snsh ( 968808 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @11:39AM (#23519104)
      I never understood what happens when an airport baggage handler gets a second job as a landscaper, and comes to work every day covered in nitrates, and spreads it on everyone's luggages? How do chemical detectors deal with all these sources of noise?
      • How do chemical detectors deal with all these sources of noise?

        They reduce the sensitivity.

      • Re:DOS attack (Score:4, Insightful)

        by pilgrim23 ( 716938 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @12:08PM (#23519512)
        by Hobby I handload. That is, I create special rounds in obscure calibers and target shoot. I realize few here would share my hobby, or understand it. Being technically minded in the geek science of ballistics does NOT brand me a terrorist in my eyes, but this would do so on the waterboards of Homeland Security. This is what we have come to?

      • Re:DOS attack (Score:4, Informative)

        by Hojima ( 1228978 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @12:20PM (#23519690)
        I don't think it'll be used to detect what contains an explosive or not. It's too sensitive for that, and dogs could probably do a better job. I think this would be for post examination of an explosion, or to determine the composition of a bomb that needs deactivation and assessment (RTFA). Even cleaning products could set it off, so it'll be used in an occasion where people know that there is/was an explosive.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Znorty ( 1134337 )
          If the tech exists, the bureaucrats will use it. my stepfather witnessed an annual Guy Fawkes fireworks display in London, and then several days later flew 14,467km back to Australia. after taking several more modes of transport home he was arrested in one of the smallest airports in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnarvon_Airport) for having nitro explosives on him (a result of an explosive scanner detecting fireworks residue on his jeans). the ridiculousness of this is obvious, but i'm sure many

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TheLink ( 130905 )
        How about if someone just goes to the airport to see a friend off with the relevant residues on his hands and just touches door handles, taps, etc then goes back home without trying to board a plane.

        If it's that sensitive, then lots of people would get flagged.

        • How about if someone just goes to the airport to see a friend off with the relevant residues on his hands and just touches door handles, taps, etc then goes back home without trying to board a plane.

          There are plenty of sources of false positives. A number of years ago (I think about 2001, but I'm not sure if it was before or after 11/9), some friends of mine were going on a caving holiday in China. The party met up at the house of the person who lives closest to the airport the night before to do final pack

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by EMeta ( 860558 )
      Exactly. In fact, some of the offending explosives sprayed undetectably into several check-in lines in the late-adopting airports would soon infect 20% of the entire luggage-transporting infrastructure. Sure, terrorists could never get it all off themselves, but then neither could anyone else.
      • > Sure, terrorists could never get it all off themselves, but then neither could
        > anyone else.

        Are you sure?

        Actually I think the terrorist has the best chance. So they adopt clean room style techniques to separate production of explosives from packaging them. Produce the explosives, produce the other componenats. seal them in a plastic layer... hand off to a clean person at the door who takes it to a clean room, tosses it in a tub to be washed, and leaves it to the next guy who has never been to a room full of explosives with all clean clothes to sew it into a bag or other operation.

        They can even do test runs where they just test moving something innocuous that they bag up and try to fly with and see if it picks up residue. As long as it looks like a false positive, they get their information.

        I don't really think any number of technological measures will ever stop a determined attacker who can choose his methods and his time.

        -Steve

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by mdvandam ( 1229908 )
          Chage the external politics, and forget about terrorism. don't make enemys

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gat0r30y ( 957941 )
      One would hope that they would be intelligent about it and only use the stuff on "abandoned luggage" they find about the airport to determine whether or not to call in the bomb squad.
      Of course this would require prudence and an ounce of sense from the TSA - I wouldn't count on it. In fact I bet this is used in the most inconvenient, ridiculous, and stupid manner possible. Like perhaps aerosolizing the stuff all about and making everyone walk under a black light so as to maximize the time it takes to g
    • And let's not forget all the heart disease patients -- lots of them take nitrates. I take one nitrate drug (Imdur) daily, and occasionally take nitroglycerine; the latter would, practically by definition, set off any sensitive explosive detector.

