Slashdot Mirror
Old Methods Used to Detect Liquid Explosives
Bain writes "According to Wired News, the UK fear of terrorists using liquid explosives could be dramatically reduced by the use of some very old tech. Recent events have seen passengers forced to pack only the barest of essentials into clear plastic bags and the restriction on all liquids force even mothers with young children to have to test bottled milk to prove that it isn't a dangerous liquid." From the article: "For a machine to detect explosives in liquid or solid form, it bombards an object with energy -- such as radio waves or neutrons -- and in seconds measures the reaction, a response that differs depending on the material's chemical properties. Software in the machine is programmed to alert screeners if it detects chemical signatures known to match those of dangerous materials. A key question, though, is whether this kind of detection system can realistically block terrorists from bringing seemingly innocuous liquids past security and combining them later to deadly effect."
Please remember:
The planes that were crashed into the WTC where hijacked with carpet cutters. The current threat was discovered when "classic police work" lead to an arrest in Pakistan.
The war against terror is not fought with technology and will never be won by technology. There is no way to guarantee safety from terrorists any more than there is a really secure computer system. The only way to live safely would be in a bunker, and that's no live.
Terror has to be fought by international politics. Anything else will fail, because there will always be loopholes left.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
From the article:
"Homeland security analyst Brian Ruttenbur of Morgan Keegan also points out that the technology still produces a relatively high number of false alarms."
and
"A key question, though, is whether this kind of detection system can realistically block terrorists from bringing seemingly innocuous liquids past security and combining them later to deadly effect.
"Certainly, some common ingredients in liquid explosives can be programmed into the detector. But Kant, at Rapiscan, said he would not discuss the vulnerabilities of that approach. 'Whether it detects the components of explosives and which ones, there's no way I'm putting that in print,' he said."
We still allowed fertilizer to be transported by truck after the Oklahoma City bombing. I really don't know how we can expect people to transport any substance by airplane if there's even a slight chance that it could be used in a clever bomb-making scheme.
For more information, click here.
The risks still add up, even when you use this machine:
So, you end up putting a lot of money into doing something that will help very few flights, incovenience a large total number of innocent people, and possibly not protect the public at all.
There's only one thing we need to remove from air travel: terrorists. It's not the gel explosive that blows up the plane, it's the nutcase that hits the detonator. If a person is hell-bent on destroying life, they will find a way, no matter what you ban in terms of physical objects. We just need to ban terrorists from flying on airplanes, and that would have the desired effect. Personally, I think detecting terrorists is a lot cheaper than detecting explosives anyhow.
1. You stop every person that has access to the plane, every person getting on the plane for any reason, etc. (already almost doing that)
2. Determine if they're a terrorist somehow. (??? step)
3. Success! No more plane bombings.
stuff |
Why can't man's best friend, the K-9, sniff out these liquid explosives instead of buying a $250,000 "puffer"?
"One big reason is that it is not easy to integrate the explosive-detecting machines, some of which can cost $250,000, into existing security checkpoints. Because each briefcase, purse or other carry-on bag has to be put in a special drawer for analysis, using the detectors could significantly bog down passenger screening. [...] the technology still produces a relatively high number of false alarms."
Chemistry is capeable of some fascinating things. Two extremely dangerous and deadly chemicals combine to make a tasty food additive (salt). Still, I am not aware of any liquid explosives that are completely invisible to explosive detection in component form.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
FTA A major problem is that the view is so powerful that an individual's private parts can be seen
So the x-ray glasses advertised in comic magazines really do work. I was always wondering about that. How is this a problem?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Let's review some notably successful attacks and see if we can learn something...
There is an awful lot of effort being expended protecting us from complex high-tech attacks, when the demonstrated pattern has been for Al Qaeda to use relatively low-tech methods and strike at targets that are easy to hit and achieve significant headlines. If we should learn anything from this, it is that Al Qaeda spends its terrorist money well, getting maximum effect for a minimum of resource.
What we need is more thought and less hasty action, so that we too, might be capable of effective action in return. Pointless blustering actions like this, intended to reassure the public and sustain existing administrations' terms in office, do more to aide and abet the enemy than to frustrate them. We need reason and logic as our allies, instead of keeping them locked in the basement.
Aren't dogs already trained to sniff out innocuous chemicals during their drug sniffing training?
I've seen dogs in O'Hare for sniffing out imported fruit/veg pick up people who've eaten a bananna.
Surely these are better than any mechanical screening device.
without any carry-on luggage, as long as they increase the security checks on the luggage handlers and improve the luggage sorting technology to prevent my stuff from being "lost".
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
Quite possibly. I haven't seen anything definitive on what they were planning on using, but I've seen suggested that it was acetone peroxide (or rather triacetone triperoxide). Acetone is indeed both volatile and stinky, and you need pretty highly concentrated peroxide (read "unstable") to get a decent reaction rate.
(As for acetone peroxide itself -- yeah, pretty exciting stuff, and doesn't need anything special in the way of detonators that a lot of the more stable nitrate-based explosives do. And because it isn't nitrate based, isn't detected by the nitrate-sniffers used in a lot of bomb detectors. I had a chance to play with a few grams of the stuff once (in its powder form). It doesn't take much confinement to go from "whoosh" of a fireball to "BANG!" of a detonation.)
