Slashdot Mirror


Sandia Labs Researcher Develops Fertilizer Without the Explosive Potential

cylonlover writes "Ammonium nitrate is a commonly used fertilizer, but when mixed with a fuel such as diesel, it makes a powerful explosive – as seen in last week's fertilizer plant explosion in Texas. But it's the deliberate use of the compound in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and acts of terror such as the Oklahoma City bombing that gives rise to even greater cause for concern. This is why Kevin Fleming, an optical engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, developed a fertilizer alternative that isn't detonable and therefore can't be used in a bomb."

180 comments

  1. Useless .... by pollarda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are way too many things you can fashion into explosives. For example, chicken manure has enough nitrates in it you can use it as a replacement for ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate / Fuel Oil.) Knowing our government however, they would use this as an excuse to genetically engineer chickens with lower nitrate poop then try to ban all other varieties.

    1. Re:Useless .... by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This stuff would prevent accidental explosions. Its hardly useless if this stuff is similarly effective and inexpensive as a fertilizer.

    2. Re: Useless .... by pollarda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True. But as it says, this fertilizer was primarily developed to prevent fertilizer from being used in IEDs. To this it is at least a partial failure as there are way too many household chemicals that can be turned into explosives or highly dangerous chemicals. (Bleach and ammonia make hydrazine for example. Ammonium nitrate is found in instant cold packs that can be purchased in any drug store.)

    3. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Informative

      Intelligence analyst from JIEDDO here. True there are other household chemicals that can be used in IEDs. But Ammonium Nitrate is produced in such mass quantities that it provides a ready source of IED material. There are caches found with 20,000 lbs plus of AN, and it's produced just over the border in Pakistan by several fertilizer companies. If the fertilizer companies were to switch to something else, it would put a damper on the sheer size of the IED problem. Yes, over time they could switch, and we'll follow suit and limit the availability of that chemical next. But we're not going to throw our hands up and do nothing because there are "way too many household chemicals."

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ammonium Nitrate will never go away. The second largest use of AN after farming is the mining industry. They use ANFO cause it is cheap. And the Texas thing wasn't ANFO. I doubt they were mixing fuel oil into their fertilizer. It was bad manufacturing and risk mitigation practices. A lot of chemicals are dangerous in that sense.

    5. Re:Useless .... by Marksolo · · Score: 1

      Ammonium Nitrate is explosive on it's own, it is not as effective or as easy to detonate as ANFO.

    6. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that's a flawed approach. The resources needed to thwart the production of IEDs, both directly and indirectly through ongoing losses caused by these temporal-at-best solutions, are far greater than those needed to prevent the motivation for creating IEDs in the first place. Moreover, it seems like these "solutions" may only increase the number of potential IEDs makers through the generation of lower crop yields, worse living conditions, an overall resentment towards any force trying to implement these solutions, etc.

    7. Re: Useless .... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there are way too many household chemicals that can be turned into explosives or highly dangerous chemicals. (Bleach and ammonia make hydrazine for example.

      The difference is that few people have a reason to buy a ton of both bleach and ammonia, so it would raise suspicions. Anybody who farms has a reason to buy a ton of ammonium nitrate. Your hydrazine example has other problems: hydrazine is very toxic, flammable, and dangerously unstable. Ammonium nitrate is far easier to handle. That is why it is actually used in IEDs, whereas hydrazine is not.

      Non-explosive fertilizer will not prevent 100% of IEDs, but it will help. It will also help prevent explosions like the one in Texas.

    8. Re: Useless .... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unless you are gonna stick a gun to their head and force them to switch why should they? Knowing this stuff will end up being more expensive so you expect them to waste millions, possibly billions, because some of their product is used to blow up soldiers of a country the majority there isn't fond of anyway? Not bloody likely.

      So the only way you'll get them to switch is bribe them or bomb them, otherwise they have absolutely zero reason to care. Fertilizer is a billion dollar business and even raising the cost a dime could shift who gets these huge contracts so unless you believe the American taxpayer should yet again foot the bill so that it costs them nothing or is more profitable to use the new stuff i just don't see most of the third world switching. After all all it will do for them is raise costs, IEDs aren't really that high on the radar from their point of view.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thanks for demonstrating you know nothing whatsoever about the problem. We have in fact asked the major suppliers of AN to adjust their practices to minimize how much AN is stolen or siphoned off for IEDs, and they've been very sooperative. They don't like having their name connected with terrorism on the international news every day. And the price of AN has gone from about $4.00 per 40lbs bag early in the war to over $100 per bag recently due to various efforts to curtail its use in IEDs. But thanks for playing.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    10. Re: Useless .... by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

      The difference is that few people have a reason to buy a ton of both bleach and ammonia, so it would raise suspicions.

      Uhu. So how much bleach and ammonia do you need to make a bomb?

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    11. Re: Useless .... by VortexCortex · · Score: 0

      What about flour + air = bomb? Got any plans to replace grain with a more stable material?

      What about all those ammunition dumps? Got any plans to share the technology for how you keep large caches of explosives from creating chain explosions?

      I mean, yeah, just don't put it all in one big pile, and space it out a bit -- But if you can't even teach Texans how to do this simple thing, isn't it all rather hopelessly ineffectual and expensive for no reason? Wouldn't the money be better spent elsewhere, like, oh, I don't know, actual planetary defenses against big rocks?

    12. Re: Useless .... by drerwk · · Score: 2

      Re the cost increase on AN - does that mean legitimate use as fertalizer went up 25x for farmers?

    13. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are other fertilizers available, like calcium ammonium nitrate.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    14. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      We haven't seen any flour+air IEDs yet so far as I know, so I'm thinking that its use on a large scale is not feasible. If it becomes a problem, we can find ways to limit its use in IEDs in various ways.

      As for conventional weapons caches in Afghanistan, they haven't really been a problem there. Nor are there any fertilizer plants in Afghanistan.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    15. Re: Useless .... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      But it sounds more than a little like the 'war on drugs'. Yes, there have been attempts at weaning Afghanistan farmers away from the lucrative poppy crop. Might have even put a bit of a damper on heroin production. But addicts got to get their fix, haters got to hate. I don't see it as materially improving the IED situation.

      It might be able to prevent another Texas fertilizer plant explosion - that in itself is a worthy goal, but changing the dynamics of the Middle East, not so much.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re: Useless .... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Uhu. So how much bleach and ammonia do you need to make a bomb?

      RTFM

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    17. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      TFA says that you just need to mix the AN with a byproduct from steel manifacturing. That doesn't sound like it would make the stuff more expensive. In fact, I would say that since it would remove the need for all kind of administrative crap like background check, it could actually make fertilizer cheaper. Finally, the article says that it should actually be a better fertilizer in Afghan soil.

    18. Re: Useless .... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      We haven't seen any flour+air IEDs yet so far as I know, so I'm thinking that its use on a large scale is not feasible. If it becomes a problem, we can find ways to limit its use in IEDs in various ways.

      Which one are you going to ban, flour or air?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re: Useless .... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Based on my experience (past the statute of limitations) you should watch out for people purchasing large amounts of powdered coffee creamer and trying not to grin.

      At some point they're going to start leaching manure piles to make black powder.

      Then again, how many land mines in the ground? How many anti-tank mines?

      Also LOX is easy to make out of any other liquified gas...I was a rotten kid.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      I didn't say to ban it, I said limit its use in IEDs. For instance, we can ask flour manufactures to increase security, add serial numbers to bags so we can better track them and reduce siphoning off. We could try to encourage the use of less explosive alternatives, perhaps other grains. Basically, what we've done with ammonium nitrate.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    21. Re:Useless .... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yeah? So it's cheap to manufacture and there won't be any excessive patent fees?

      Sorry, this sounds either useless or an attempt to create a brand new exploitive monopoly. Can't tell which from here, but I'd be extremely surprised if it were as cheap to make as ammonium nitrate.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    22. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      None of those are really a concern in Afghanistan. There are some left over mines from the Soviet Union, but they don't account for much of the IEDs found.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    23. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And have ieds been reduced? Thanks for playing.

    24. Re:Useless .... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      IIRC last week's explosion was purely due to the pressure and temperature at which the ammonia was being stored.

      They hadnt crafted the nitrogen into an explosive, its just when you have a gigantic tank of gas stored at 250psi @ room temperature, and it gets heated up by a fire, it tends to rupture with explosive force. Article says that this new stuff uses ammonium sulfate, which makes the flunky chemist in me think that theyd still need to store high-pressure ammonia, and could experience the exact same "accident".

      Fertilizer doesnt tend to accidentally explode under basically any non-industrial situation.

    25. Re: Useless .... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Thanks for demonstrating you know nothing whatsoever about the problem.