  • Fun airport prank (Score:3, Funny)

    by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @11:32AM (#23518992) Journal
    Sprinkle peroxide on everybody's luggage.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheCarp ( 96830 ) *
      actually, I was thinking more fun would be to get you rhands on the chemicals that are used to train dogs to smell for drugs. A few tiny sprays of "Ode de Cocaine" should keep them busy for a while.

      -Steve

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tambo ( 310170 )
      The day that an airline tells me they want to spritz me with some random crap as part of their screening procedure is the day that I stop flying.

      Everyone has a limit beyond which flying, no matter how convenient, is just not an option. This is (one of) mine.

      - David Stein

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Z00L00K ( 682162 )
        Just wait a few years and it will get so expensive to travel that you think about growing your own potatoes...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z00L00K ( 682162 )
      Even better - check which water plant that provides the airport with water and add a mix of compounds to the water. You will get traces everywhere - spread by the cleaners and everybody visiting the toilet.

      But this may be the way to go to catch people that didn't wash their hands after their business at the toilet!

  • Anyone think there's enough references to CSI: Miami? Seriously though, this seems like a good idea overall, however I'm thinking that we shall see this in the future at the airports. Extended wait periods to test for explosives like this.

  • how about glycerin (Score:3, Interesting)

    by utnapistim ( 931738 ) <dan.barbus@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Friday May 23, 2008 @11:32AM (#23519008) Homepage
    So, can it detect glycerin? I think it's found in many skin care products.

    Then again, is there any information on the number of false positives of this thing?

    • The polymer is able to show the difference between nitrate esters, such as trinitroglycerin, and nitroaromatic explosives, such as TNT.
      Apparently the esters glow green under UV whilst the TNT will glow blue. Meanwhile I guess my awesome UV Blue Reflective Luggage is no longer of much use.
      One would hope this will reduce false positives, but i just fertilized my lawn so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mikael ( 484 )
        What wabout those washing powders which give that whiter-than-white look to clothes - they have chemicals which make clothes glow under UV light (a cool high-school experiment).

        • What wabout those washing powders which give that whiter-than-white look to clothes - they have chemicals which make clothes glow under UV light (a cool high-school experiment).

          OBA - Optical Brightening Agent. There aren't that many compositions in use, and they have fairly distinctive spectral outputs. A suitable choice of UV source wavelength and appropriate filters for viewing the targets would allow quite adequate discrimination.

          Of course, some retard will then end up replacing the specified UV lamp wit

    • Re:how about glycerin (Score:5, Informative)

      by Atraxen ( 790188 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @12:10PM (#23519538)
      You've fallen into the most common problem non-chemists have when reading about chemistry. Glycerin is NOT the same thing as trinitroglycerin. The reactivities aren't even close, and the structures have significant differences which lead to very different behaviors. Another comment also treated household hydrogen peroxide as equivalent to all other peroxides, and assumed they would all be detected the same way (this shows the same misconception, but is accidentally more correct than the parent comment...)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycerin [wikipedia.org]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitroglycerin [wikipedia.org]

      Remember folks, if you're chemically untrained the WHOLE word is what you should be looking for (there is structural info in the name, and that helps give rise to the properties we observe, but interpreting structures into behavior is tricky even for professional chemists....) Some analogous circumstances which arise from noticing a word fragment and extrapolating.....
      screw = screwdriver
      son = sonogram
      hill = hillary
      bus = business

      I'm sure there are better examples, but hopefully I've made the point.
      • That was well written. Specifically where you say "if you're chemically untrained the WHOLE word is what you should be looking for" instead of the more common "if you are [random profession] untrained, you cannot possibly understand anything about the field, so don't try and take my word for it."
      • Google asked if I meant "silafluofen" when I typed "silafluorene" in. This [pesticideinfo.org] database says silafluofen is a pesticide. Who wants to be spraying a pesticide on everything?
    • So, can it detect glycerin? I think it's found in many skin care products.