Plenty of other possible liquid explosives too, of course. (Nitroglycerine is a liquid, although not one I'd want to carry around in a Gatorade bottle.)
-- Alastair
Here are the web sites of the two companies mentioned in the article.
Rapiscan Systems
and
HiEnergy Technologies, Inc.
They both have interesting product portfolios.
"...with enough soap you can blow up just about anything."
You're assuming that the purpose of the airport security checks is to prevent terrorists from taking bombs onto planes.
If that were the case, why were the current restrictions only put in place last week, when the existence of liquid-based bombs has been known for years, and the police claim to have been following the people they have now arrested for some weeks? Any why are the restrictions now being relaxed, if there is a danger from other unknown groups of people using the same methods?
I'm sure airport security deters a certain number of unintelligent crackpots, and it certainly shows the travelling public that "something is being done". But the ultimate answer to the problem is a political one, not technological.
Depending on the length of the flight, this might include certain medications, contact lens solution, toothpaste and mouthwash. Having made the trip from JFK to Narita International (13 hours), I can testify that those things are necessary, thank you very much.
On a related note, some persons have opined that carry-on luggage and personal electronics shuold be eliminated entirely from the cabin. This, I believe, is not a realistic solution, not only due to above-implied personal care issues, but the extreme non-likelihood of travelers accepting long flights without access to their own diversions. And then we have the items we carry because their value renders keeping them on/close to our persons wise, such as laptops. While I do not have on hand statistics for luggage theft for the past several years, I doubt many people would entrust such devices to checked luggage, even before locking said luggage was discouraged - seriously, did the people who tought that up think the thieves and smugglers retired? To exemplify the latter: picture a setup where person A on the inside inserts contraband into a bag after it's been checked, then alerts person B at destination that they might remove said contraband before bag hits customs. If done correctly, the bag's owner will be totally unaware that something has hitched a ride.
Also, for many trips, carry-on luggage might well be quite enough to hold the necessities, eliminating the need for the traveler to worry about baggage claim.
Note: binary agents are nothing new; many chemical weapons are delivered in such a form, as exemplified in Batman...
And it will remain true that while technical solutions are nice, the cornerstone of the counterterror effort will always be people. You know, the folks doing the police work, following the leads, and so on.
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
How about this -- treat the airplane just like a movie theater: no outside food/drinks allowed. We need to dispense with the high gadgets and just say you can't bring anything on board except the clothes on your back.
Right, because no one ever smuggles contraband food or drinks into a movie theater.
And how would you feel if you went to the movies and then once it let out, you went to pick up your car from the mandatory valet parking only to find out that they misplaced it, and would bring it by if and when they ever find it again? People don't bring huge carry-ons into the cabin because they need two changes of clothing and a full toiletry kit during the flight; they do it because they don't trust the airline to have their checked luggage ready for them when they arrive.
I'd rather sacrifice my precious water bottle on a long flight than end up crashing into a building any day.
That's a false dichotomy.
Instead of asking "why don't you just accept this restriction" you should really be asking "why should it exist in the first place"
Small bottle of bleach, small bottle of ammonia. Won't pass a "sniff" test, but amounts in bottles small enough to pass unnoticed under clothes can still cause extensive problems especially in a closed, delicate system. Like an airplane in flight. I also doubt that the nitrate sniffers would be set sensitive enough to alert on a closed bottle of ammonia. Any excees outside should evaporate.
/ OMG, teh BBC is terrorist!!!11oneoneeleven
When it comes to yet another highway fatality the cost in terms of human life is measurable, but the impact on day-to-day life in our society hardly sees a blip (unless that fatality closes the 405, 101, or some other major thoroughfare; then it is (sorry to say) a tragedy on a grander scale!).
Reducing deaths in daily life is a different subject altogether from stopping terrorism. Don't you recall September 2001? The month the skies were quiet? Few people died in the planes (compared to the numbers flying that day) but the effect was that all traffic was stopped for days. Our nation was at a standstill. THAT is the intent of terrorism. Remember the stock market crash after 9/11/01? THAT is the intent of terrorism. Remember Spain pulling out of the alliance fighting terror sponsors in the Middle East (e.g., Iraq)? THAT is the intent of the terrorist. Murder is a means to the terrorist, not the aim.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
also more dramatic
That's the real key. Blowing up a store is not as big a deal. They have store everywhere. Put airplanes are part of the symbol of western technological power. We think very little of getting into a big steel container, then soaring through the sky for a few hundred miles, then landing and complaining about leg room. The shock of having that modern invention reduced to rubble (with a few hundred people inside) is what they are going for.
Although I've always wondered why they didn't go for more of a solo sniping attack. The panic and fear created by Malvo during his sniping spree on the I-95 corridor between Richmond and D.C. was unbelievable if you lived in that area (I live in Richmond). Two guys, one rifle, one car. You could keep that going for weeks or months at a time, never knowing when it's going to happen, have a few operating in different cities... that would really shake things up.
I really just don't get how the terrorists operate.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Gee, I dunno, maybe when The Airlines quit being a branch of the government?
An airline is a private business. If you don't like the rules, ride a bus.
Do you have ESP?