Slashdot Mirror


Military Develops "Green" Cleaners For Terrorist Attack Sites

An anonymous reader writes "Chemists with the US military have developed a set of ultra-strength cleaners to be used in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. The formulas are reportedly tough enough to get rid of nerve gas, mustard gas, radioactive isotopes, and anthrax. But they are also non-toxic, based on ingredients found in foods, cosmetics, and other consumer products."

14 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Let me guess..... by bigjoeb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Made by Bechtel/(insert cozy contractor here) for only 2600$ a pint

    --
    Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you
    1. Re:Let me guess..... by fractoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      It wouldn't even need to be that much. You know what's really good at cleaning up toxic chemicals? Lungs. I bet you could use cow lungs from abattoirs. Mmmm, lung juice cocktail, even increases stamina!

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:Let me guess..... by happy_place · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...as opposed to the price of just letting those toxic substances drift through a community, causing untold amount of additional disease and misery... its refreshing to read of military technology that cleans up destruction, rather than just causing it. I hope that someday a perfect defense isn't just a really good offense, but an ingenious defense.

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    3. Re:Let me guess..... by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "No First Use" = We have enough conventional weaponry to send anyone back to the stone age if we no longer care about the international repercussions.

      AKA "I can beat you with one arm tied behind my back."

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  2. Its good stuff by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

    They tested it on CowboyNeal's underpants.

  3. Remove or neutralize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The formulas are reportedly tough enough to get rid of nerve gas, mustard gas, radioactive isotopes, and anthrax.

    Summary makes it sound like this wonder neutralizes the components instead simply physically removing them. Are radioactive isotopes harder to remove than your generic chocolate stain?

    1. Re:Remove or neutralize? by orzetto · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are radioactive isotopes harder to remove than your generic chocolate stain?

      Considering most radioactive isotopes are heavy metals with a relatively "fuzzy" chemistry, which can easily become soft acids, yes, it's tougher than chocolate, as any student who attended an inorganic-chemistry course could confirm you. Ever tried removing stains of Mercurochrome?

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  4. Oil Spills by ehaggis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does it work on oil spills or only terrorist induced disasters?

    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
    1. Re:Oil Spills by inamorty · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why on earth would you want to remove rainbows from the sea?!
      BP spent so much effort putting them there.

  5. Good idea. by couchslug · · Score: 3, Interesting

    NBC decontamination training is standard in the military, and nearly everyone gets to play. Alternate decon solutions that aren't themselves composed of nasty chemicals would be quite useful considering tens of thousands of gallons would be needed for even a small site. The product would need to kill germs and remove chemical agents while helping break them down (they degrade anyway). Other than washing off radioactive contamination there isn't much to be done, but that still would require effective detergent to break loose ground-in crud.

    Have some Very Cool Soviet Decon vehicle:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBI43LKuW00

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  6. Re:Am I alone in translating "green" by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Whenever I hear a product called "Green-" I always translate that to mean "inferior".

    That's because you're either stupid or a troll. This is not a false dichotomy: there's no third way. For example, orange oil kills ants faster than poison, while mint oil kills yellowjackets faster than poison. Both smell nice and have zero nasty side effects even if you get them on your skin (they can cause irritation if not washed away, but that's about it.)

    Isn't a massive terrorist attack causing widespread destruction likely to cause FAR more pollution than anything we'd have to do to clean up AFTER IT?

    Your argument can be summed up as thus: If I have already been shot with a large-caliber weapon, who cares if I must be shot with a small-caliber weapon during surgery? Thus it is just as stupid as everything else you said.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Why is this Idle? by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know some editors class too many things that should be Idle as something else, but this seems to be the opposite; a legitimate article that is being filed as Idle. How exactly is this not considered news? It's a new application for existing chemicals that helps deal with terrorism without restricting rights, which is a hell of lot better than most of the anti-terrorism procedures we've been putting into place.

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  8. Re:Am I alone in translating "green" by macshit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't a massive terrorist attack causing widespread destruction likely to cause FAR more pollution than anything we'd have to do to clean up AFTER IT?

    Well who knows, but the less toxic they can make it, the better, so they can slather it on like crazy without having to worry about anything except the immediate threat... if it's somewhat less effective but can be used much more freely and quickly, in greater quantity, "green" may be a huge advantage.

    --
    We live, as we dream -- alone....
  9. Re:Am I alone in translating "green" by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm afraid I have to agree with the GP here. If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works. I really don't care if it kills the grass I'm standing on.

    The problem is that stuff that kills the grass you're standing on tends to get into the water table. Anyway, some of the decontamination products used today are probably not all that harmful, as you say; for example, if your humvee gets an agent sprayed on it, the official response is to wash it with a pressure washer and soap. Or, you know, so says the book.

    It's bleach. It's just like your standard bottle of Clorox, only about 7x stronger. Bleach breaks down pretty quickly to relatively harmless chemicals except for AOX, which is harmful to invertebrates and fish. STB is not used in large enough quantities to do any real damage. If the decom site is next to a pond, expect all the fish to die. If it is next to a small lake, it won't be much of a problem.

    So, the question to you is this: What is more important, the possible death of a pond full of fish or the certain death of large group of human soldiers and a victory to the types of assholes that would use chem/bio weapons?

    Of course, if this "green" product works as well or better than the products we are using today, like STB, the great! I'm all for it. However, when it's my ass on the line, don't ask me to be the one to test it. When I've been "contaminated", I don't even want the NBC Decom specialist even taking the time to tell me how green the product is. Just get this human pesticide off of me!

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.