      The "Problem" is that "making something that is explosive" can be done whether the US likes it or not, and with materials that everyone has access to.

      I dont know what the solution is, but its certainly not to go after anything that contains nitrogen in the hopes that you'll win that arms race.

    26. Re: Useless .... by nametaken · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Curious. Doesn't the price per bag for fertilizer going from $4 to $100 make it prohibitively expensive for it's normal use as fertilizer?

      Was there a considerable reduction in the number of IED's since the price skyrocketed?

    27. Re: Useless .... by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      The real problem is a mentality that we need to find every conceivable danger and remove it from society,

      Maybe that works out for some states, but it doesnt fit with my conception of what a free state is. If flour bombs become a problem, we can deal with it the same way society has always dealt with these sort of problems: by punishing the people causing havoc after they commit the crime.

    28. Re: Useless .... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Why cant you just go after the people making flour bombs, rather than foisting a massive burden onto society?

    29. Re: Useless .... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      By the way i intend no disrespect to you personally-- I admire that your job seems to be trying to solve these sorts of problems-- but I think what you are expressing is the wrong way to do it.

    30. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      AN is illegal in Afghanistan. Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN) is legal and plentiful. Yes, there was a decrease. There were also many other measures taken to reduce the effectiveness of IEDs, like better armored vehicles, better detection capabilities, et al.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    31. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Informative

      We can try to limit the size and scale of the IED problem. Our vehicles are getting hit with 700lbs+ IEDs. That's not something you whip up with stuff sitting around the basement. There's a huge supply chain of materials streaming into Afghanistan, and we're trying to limit their ability to employ IEDs not only against us but against local nationals, Afghan police, and Afghan military.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    32. Re: Useless .... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      And thanks for showing you live in Washington where a billion here and a billion there? really not worth worrying about. while i'm sure they wouldn't like being associated with terrorists guess what? THEY AREN'T, oh maybe in some circles in the belt but NOBODY in the free world automatically thinks IEDs when they think fertilizer, they think...well they think "crap" but that's another story.

      Again when you are talking about selling boatloads? A 10c per pound raise can mean the difference to whether you get that billion dollar contract or you don't so again unless you stick a gun to their head or bribe them so its cheaper NOT to make the kind that can be used for IEDs the other guy WILL be happy to take that billion dollar contract and the ones stupid enough to go along will be out of business in three years or less..again for a country that they honestly don't give a rat fuck about either way.

      Might want to look up global trade and fertilizer sales sometime because that ain't a case of through the looking glass like in the belt, where you can piss money away and not care, a single cent increase in price can mean the difference between a company having a great quarter and a company going out of business. Most of the third world? They are worried about having food on the table, jobs for their people, and not having the whole thing get blown away by a disaster, IEDs? really not even in the top ten. Sorry to be so blunt but that is white people's problems and not really on the radar, especially if it'll cost them hundreds of millions which when you are talking about completely retooling a factory to make something different? it MOST CERTAINLY WILL, so please quit pretending this is some magic switch, its billions of dollars that SOMEBODY has to pay...sadly it will probably yet again be the American taxpayer.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    33. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about U.S. society. If someone makes a (like, one) flour+air IED in the U.S., then charge them and prosecute in a court of law. I was referring to Afghanistan, in a combat zone, and if it became a huge problem (I'm imagining hundreds or thousands per year; THAT's a problem to me). In that highly hypothetical case, I imagine something would be done to mitigate the threat. Perhaps some sort of overhead sensor looking for stockpiles of flour it places in doesn't belong. I imagine there's little reason for 20,000 lbs of flour to be sitting in stockpiles near one of our bases in a small village. Mind you, it's a separate argument for our being there at all; that's not my decision. My job is to track down networks employing IEDs. Actually, my current job is training others how to do that.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    34. Re: Useless .... by nametaken · · Score: 2

      I see, so that was a change in price for illicit goods, and the safer alternative in Afghanistan is a good replacement? I don't know much about farming, but it sounds like an "everyone wins" scenario, to me. Well... everyone but the bad guys.

    35. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Informative

      Newsflash, AN is illegal in Afghanistan in any shape or form, for fertilizer, explosive, or otherwise. So the fertilizer firms have quite a bit of incentive to make a kind of fertilizer that can't be used in explosives (something they're actively doing if you haven't been paying attention, despite your claims that it doesn't make sense to do so), so they can legally do business in Afghanistan, price be damned. I'm not referring to the whole rest of the world where IEDs aren't a problem.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    36. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      That's the idea. Calcium Ammonium Nitrate is a cheap decent alternative fertilizer, though it can still be used in IEDs, albeit with a whole lot more work involved. If they could both be replaced by a decent cheap fertilizer that has even less (or no) capability to be used in explosives, that would be even better.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    37. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You'll have to limit the amount of salt available to people then. Ordinary NaCl can be converted into NaCl3 easily. As can KCl be converted into KClO3. A very crude electrochemical cell can make the chlorates quite easily, without requiring any exotic materials, or leaving much of a "telltale footprint".

      And a kg of KClO3/NaClO3 + fuel is going to produce a significantly nastier boom than a kg of blackpowder, as used in the Boston bombs.

      At the end of the day a "war on precursors" has to go so far up the chain of precursors that it becomes ludicrous. The starting products in the making of
          Ammonium Nitrate, for example, are AIR and WATER. Granted, you need a big iron pressure-vessel to do the conversion, but if you don't care about
          the rate at which you turn out "product", it doesn't need to be very big.

    38. Re: Useless .... by ThePeices · · Score: 1, Funny

      As this is Slashdot, due to your misspelling of the word 'cooperative', all points that you have raised, and all factual information given, is now incorrect. Your argument has been officially dismantled.

      Welcome to Slashdot. Thanks for playing.

    39. Re:Useless .... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I, for one, am curious how the West, Texas fertilizer plant exploded.

      There are rules and regulations for the storage of diesel fuel. Likewise for fertilizer. They don't get stored in close proximity. How did they combine in a sufficiently high ratio to create an explosion of the magnitude seen without some additional catalyst? That was a huuuuuge explosion!

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    40. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "just following orders" argument has always been bogus. You either support the effort or you don't. "I don't agree with any of this, but what they hey, I'll play along anyway" amounts to support.

      You may not be directly pulling a trigger, but so long as you're playing your part in the effort, you still support the invasion. That is your decision. You don't get out of it with a Jedi hand wave and then continue with business as usual.

    41. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, you could get out of their fucking country?

    42. Re: Useless .... by flimflammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Erm, unless I'm mistaken, calcium ammonium nitrate can also be turned into IEDs can't it? It is primarily a mixture of ammonium nitrate is it not?

    43. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's true, but it adds several steps and makes it harder for them. That's why they're trying to replace both AN and CAN with a fertilizer that can't be turned into an explosive.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    44. Re: Useless .... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      ^^^ hairyfeet whoring for karma, posting popular opinions while contributing nothing to the discussion.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    45. Re: Useless .... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Deal with a combat zone the way societies always have. I dont buy that the proper solution to "there are enemy soldiers with guns" is to try to apply enough regulation that enemy soldiers cant buy guns.

    46. Re: Useless .... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      OR... and I know this may be hard for a US "intelligence" analyst to grasp... but if our troops weren't in Afghanistan, it really wouldn't matter what kinds of fertilizers they make in Pakistan.

      Then there's the whole idea that we're going to raise the price of food (if fertilizer costs more, food costs more) because of what? 2 IEDs in the entire history of the US? And less than 10 accidents? Total killed under a few hundred? How many people will die due to hunger because of the higher price of food? How many kids will go to school under-nourished to the point that it has lasting impacts on their education and future in life? And before anyone pipes up about hunger not being a problem in the US, don't say it, you're a fool. There are people dieing from starvation in this country every day, even if it's not covered by the news much. Look up the stats.

      This is all security theater. This "invention" is simply a product produced to capitalize on the irrational public fear of a terrorist attack. Mental illness kills more people in this country than just about anything (suicide, drug addiction, eating disorders, etc...) lets focus on some real issues and stop trying to scare the public into expensive fixes for problems that don't exist.

    47. Re: Useless .... by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Since you've been getting some armchair flak, just saying thankyou for your informative posts (this and others). It's great to get insights from folks who actually work in the field being discussed.

    48. Re: Useless .... by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 2

      The problem is not access to components used to make explosives & IEDs, the problem is hatred based on ignorance, fear, and Western meddling in these hellholes and wastelands... same as it ever was. Take away every conceivable object that can be used as a weapon, and they'll use rocks. Then you can call them IRTDs (Improvised Rock Throwing Devices) and ban all manner of rock and stone. That'll learn 'em!

      Analyze THAT.

    49. Re: Useless .... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Uhu. So how much bleach and ammonia do you need to make a bomb?

      Quite a bit. Hydrazine is not a high explosive. It is not even a low explosive. It is a propellant. A high explosive can be used to shatter things. A propellant can be used to push things over. So you cannot use it in a small bomb to send shrapnel through armored vehicles. But you can use it in a truck bomb to knock down a building. You also need to factor in that the gunk you make at home from bleach and ammonia is not going to be very pure. If you want a small bomb, you are probably better off just tossing a jar of gasoline at your target.

    50. Re:Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This stuff would prevent accidental explosions. Its hardly useless if this stuff is similarly effective and inexpensive as a fertilizer.

      As long as it doesn't cause cancer.

    51. Re: Useless .... by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 2

      Instance 1:
      "Dude, where are you going with 2 tons of ammonium nitrate?"
      "Uh, I got me a farm and I'm using it for fertilizer?"
      "Oh, OK."

      Instance 2:
      "Dude, where are you going with 2 tons of finger nail polish remover?"
      "Uh, you should see how big my girlfirend's fingers are?"
      "Up against the wall! Spread 'em!"

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    52. Re:Useless .... by smash · · Score: 1

      Yeah, pretty much that. I mean, a primary explosive component you could use would be say... gasoline? Chlorine + brake fluid? LPG?

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    53. Re: Useless .... by smash · · Score: 1

      You're not taking into account the increased profit for fertilizer manufacturers. Starvation, death, etc. are all of secondary concern to the big $.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    54. Re: Useless .... by smash · · Score: 1

      Because it is inconceivable that 2 different people in 2 lines of work might buy fertilizer and bleach and co-operate. Like say, a cleaning company and a farmer...

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    55. Re:Useless .... by smash · · Score: 1

      Causing cancer is probably a win anyway for the medical/drug industry and reduces the problems of paying out benefits or otherwise providing for those who are retired and on pensions.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    56. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you DO care about the rate at which you turn out product. Hence oodaloop's comment about 700lb IEDs. Sheesh, read the comment you're replying to. These IEDs are made from chemicals, not precursors. Once you start having to make your own chemicals for them, the game changes, and not in your favour.

      I mean, seriously, if someone tried banning high-performance microprocessors would you say "You'd better get rid of all the sand then"?

    57. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aerosolization is a thing, therefore we might as well just sell them plutonium.

    58. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydrazine isn't a propellant. It's used as a propellant. You should read up the history of liquid rocket fuel if you think hydrazine can't be used to blow things up. Or just Google "hydrazine explosion", since it is after all 2013.

      You're engaging in pure logical fallacy here. A is a B. B's can only do C, not D. Therefore A can't do D. Except A can do D, so ...

      The problem is both "A is a B" and "B's can only do C, not D" are meaningless assertions.

    59. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoring for karma, posting popular opinions while contributing nothing to the discussion

      That's the entire population of Slashdot. Including you. Especially you.

    60. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      That might work if we were fighting soldiers. But we're not. We're fighting people we who don't wear uniforms, who blow up civilian as well as military targets, and who don't follow the Geneva Conventions. What worked in previous wars was not working in Afghanistan.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    61. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      OR... and I know this may be hard for a US "intelligence" analyst to grasp... but if our troops weren't in Afghanistan, it really wouldn't matter what kinds of fertilizers they make in Pakistan.

      Not really my call, is it? I don't think we should still be there at all, but we are and my job is to track down people who are using IEDs.

      Then there's the whole idea that we're going to raise the price of food (if fertilizer costs more, food costs more) because of what? 2 IEDs in the entire history of the US? And less than 10 accidents?

      Ammonium Nitrate is illegal in Afghanistan, the only place I've been talking about. It's free and cheap in the U.S. where there are "only" a few hundred IED events a year. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, thousands a year and many of them are huge, and quite deadly. The steps taken in Afghanistan to reduce the number and lethality of IEDs is not security theater; it's been highly effective at saving lives.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    62. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Yeah thanks Capt Obvious. I'm quite familiar with the psychology of terrorism, probably far more familiar with it than you are since, you know, it's my JOB and everything. But the discussion was about fertilizer and IEDs, not every goddamn factor involved in terrorism. This is a war that is being waged on multiple fronts in multiple ways at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels. There are efforts in diplomacy and information operations regarding your concerns. I don't agree with everything our govt is doing or has done, but I'm not exactly in a position to go back in time and stop us from invading countries. Now if you're done being stupid, how about you tell me what you do for a living so I can give you my uninformed opinions about it.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    63. Re: Useless .... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Yes, over time they could switch, and we'll follow suit and limit the
      > availability of that chemical next.

      which is the point isn't it, as long as you keep duping people into thinking you are solving a problem, you will always have a job. Thats the real point here. Its not going to save any lives at all, its just ensuring jobs for consultants.

