Device Sniffs Out Signs of Life After Disasters

MTorrice writes "With every breath, people exhale a plume of chemicals. Now German researchers have developed a method to quickly and easily detect this chemical signature of life with a portable device. The team hopes that the approach can help firefighters and other first responders find people trapped inside rubble after earthquakes, terrorist attacks, or other calamities."

Comments

Device Snuffs Out Signs of Life After Disasters

[James McGuigan]

Had to do a double take on that one, my first reading was

"Device Snuffs Out Signs of Life After Disasters"

Dogs

[asmkm22]

I've always thought dogs did a really great job of that.

Re:Dogs

[William Robinson]

I agree that dogs do great job. However trained dogs are expensive and they have a time limit.

Back on topic, I was involved in design electronics and algorithms of chemical detector useful for military/security forces. Right now I am involved in design of device that would detect certain diseases. We used nanomaterial and I believe it does great job. It provides great sensitivity and helps package everything in a small 3 inch box.

IANAC, could anybody explain me whether the technology used in the device "ion mobility spectrometry" is better?

Re:Dogs

[skine]

On second though, electronic devices need constant care and they die.

The costs involved are significantly less, though.

Re:Dogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of reasons why. Dogs are great but not perfect.

1) Convenience of mass production means greater deployment compared to the high time and cost of training dogs along with maintenance basically means cheaper costs and greater numbers
2) Deployment ability, devices are very easy to bring along and can be kept on all vehicles for standby, you can't exactly do that with dogs. It would also be easier for transportation like say extras are needed for a big emergency.
3) Durability/Downtime, devices can be fixed or replaced with little issues if damaged compared to dogs which can put them out of commission especially considering the danger of their work. Devices also don't need rest, batteries tend to be easy to deal with while there is little you can do with a tired dog.
4) Reliability, We know how the devices will work and it will work in a consistent manner (barring specific hardware issues) unlike dogs which are unlikely to be consistent in ability with the same amount of training.

Really, it doesn't even have to be an either or scenario in this case. Why not deploy both if this works as advertised? More testing and possibly research to prove it's capabilities are needed i think before we start deploying it everywhere but it may become an important tool in a disaster. Searching for way to improve upon the status quo can only be a good thing even if things don't always pan out. It's only when you start going with unproven, untested technology that is the problem (those tsa scanners).

Re:Dogs

[ahabswhale]

As someone who was once training a dog for SAR, I can tell you that most SAR (and cadaver) dogs are handled by volunteers so they are completely free (at least as far as the taxpayer is concerned). There are a ton of volunteer SAR organizations in the US.

Dogs do have a time limit but so do their handlers. It's pretty much a given that you're going to have to swap out teams for a truly long duration search. That's not going to be any different if you're using a device.

That said, the main benefit of a device over a dog is that a device could be used in areas that are simply too hazardous or difficult for dogs to operate.

I'm picking up organic chemicals nearby.

[VortexCortex]

Scan the debris for life-signs.
Sir, we've detected the stench of several human survivors... From the smell, French I'd say... Eh, Jean Luc?
Intriguing, there is a 87.391% probability the remains are of a cargo ship;
The wreckage seems to be covered in some form of condiment,
and the flames are producing an odor signature similar to pork barbe--
That's ENOUGH, Data!

Also good for sniffing out jews hiding in the wall

[Anonymous Coward]

..and for locating insurgents hiding in warzones, or stowaways...
not all the uses of this technology are good

Re:Also good for sniffing out jews hiding in the w

[SuricouRaven]

Depends whose side you are on. One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. During WW2, the French resistance were the insurgents. Had the Nazis somehow won, history would have recalled them as terrorists.

Funding.

[SuricouRaven]

Cynically, I think that adding 'terrorist attack' to the list might just be to greatly aid the chances of getting some sweet, sweet government money. Earthquakes and simular natural disasters achieve an annual victim count that outnumbers terrorist attacks by a few orders of magnitude, but governments seem so much more eager to publicly spend money on counter-terrorism.

What else is detectable?

[jcr]

Could something along the lines of a millimeter wave radar detect a heartbeat through rubble, or under snow after an avalanche, perhaps?

-jcr

Re:Also good for sniffing out jews hiding in the w

[dotancohen]

Why was this modded down? This is quite the most insightful comment here. Oh, AC mentioned Jews, that's why.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion