Breath Detector To Help Find Earthquake Survivors

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Breath Detector To Help Find Earthquake Survivors

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 19, 2011 @04:18AM from the the-nose-knows dept.

bazzalunatic writes "With all the recent earthquakes, this 'human-sniffing' device couldn't be more timely. Developed in the UK, the new machine detects the breath and sweat of survivors trapped in rubble. It's better than sniffer dogs, and could reduce the risk to them. From the article: 'The sensor technology was shown to accurately detect human-generated carbon dioxide and ammonia in air that wafted through gaps in the rubble during testing, something that previously only dogs could do, as other technologies focus more heavily on seeing or hearing a survivor.'"

62 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:CO2 can be serious. by antifoidulus · 2011-09-19 04:23 · Score: 0

I was going to point out the irony of referencing Dr. Who as science as it's not exactly the most credible thing in the world, but then I realized that you are a chiropractor, so Dr. Who IS more credible than you :P

--
Monstar L
Re:CO2 can be serious. by Tsingi · 2011-09-19 04:27 · Score: 1

Subluxation, you keep using that word, I don not think it means what you think it means.
2
Timely? by Jmc23 · 2011-09-19 04:28 · Score: 1

Late seems more appropriate. Wouldn't timely suggest it was available for use during the actual earthquakes? ...or perhaps san fran is next?

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Re:CO2 can be serious. by JoshuaZ · 2011-09-19 04:43 · Score: 2

You've managed to touch briefly on actually interesting, real science. Humans automatically compensate for increased CO2 by adjusting their breathing and their metabolic levels. Curiously, humans can only detect the presence of carbon dioxide in the blood but not the absence of oxygen. This has lead to deaths in high nitrogen environments or other environments where there's very little oxygen, since people have no warning sign that they aren't getting enough oxygen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiation. Death due to lack of oxygen is pleasant compared to suffocation because the body does not go into the normal panic that occurs from too much carbon dioxide. So things just shut down.
Re:CO2 can be serious. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:43 · Score: 0

Wait, so do artificial sweeteners not cause subluxations?
I though that natural was good and artificial bad? how can concentrated fructose (a natural sugar from a natural source) be worse than an artificial sugar?
Perfect... by TheMeth0D · 2011-09-19 04:47 · Score: 5, Funny

...technology for skynet to use when hunting us in the future. Keep up the good work!
1. Re:Perfect... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  If they put it in a http://terminator.wikia.com/wiki/Cameron package, fine by me...
2. Re:Perfect... by TheMeth0D · 2011-09-19 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  At the rate we're going we won't have gas money for our helicopters let alone money to equip them with the latest technology... and thats probably a good thing.
  Skynet on the other hand has no funding issues... money is just numbers on a computer after all.
3. Re:Perfect... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  I just finished Robopocalypse, and I do not want this technology to exist. Finding us by body heat is bad enough.
4. Re:Perfect... by a_hanso · 2011-09-20 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  Or for Precrime to to use when hunting runners in the future.
Ammonia? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:48 · Score: 1

So when a building falls on you, you are supposed to urinate in your pants so they can find you with this ammonia sniffer thing? Or is there really enough ammonia in sweat for this to detect it?
1. Re:Ammonia? by Talderas · 2011-09-19 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  So when a building falls on you, you are supposed to urinate in your pants so they can find you with this ammonia sniffer thing? Or is there really enough ammonia in sweat for this to detect it?
  Well, given the choice between pissing yourself or retaining your dignity and dying which would you choose?
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
2. Re:Ammonia? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  So when a building falls on you, you are supposed to urinate in your pants so they can find you with this ammonia sniffer thing?
  Okay now, do you really think that people trapped in rubble under collapsed buildings just hold it? Or walk down to the bathroom and use the urinals?
3. Re:Ammonia? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Don't know about the rest of you but if a building ends up falling on me i don't think pissing my pants is going to be a conscious decision I'm going to have to make, think that might just be automatic.
Military applications by Igarden2 · 2011-09-19 04:52 · Score: 0

Military applications coming in 3...2...1...