      It certainly is, but as Atraxen says, that's not anywhere close to trinitroglycerin -- so your K-Y and/or Astroglide won't get you in trouble.

      rj

  • if this cuts down the line at the airport - and hopefully, also cut down the cost of detection and security, then I'm all for it.

    I think the current system of security at the airport is woefully inadequate. There seems to be too much reliance on human intelligence for detection - with all the problems that brings with it, it's time consuming, and resource hungry. In the end, to me at least, it seems more for show (i.e. relying on prevention) then on detection, making everyone a suspect.

    Some airports p

    • Re:will it cut down the line at the airport? (Score:5, Informative)

      by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @11:56AM (#23519356)

      Security Theater is just that -- a system designed to placate the public that "something is being done" by giving the perception that it's safe to fly. But a certain number of guns, knives, and God knows what else still make it through every day.

      You cannot have truly secure airport security without going Israeli-style (i.e., checkpoints a mile away from the terminal, multiple interviewers asking you about your trip and then comparing notes, open pretty much EVERY bag and asking the passengers about the contents, etc.). Yes -- I've flown internationally thru Ben Guiron Airport in Tel Aviv and checking in for the flight back to the States took about 3 hours (and this wasn't even El Al -- it was Continental). It's incompatible with the current American expectation of not being racially profiled and of getting thru security within 20 minutes.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by neBelcnU ( 663059 )
        Agreed: You want to do it right, you need to model the operations of Israeli airport/airline security.

        The impressive thing was the flight INTO IL: Transferring in the EU, over an hour before boarding, 2 cars pulled up to the plane and unloaded non-uniformed armed security who inspected, then surrounded the plane, and remained in sight of each other at all times. This was long before we saw the security crew for us appear and setup their podia to perform the aforementioned interviews. The interview was ver
        • My guess is that the young women were probably IDF (Israeli army). All Israelis have mandatory three-year service (two years for women) in the IDF.
    • I don't think they're planning to use this as a general screening method for luggage - it sounds to me like it's probably more applicable to more invasive baggage checks. So if you're on a watch list, look shifty, or are a randomly picked lucky winner your stuff gets the spray-test treatment. That's purely speculation on my part based on a quick read of TFA.
    • Woefully inadequet? When exactly was the last time a US plane was hijacked? When was the last one brought down? What is the signifigance of the impact of the dead from airplane crashes due to terrorist action in relation to say, traffic accidents?

      It looks to me like airoort security is FAR tighter than it ever needed to be. The simple fact is, there just isn't that much of a call for keeping bombs off planes
      . Its more a demand problem really. There are plenty of planes to blow up, not shortage at all, just a very low demand for blowing them up. So low that it doesn't happen still, even with the lax and weak security theater going on at the "checkpoints"

      Its a non-issue. Seriously, spend more time worrying about your cholesterol and keeping your driving skills sharp, those are far bigger dangers to you.

      -Steve

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by plague3106 ( 71849 )
        Woefully inadequet? When exactly was the last time a US plane was hijacked? When was the last one brought down? What is the signifigance of the impact of the dead from airplane crashes due to terrorist action in relation to say, traffic accidents?

        Ya know, ever since I put this rock that repeled tigers in my yard, there have been no tiger attacks in all of VT! And my wife laughed at me when I bought it. Sure showed her..

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Belial6 ( 794905 )
        It gets even worse when you consider that an RPG could easily be used from the ground to blow up planes on take off or landing. I'm sure that someone with even a modicum of military hardware knowledge could list off plenty of other accessible weapons that could do an even more reliable job at taking out a plane from the ground.
        • ? Um, RPGs suck ass at hitting a moving target. Even one directly in front coming at the firer. Now, a Stinger missile system maybe.
  • So, if I'm reading this correctly (and I'm quite possibly not), does this mean we can all expect to be sprayed before boarding a plane in the near future?

    • So, if I'm reading this correctly (and I'm quite possibly not), does this mean we can all expect to be sprayed before boarding a plane in the near future?
      And detained. If it's as sensitive as TFA says it is, it will be found on _everybody_.

    • So, if I'm reading this correctly (and I'm quite possibly not), does this mean we can all expect to be sprayed before boarding a plane in the near future?

      Not quite.

      If this technique is deployed (a big "if"), then you can expect to be sprayed with a co-polymer solution of several quite active-sounding chemicals ; I don't think the article specified the solvent used ; the solution will then need to be dried off, obviously leaving a residue of the co-polymers some other monomers on your skin and goods. Finally

  • Nitrogen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bovius ( 1243040 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @11:34AM (#23519030)
    The article isn't terribly specific about which nitrogen compounds react to the spray, only providing a couple of examples. If I worked in my garden 5 days before a flight, am I going to get hazed by TSA because I didn't eliminate every last speck of fertilizer from my clothes?

    • The article isn't terribly specific about which nitrogen compounds react to the spray, only providing a couple of examples. If I worked in my garden 5 days before a flight, am I going to get hazed by TSA because I didn't eliminate every last speck of fertilizer from my clothes?

      If you intend to get on another plane smelling like fertilizer again, I swear on everything holy that I will beat you under the flotation device again. But this time I won't let them put the oxygen mask on you.

    • The article isn't terribly specific about which nitrogen compounds react to the spray, only providing a couple of examples. If I worked in my garden 5 days before a flight, am I going to get Tazed by TSA because I didn't eliminate every last speck of fertilizer from my clothes?
      There, fixed your question for ya. Your welcome!

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by dugjohnson ( 920519 )

        The article isn't terribly specific about which nitrogen compounds react to the spray, only providing a couple of examples. If I worked in my garden 5 days before a flight, am I going to get Tazed by TSA because I didn't eliminate every last speck of fertilizer from my clothes?
        There, fixed your question for ya. You're welcome!
        There, fixed your welcome for you. No, no, it was my pleasure.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Speare ( 84249 )

      am I going to get Tazed by TSA because I didn't eliminate every last speck of fertilizer

      There, fixed your typo.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Moraelin ( 679338 )
      Actually, I'd also worry if I were you, if you've played cards or pingpong, or played guitar (if the guitar itself isn't lacquered with it, the guitar pick is made of the damn thing), or if you've held hands with your SO who uses nail polish, or a few other cases. That's for nitrocellulose alone, best known as guncotton and the primary component in cordite. (Modern gunpowder, sorta.) Also the primary component in celluloid, hence the above list.

      IIRC the UK has a famous case where they threw 3 Irish guys in
    • What else flouresces blue under that kind of light? I wonder if there's a possible false positive from some other compound totally unrelated to the spray or explosives?
    • Likewise for those with heart problems who use Glyceryl Trinitrate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyceryl_trinitrate_(pharmacology) [wikipedia.org] to ease angina pains. I can just imagine walking into a fairly busy airport terminal, having a mild angina attack and using my GTN spray. A few minutes later, a squirt of this stuff and the snap of the rubber gloves, coupled with airport security pointing guns is really going to help ease the problem - not!
      I can see someone getting sued big time here....

    • maybe... assuming that you're not traveling in your garden clothes, and you've taken a shower (or two) before you left, you may or may not be pulled aside. You might have more problems if you were Arab - sorry, but I'm sure we all know that a white, middle age man will get through TSA easier then a 20-something Arab - you should get out without too many questions.

      I also believe the article mentioned that the system is able to tell the difference between certain particles... In the end, it will still be a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dpilot ( 134227 )
        We flew to DC last week for a vacation. At JFK, waiting for the flight to Dulles, there was a guy across from me in the waiting area... Swarthy appearance, and he was reading a little book with Arabic writing on the cover.