      Kind of reminds me of what the guy making thise fake bomb detectors was said to have commented when asked about the fact that they don't work "they do exactly what they were designed to do, they make money"

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    64. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah. When was the last time someone make a chlorate bomb? It is too hard for most wannabe bombers - so it is not done. Ideally, they get military equipment. If that is too hard, dynamite. DIY explosives has to be both real simple, and precursors have to be easy to get. Or it won't happen on a large scale.

      This is not about preventing a madman with some chemistry education from spending months on making a single bomb. You can never prevent that. It is about preventing "mass manufacturing" of very simple explosives - by the kind of people who find it hard enough to mix fuel and fertilizer in a useable ratio. Semi-illiterates who perhaps don't know what a "liter" is. Easily recruited by fundamentalists, but they can't do tricky work. Forget about advanced chemistry like the making of KClO3. An electrochemical cell - for people who don't have electricity everywhere? Places where water is in short supply?

      Someone smart enough to do chemistry is not the kind of guy they recruit as a suicide bomber or al-quaeda fighter. They get those who either burn for revenge, or simply is below average in their own community. It is the guy without a future in the local farming community, who joins a rebel army. Someone whose only hope is to get a position when Taliban wins.

      Still, "developing" this new fertilizer must have been easy. Dilute the ammonium nitrate - with dirt - and it is no longer easy bomb material. Bomb makers want pure chemicals. All you need is something that is hard to wash out, and cheap. Not too hard for a chemical engineer with a small lab. But too hard to reprocess for a farm hand whose only equipment is farm tools he doesn't even own.

    65. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is one small part of what we do in JIEDDO. My part is more Attack the Network (AtN). I go after the people involved in building and emplacing IEDs. Ohers are invovled in Counter Threat Finance (CTF), tracing and stopping the money. Still others are involved in going after the criminal networks helping to facilitate materials, and so on. This is a multifaceted front; I was just talking about one component and one method of mitigation.

      We have in fact saved many lives and thwarted many attacks. You're welcome.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    66. Re: Useless .... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Prevent use in "Acts of Terror" which wtf? That even being an accepted valid phrase is an act of blistering stupidity.

    67. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Prevent use in "Acts of Terror" which wtf?

      WTF yourself. Were you trying to quote me? Because I didn't use that phrase in that post.

      That even being an accepted valid phrase is an act of blistering stupidity.

      Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about a post I just read. If you'd like to form whole sentences containing rational thought on the current topic, I'd be happy to reply.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    68. Re: Useless .... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The summary says it's to prevent use in "Acts of Terror", and then starts babbling about IEDs. It's like the whole world is too stupid to understand the difference between terrorism and NGAs. Terrorists do shit to scare people into giving them things; these people are NGAs, doing shit and then gloating to rally morale for their cause. It's a plain old act of war, just without a government to blame.

    69. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're fucking insane and please let me be clear on this, I am not trolling. I honestly believe you're insane, playing whack-a-mole with products right up to and including flour could be described as nothing else but insanity.

    70. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you are fighting civilians who are resisting the invasion and occupation of their country. Spin it however you like, that is the truth of the situation. Oh, and the "Geneva Conventions" (sic) clearly state that a population that is resisting invasion or occupation doesn't have to follow those rules, they are free to do whatever they have to in their bid to resist the invader.

    71. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      OKC 95, the example used in TFS, was an act of terror, and it used ANFO in a VBIED. That's not stupid; it's accurate. Today's IED threat in Afghanistan is more symptomatic of an insurgency, which is the term we usually use rather than terrorism. Not sure what NGA is (NonGovernmental Army?), but it's not a term we use in the intelligence community.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    72. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the same AC, but to be fair, it is only a problem if you are on the "wrong" side.

      Remember, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and all the others were technically terrorists, attempting to overthrow the (then) legitimate government.