--
Normally I ascribe all life to intelligent design, but in your case I'll make an exception.
1. Re:Military applications by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  Been there, done that... What took you civilian guys so long?
2. Re:Military applications by qpqp · 2011-09-19 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Can we modify it, so it can smell weed or truffles?
3. Re:Military applications by Demonoid-Penguin · 2011-09-19 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  Can we modify it, so it can smell weed
  Done already - ditto pollen tracking
  
  or truffles?
  Probably considered redundant and expensive now that reliable cultivation by innoculation is considered trivial (my kids sometimes work on a neighbouring truffle farm). They just work through the soil around the tree roots on a regular basis, yields are high and reliable.
  It's a Tasmanian company that sells the innoculation - wild truffles aren't worth much now (and pigs are cheap).
I've been thinking about this a bit by joshuac · 2011-09-19 04:56 · Score: 1

and since practically everyone nowadays carry sophisticated personal radio beacons (aka "cell phones") that periodically transmit uniquely identifiable (on a per device basis) signals, I'm surprised no one has jumped on using this as a way of sensing where the people are.
1. Re:I've been thinking about this a bit by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2011-09-19 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  Except that the cell phone doesn't give any indication that the person it's with is alive or not. That's why they're called "survivors".
2. Re:I've been thinking about this a bit by boristdog · 2011-09-19 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, screw those 6 billion people who don't have cell phones!
3. Re:I've been thinking about this a bit by westlake · 2011-09-19 05:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  and since practically everyone nowadays carry sophisticated personal radio beacons (aka "cell phones")
  There is the problem of battery life. Signal penetration through tons of rubble. Transponders out of service and so on.
4. Re:I've been thinking about this a bit by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like they did after 9/11 when they brought in portable cell towers and used them to triangulate on the cell phone signals?
5. Re:I've been thinking about this a bit by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Cause cell phones work reall great after you smash them up a bit and then dump a couple tons of concrete and rebar on top of them?
6. Re:I've been thinking about this a bit by moonbender · 2011-09-19 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Hm? World population is roughly 7 billion. I'm sure there's several billion mobile phone users out there. Wikipedia refers to "over 5 billion", but that might just be the number of active phones, number of users will be a bit lower.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_mobile_phones_in_use
  
  --
  Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
7. Re:I've been thinking about this a bit by joshuac · 2011-09-19 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, only in a form deployable by a first responder.
Summary Misleading by RobinEggs · 2011-09-19 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's better than sniffer dogs
Highly misleading. It eliminates dangers to the dogs/handlers and simplifies logistics; the article doesn't even imply that the device is more effective than dogs. It also points out that dogs are more agile and will still be more useful in areas where the machine or its human operator can't easily go (which I imagine will be a lot of places, considering that they're *digging through rubble*).

There are dogs out there that can detect cancer, for Christ sake; don't be so quick to dismiss biology in favor of technology, especially considering that a merging of the two is probably our next great frontier.

P.S. If any suspicious or sardonic person out there wants to argue that cancer dogs are some stupid myth, read the studies cited in this wikipedia article: they may be small studies, but I'm not inclined to doubt a study of a diagnostic tool showing a specificity >90% until I see a directly contrary scientific result or a damn good argument about the design of the original study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_cancer_detection
1. Re:Summary Misleading by drinkypoo · 2011-09-19 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot something, and that something is snakebots.
  Numerous labs are working on snake-shaped robots, some even have built them out of discrete modules that can detach and become smaller lengths. Now add in some sniffer modules, and suddenly you have robots that can go places dogs can't. Equip the modules with radio repeaters and now you can get a comm link even down into a collapsed building with a lot of metal in it. Come on, what year is it? Dogs, indeed. I'm allergic to dogs, so that's an extra reason for me to prefer robots :)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:Summary Misleading by Hatta · 2011-09-19 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Gah. I always forget about snakebots.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:CO2 can be serious. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-09-19 05:03 · Score: 1

Incidentally, this makes inert gas inhalation a preferred suicide method among those without access to the harder anaesthetics: usually it involves helium, since you can get small tanks of that cheaply at party supply places, unlike nitrogen which is a welding/scientific/industrial thing(not controlled in any way; but fewer retail places, and many that might give you a funny look if you act like you don't know what you are doing there...)

Bag over head, open the tap to achieve continuous mild overpressure, and breath normally. You'll still be expelling carbon dioxide just fine, and breathing without hindrance, so no panic; but your oxygen saturation will plummet and it is lights out...
of things wafting by v1 · 2011-09-19 05:18 · Score: 2

accurately detect human-generated carbon dioxide and ammonia in air that wafted through gaps in the rubble
I'd be willing to bet that there's a number of easier to smell things than CO2 "wafting" up out of rubble with a survivor that's been in there for days.
Lets drop the PC talk and get down to brass tacks. By day 3 any survivor is going to be quite ripe in a number of ways and their bad breath is going to be the last thing you notice.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
1. Re:of things wafting by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-09-19 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  True; but if you are looking for survivors you want something that isn't also true of a slightly squished corpse that hasn't been exerting much sphincter control of late. Carbon dioxide isn't perfect(fires and microbial respiration also generate it); but there are reasons to choose it.
2. Re:of things wafting by misexistentialist · 2011-09-19 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  People probably smell like shit to dogs all the time.
3. Re:of things wafting by abies · 2011-09-19 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think that this is why 'ammonia' is mentioned. I can already see that Health&Safety instructions - "In case of being buried in the rubble, release as soon as possible".
  Still, for the first n hours, to find unconcious people who are not following H&S rule, CO2 marker is probably more important.
4. Re:of things wafting by Muad'Dave · 2011-09-19 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  ...their bad breath is going to be the last thing you notice.
  Actually 48 hours of starvation can cause ketosis, which gives you fruity-smelling acetone breath and urine.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
5. Re:of things wafting by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 18:37 · Score: 0
  