        It's interesting analyzing one's own reactions in a situation like that, given the stereotypes our society so recklessly and relentlessly foists on us.
    • Since nobody else has replied directly to your question: it's unlikely. Unless you're working in commercial farming, you're most likely using a very different type of fertilizer. Until roughly 1996, fertilizer for homes was ammonium nitrate, but once Tim McVeigh demonstrated what else NH4NO3 could be used for, it was removed from consumer fertilizer and replaced with urea, H3NCONH3 (aka CON2H6 but mine gives you an idea of its structure.) These days it's quite hard to get your hands on ammonium nitrate f

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Z00L00K ( 682162 )
        And if you buy it in commercial quantities it starts to get useful for blowing things up! But anyway - a lot of things are explosive. A tablespoon of petrol in a large barrel is sufficient for a good bang. It's just the question of getting the mixture right.

        And I also heard about two boys playing and they got hold of an inner tube for a tractor. They filled it with gas from a gas welder and added a long fuse. They nearly cracked all windows in the village they lived - and they did get a beating by their f

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mpe ( 36238 )
          But anyway - a lot of things are explosive. A tablespoon of petrol in a large barrel is sufficient for a good bang. It's just the question of getting the mixture right.

          Getting the fuel/air mixture right is the difficult part. There is a lot of engineering goes into ensuring that this happens inside the engine.

          And I also heard about two boys playing and they got hold of an inner tube for a tractor. They filled it with gas from a gas welder and added a long fuse. They nearly cracked all windows in the vil

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mh1997 ( 1065630 )

      The article isn't terribly specific about which nitrogen compounds react to the spray, only providing a couple of examples. If I worked in my garden 5 days before a flight, am I going to get hazed by TSA because I didn't eliminate every last speck of fertilizer from my clothes?


      Ever stand at the urinal in an airport restroom? There is enough nitrogen on the floor (disguised as piss) to get tazed by the TSA.
  • I lost faith in the current airport explosives detectors when I found out that Bondo products set them off. It was a hilarious hour or so watching a broken system thrash about trying to figure out why their machine kept beeping when there were clearly no explosives in my bag.

    Did I mention that this was after a Defcon in the Las Vegas airport?

    I lost what little respect I had in the system (note: Not the people you would ever see on the floor, they have been pretty OK for the most part) at that point.

    Between the War On Moisture, pointless shoe removal, and a TSA that can't ever answer any question with the word 'Why' in it, I have absolutely zero faith in the system any more.

    I am a frequent flier, put in over 100K miles last year and am on track to do more than that this year. If you simply go through the airports enough, you can trivially avoid any security measure there is, it isn't even a trick.

    So, spray on bomb detectors? Great. So? Send the bad guys through security 25 times and you will see several obvious ways to not get it checked. Game over.

              -Charlie

    • Re:I lost faith in the current system (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Amouth ( 879122 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @11:49AM (#23519260)
      you might get a kick out of this ..

      two years ago a friend of mine was going back west for xmass to see his family - they are all gun owners and enjoy shooting. He has an AR-15.. apprently ammo is much more expensive out west than here in NC.. so he did his homework and looked up the laws on carrying his AR-15 and ammo with him to go out west.

      he went out and bought the special padded ammo case - and padded gun case that met the requirements.

      when i drove him to the airport.. i went in with him just to make sure they didn't become asses about it and make him leave his gun (if they did i would takeit home).. anyways.. the gun was fine.. the ammo they looked at.. opened.. and spent 30min talking about.. then came to the conclusion.. that he could take it BUT on take the ammo that was still in the orginal manufacturs boxes.. there for the loose shells in the fome inserts couldn't be taken.

      so they took about 40 live rounds of 7.62 out of it.. put it in a clear zipplock bag and handed it to me to stand and wait in the security check line till he boarded the plane....

      so for about an hour every single person is looking at me funny.. and i have to explain to ever damn cop/marine flying home why i have this .. yet the airport security people never said a damn thing to me.

      at that point i think it would be safer to replace airport security with Honda robot's.. as they follow scripts better and would be less likly to be ass holes to people they didn't like
    • Agreed --

      but more to the point, why do I suspect that none of the draconian security rules are going to get revoked in the face of this new development?