    73. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have demonstrated you lack critical reading and thinking skills. Go back and re-read the post. What you say is merely true of the US and US companies but not generally true outside your tiny parochial world.

    74. Re: Useless .... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      For instance, we can ask flour manufactures to increase security, add serial numbers to bags so we can better track them and reduce siphoning off.

      I'm sorry, but I simply don't see how this stops anyone from going to a grocery store, buying flour, and walking out. One kilogram of wheat flour, for example, contains around 14 MJ. Compare this to TNTs 4 MJ/kg, and it should be obvious that getting enough flour is not a problem for would-be terrorist.

      We could try to encourage the use of less explosive alternatives, perhaps other grains.

      All grains are explosive. Your body gains energy from them through slowly burning them, which means they're combustible, which means they're explosive in powdery form. So is sawdust, and navel flint for that matter (for the terrorist who wants to go the extra mile :p). That was kinda my point.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    75. Re: Useless .... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you are. Some parts of the world like to use "Republican Army" a lot (Ireland has like 6 xRA insurgencies), I'm being silly because I don't like the term in America due to there being an actual Republican party and a lot of retarded people who will draw a connection and start being assholes.

      OKC was terrorism. The summary went babbling on about modern paramilitary threats, which are not terrorism. But we call everything terrorism. Show up with a gun at a restaurant? You're a terrorist, not an armed robber or a nutjob. Attempt to assassinate the President? You're a terrorist. Give a Senator the middle finger and start criticizing him openly during a big speech? Terrorist. I'm sick of hearing it. Call me when someone sticks a bomb in your high school and calls up demanding ransom.

    76. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Mr Blue meant NGO, not NGA.

    77. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And guess who taught them how to do all that?

      That's right, the good ol USofA, go thank your local CIA agent folks.

    78. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      And yet, for some reason, they're not employed in IEDs. My guess is that it's too hard to create an air dispersal without alerting your target. But yes, there are everyday components available to make IEDs, and our strategy to counter them cannot rely on simply limiting the raw materials. That is one possible front, with limited apllicability depending on the material. There is a lot more to Attack the Network (AtN), which is what I do, let alone Defeat the Device (DtD) which is what a large portion of JIEDDO does.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    79. Re: Useless .... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I didn't thank you, I said your wasting my money; and I meant it. On every front you are playing whack-a-mole and having every bit as much effect on the mole population. None of this addresses the causes of the problem, which the people actually calling the shots seem to be actively working to make worst. Sorry I am not willing to take your contribution completely out of context.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    80. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not the AC's...c'mon, the only people NOT whoring themselves out for points are the AC's

      people who post with logins on /. are generally retards anyway so really, who cares? This site and especially its comments are generally just intellectual faeces.

    81. Re: Useless .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NGA = Non Governmental Agency.

      Are you that fucking stupid? Or just lying/astroturfing?

    82. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Yes, because I'm in charge of the entire U.S. budget. I'm so sorry for not consulting with you beforehand before I started running the nation. Go complain to someone else with your opinions. I'm not interested in hearing them.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    83. Re: Useless .... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I don't hold your responsible at all for the overall budget, but thats entirely besides the point, you still chose to work for warmongers who have been instrumental in the radicalization of extremeists around the world.

      Whose actions were the Marathon bombers upset about? Certainly wasn't US civilians. Certainly wasn't about domestic policy. It was the direct result of the actions of your employers.

      But you are right, I should take my complaints directly to my congresscritters. Afterall, they are the ones who keep throwing good money after bad.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    84. Re: Useless .... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      you still chose to work for warmongers who have been instrumental in the radicalization of extremeists around the world.

      Well, excuse me for seeing things differently. Or are you not aware that your opinions are just opinions and not everyone sees things the way you do?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    85. Re: Useless .... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      "Up against the wall! Spread 'em!"
      Instance 1:
      "Dude, where are you going with 2 tons of ammonium nitrate?"
      "Uh, I got me a farm and I'm using it for fertilizer?"
      "Oh, OK."
      Instance 2:
      "Dude, where are you going with 2 tons of finger nail polish remover?"
      "Uh, you should see how big my girlfirend's fingers are?"
      "Down on the ground! Spread 'em further!"

      FTFY

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    86. Re: Useless .... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Re the cost increase on AN - does that mean legitimate use as fertalizer went up 25x for farmers?

      They're brown-skinned foreign farmers. They have no legitimate use for either fertilizer or oxygen.