  People probably smell like shit to dogs all the time.
  And that's why they became man's best friend. And you thought it was because of the scraps of food thrown to them?
Re:CO2 can be serious. by timeOday · 2011-09-19 06:06 · Score: 1

Thanks for brightening my day, fungus dude.
Which is cheaper? by jomegat · 2011-09-19 06:27 · Score: 1

I bet dogs are a lot cheaper than snifferbots.

--
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.
1. Re:Which is cheaper? by Mashiki · 2011-09-19 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Considering you can train a dog from birth to be a sniffer in under 6mo, I'd say it's going to be cheaper.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
2. Re:Which is cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  You think 6 months of specialist dog training is cheap? The dogs may not cost much, but I doubt the same can be said of their training.
  Admittedly, I don't know how much it costs, but I'd imagine it'd be somewhere in the 1000s of dollars. It doesn't seem unreasonable that a sniffer bot could be made for less.
  The article isn't helpful with regard to figures for either dog training or the sniffer bots, but it does mention "concerns about the expense of training dogs."
3. Re:Which is cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, I found this great thing called the "Internet" where by use of a "search engine", you can find where people advertise prices for trained dogs.
4. Re:Which is cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 16:37 · Score: 0
  
  These dogs are not cheap to train (and a heck of a lot more work than just 6 months). Fully trained dog and handlers are probably some of the most rare and highly trained animals in the world there are seriously not that many of them out there. It takes 8-10 weeks to select suitable puppies, 12-18 months minimum training (the dog can fail to meet the grade after all this as well) and an expected readiness lifespan of 5 or 6 years (again with constant training throughout). The dog is also single use, it will be put down for humane reasons immediately after the disaster rescue is concluded simply because of the hazards it will be exposed too.
  Also note because of the dangerous conditions the trainers need to be highly qualified as well and are very specialised.
  I used to belong to one of these rescue teams and we've trained right alongside some of the Swiss dog teams an their handlers. Trust me if this does what it says it is a very very good thing and doesn't have to be cheap to be more cost effective.
5. Re:Which is cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 16:50 · Score: 0
  
  none of those links refers to the type of dogs discussed here. The SAR ones probably come the closest!
  Think the china earthquakes or 9/11 scales of disasters (not little Jimmy lost in the woods).
  USAR Cat2 being the technical term for those rescuers (and dogs alike).
DWI by sgt+scrub · 2011-09-19 06:29 · Score: 1

In Texas they would pull you out then give you a ticket for Dying While Intoxicated.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
More like... by rush2049 · 2011-09-19 06:40 · Score: 1

More like breath detector to help skynet find living humans to eradicate....
With all the recent earthquakes... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 07:01 · Score: 0

...this 'human-sniffing' device couldn't be more un-timely!
Great..... by LoRdTAW · 2011-09-19 07:41 · Score: 1

They invented a bigger mosquito. Just what the world needs.
Customs Use ? by mossy+the+mole · 2011-09-19 08:31 · Score: 2

Sounds like an improved version of the detectors used to find illegal immigrants hidden in trucks. If it works It'll probably see much more use by customs that the rescue people.
Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 08:44 · Score: 0

We can begin recovering from the Virginia earthquake that devastated us all. Never forget 8/23/2011!
bad breath by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 08:57 · Score: 0

come on, our breath can't be that bad... then again.....
I suspect the dogs are still better by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 09:44 · Score: 0

...though they may not be as cheap.
Simply solution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 13:12 · Score: 0

Two words: radioactive mosquitos.
Re:CO2 can be serious. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 17:54 · Score: 0

A bit overdone. Needs to be more subtle - sometimes less is more.
6/10.
Great device.. by raymorphic · 2011-09-19 20:03 · Score: 1

Kudos to the team who produced this
Good. by h5inz · 2011-09-19 22:22 · Score: 1

Its a nice technology for a good purpose, though still couldn't resist...- now try reading it with "earthquake" replaced by "human extermination effort" !
Re:CO2 can be serious. by RockDoctor · 2011-09-25 07:48 · Score: 1

Must be popular amongst the chemically illiterate then. I'd have gone to the camping gear store and brought a can of propane-butane mix.
Same asphyxiation effect, but with a mild degree of anaesthesia as well.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"