  • My thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by esocid ( 946821 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @11:39AM (#23519112) Journal
    When reading this was, so people's clothing and bags will be covered with this fluorene polymer for who knows how long. And if used liberally in an airport, we'll be breathing aerosolized fluorene. It's not classified as a carcinogen, but I don't believe humans have ever been chronically exposed to it, but I guess we'll find out if the TSA starts using it in a few years.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Atraxen ( 790188 )
      More likely, given the sensitivity of the technique, is that it luggage will be swabbed, the swab will be treated, and it will be placed under the UV light (305 nm if I remember the primary source correctly - I point that out to head off the "we'll all be blinded!!1" comments because it means normal glass is 'black' to that light).

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by rcamans ( 252182 )
      Fortunately, the TSA workers will be the first to know if it is carcinogenic.
      YEESSS - 3 points and a penalty swish
    • In certain compounds, and due to its low atomic number (thus its very small size), it easily penetrates the skin and can wreak havoc once inside. Its the most reactive non-metal element, highly toxic, and corrosive. Hydrofluoric acid, used to etch glass, is scary: exposure to your skin basically turns you into salt (strips calcium to form CaF, reacts with all known elements except He and Ne). Whats worse is the symptoms might not show for hours after exposure, as the fluorine ion is small and can seep all t
  • Ship your bomb in a box of ping-pong balls.

  • I ask because that is undoubtedly the place the next plane-bomber is going to carry his explosives, so it won't be long before we're all subject to body cavity searches. If this stuff can safely be sprayed up the ass, though, I'm sure it'll shorten the proctology line at the airport.

  • Bah, why reinvent the wheel? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @11:47AM (#23519226) Homepage
    A spray-on explosives detector already exists. Here's a picture of it in action in a field situation [leatherneckexpress.com] where explosives may have been present.

    That one has a few negative side effects, though... Maybe this new one improves on them? That'd probably be helpful in airports.
  • Spray on detectors are fine and well, but what we really need is something that can detect a fairly large amount of explosives on a person or a car from a few blocks away. If it were car mountable and relatively cheap, we could put it in cop cars and at a few strategic locations, and basically snuff out terrorism without all of this silly finger printing and wiretapping by getting the jump on disarming would be bad guys. Sure, some people might get nailed by false positives, but that's far better than peo

  • Great A New DOS Attack (Score:4, Insightful)

    by logicnazi ( 169418 ) <gerdesNO@SPAMinvariant.org> on Friday May 23, 2008 @11:52AM (#23519316) Homepage
    So isntead of bothering with the trouble of setting off a bomb just spray a bunch of people with a little bit of chemical. If your compatriots do so at other major airports you can probably shut down the whole system for a good while.
    • That's interesting. I wonder if a new type of terrorism will spring up where instead of destroying things they effectively render them useless. Like a DOS attack. Doing something that shuts down 5 airports for 8 hours simultaneously would be pretty harmful. It doesn't kill anyone but it's still gets a lot of attention.

  • And... (Score:4, Funny)

    by actionbastard ( 1206160 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @12:03PM (#23519424)
    It has a fresh pine scent!

  • too bad it causes cancer (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nguy ( 1207026 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @12:22PM (#23519746)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/1809825/Environmental-Protection-Agency-flourene [scribd.com]

    Well, OK, technically it's silaflourene, but that has a good chance of being worse.

    I really think you don't want this stuff sprayed on you.

  • Four years for 3 milligrams (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mbone ( 558574 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @01:23PM (#23520600)
    I don't know how many people here know this, but a UK citizen was arrested and sentenced [dailymail.co.uk] in Dubai for 3 milligrams of cannabis. Once people can get arrested for microgram or smaller levels of anything, no one will be safe, since no one will be able to tell if they haven't been exposed at that level, and it will be very hard to verify that the vanishingly small evidence was indeed what was claimed.

  • Oh Good..... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IHC Navistar ( 967161 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @01:28PM (#23520688)
    Oh good! Something even MORE SENSITIVE, and thus MORE SUBJECT TO FALSE POSITIVES!

    Now, Big Brother will have reason to pull you aside because they found:

    1) Ammonium nitrate (from fertilizer residue on your golf clubs, shoes, clothes, and anything that ame into contact with equipemnt or fertilized ground)
    2) Nitroglycerin (from hand lotions, creams, and medication)
    3) Nitrocellulose (unburned powder residue from anybody who shoots or hunts)
    4) Phosphorous (residue from matches)
    5) Hydrocarbons (from gasoline/diesel if you filled your car up before arriving at the airport)
    6) PETN (From heart medication)
    7) Glycerine (from hand lotions/creams/makeup)

      Considering all the false positives and not a single positive, this product is pretty much useless, except for collaring people who ARE NOT terrorists. Even more so, what about the people who don't know what the ingredients in their personal product are?

      How could someone, especially your average Jane Doe who most likely does not realize that her hand cream contains nitroglycerin? How about the cranky guy who doesn't realize he has ammonium Nitrate on his clothes that rubbed off on him from his dog who rolled around on someone's freshly fertilized lawn? How about the guy taking PETN or nitroglycerine for heart problems? Does he need to be a pharmacist as well as a chemist to know that it's the same stuff used in bombs? What about the guy who filled up his car on the way to the airport and has diesel or gasoline fuel residue on his hands? What if you are an avid rifleman? Does the presense of nitrocellulose on your hands/shirt/pants make you a suspected terrorist? They truly and honestly won't be able to explain these things, because they don't know that virtually every product used in daily life can potentially have some "explosive" (when used in pure quantities) ingredient that those overzealous, jackbooted customs "agents" are itching to collar you for.

    This product has a *VERY* limited market, and by limited I mean only flights originating from certain, suspect Middle Eastern Countries. Using it in the Civilized World, it serves no more purpose than to give Big Brother enough "Probable Cause" to ruin your day, if not your life.

    I'd like to see the numbers of False Positives compared to TRUE POSITIVES.

    This crap is no more use than as an expensive can of Cheez Whiz.

  • Salt substitute... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SmoothTom ( 455688 ) <Tomas@TiJiL.org> on Friday May 23, 2008 @02:05PM (#23521232) Homepage
    Black powder is based on potassium nitrate (and charcoal and sulfur), but so is the salt substitute I use in my low-sodium diet.

    I suspect that I probably have enough potassium nitrate on everything I own to leave trace on everything that touches anything I own.

    Given the extreme sensitivity of this solution, my entire world would probably glow blue.

    Of course anyone who just ate fries at MacDonalds has hands just COVERED in nitrates (sodium nitrate - plain old table salt)...

    I question how useful this is in the real world.

    --Tomas

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 3waygeek ( 58990 )
      Table salt is sodium chloride, not sodium nitrate. IIRC, most salt subsitutes are potassium chloride, not potassium nitrate. Sodium nitrate is occasionally used for curing meats like bacon, pastrami, and sausage.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Arimus ( 198136 )
      Strange...

      Last time I looked salt (as in the kind on your chips) is NaCl - not NaNO3.

      Small but vital (especially if you are looking for nitrates) difference....

  • It's a joke anyway (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BlueParrot ( 965239 ) on Friday May 23, 2008 @02:28PM (#23521528)
    Sold in tax free: Razor blades, Matches, Vodka in glass bottles, Propane propelled deodorant, etc...

    Confiscated in security: Nail scissors, tweezers, liquid volumes exceeding 100ml

    Allowed through security (personal experience ): candles, multiple liquid containers at 100ml each, litres of liquids that are inside a sealed plastic bag with a pwetty picture on it... etc..

    This is even past the stage of security theater, it is damn obvious its primary purpose is to allow the airports to sell more stuff once you are past the security clearance.
  • In a month anyone NOT detectable by this absurd theater will be assumed to be a no-good-nik because they DON'T set it off.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close