      Haven't you been reading your Tee-party indoctrination guidelines?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Better to just cut the over-fertilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's just too much fertilizer being dumped on plants, with the added benefit of the pesticides that go along with it.

  3. WTF Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The explosion at the Texas plant was not from mixing Ammonium Nitrate with Diesel fuel.

    Get your heads out of your asses, you fucking idiots.

    1. Re:WTF Slashdot? by Qzukk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The explosion at the Texas plant was not from mixing Ammonium Nitrate with Diesel fuel

      The real WTF is that it's explosive without mixing it with diesel. Why even mention mixing it with diesel?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:WTF Slashdot? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      Diesel helps transmit the explosive shock wave in a container of granular ammonium nitrate.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:WTF Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, so basically you are saying that not just fuels, but most any liquid would do the same? Would even an AN heavily saturated water solution goo detonate?

  4. I'm developing some right now. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    I'm developing some right now. It involves this morning's sesame seed bagel with cream cheese.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Fertilizer that can't be used in a bomb? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    I call bullshit! (Literally. Unless you want to be really nasty, that is.)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Fertilizer that can't be used in a bomb? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      +1. I wish that I had mod points!

    2. Re:Fertilizer that can't be used in a bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, that would be a dirty bomb.

    3. Re:Fertilizer that can't be used in a bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Biogas

  6. Will not stop terrorists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... as if you needed me to tell you that. It's not as though basic chemistry is incomprehensible to evil people. I'm pretty sure they can figure out how to purify the ammonium nitrate.

    Of course, if this prevents unintentional fertilizer explosions, it's still worth something, but I am skeptical.

    1. Re:Will not stop terrorists... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yup that's the problem - people think other people are stupid. Gunpowder was being made 1,000 years ago so anyone who thinks this will "solve" anything is seriously delusional. Explosives are not HARD to make. They are EASY to make.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Will not stop terrorists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup that's the problem - people think other people are stupid.
      PROBLEM???

      This is a fundamental prerequisite. Competition between and management of smart people is hard. The developement of entire social structures for sustaining a population of dumbasses has been in play since the Magna Carta. As usual, they forgot to account for exponential growth.

    3. Re:Will not stop terrorists... by Garridan · · Score: 1

      Something done 1000 years ago isn't necessarily easy today. As shown on mythbusters, making good gunpowder takes quite a bit of skill and car.

    4. Re:Will not stop terrorists... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Yup that's the problem - people think other people are stupid. Gunpowder was being made 1,000 years ago so anyone who thinks this will "solve" anything is seriously delusional. Explosives are not HARD to make. They are EASY to make.

      Frankly, some other people are stupid. Not every terrorist is an evil genius. Hell, most of them are pretty dumb, that's part of the reason why they are able to convince themselves that murder is somehow going to improve things.

      So yes, making misbehavior more difficult for stupid people is often a worthwhile thing to do, even if smart people can work around it. Hell, look at iTunes -- easily broken DRM, but still good enough to keep most people buying instead of pirating.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:Will not stop terrorists... by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      They were being deliberately stupid on that show when trying to make BP, that is the only conclusion I can come to because they should have been able to make good BP with only 15 minutes of research on how to do it.

    6. Re:Will not stop terrorists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, most of them are pretty dumb, that's part of the reason why they are able to convince themselves that murder is somehow going to improve things.

      Well, it worked for quite a few of them. Most got good political deals, few got statehood and independence, some others became important politicians, respectable leaders among their respective peoples. Besides, it is not possible to bring peace to the table (and there'll probably be no table, either) if there already is peace to begin with.

  7. As the old saying goes, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

  8. Questions by puddingebola · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Ammonium nitrate can be synthesized with Nitric acid and Ammonia. Are these that hard to come by in Afghanistan or Pakistan? 2. Purification would probably just require you finding something that is soluble with Ammonium Nitrate and not Iron Sulfate, or vice versa. Maybe that would be harder than I'm thinking it would be. Maybe some other method would be possible (magnetic?). 3. Any long term environmental consequences to building up Iron compounds in soils over generations of use? Is there an ecologist or an agronomist in the house?

  9. Ooohhh, Kevin FLEMING... by xantic · · Score: 1

    At first glace I read his name as Kevin Flaming, which would've been somewhat fitting. Then I realized my mistake when I read about the non-explosive nature of the fertilizer. Then I realized another mistake in that I should be utilizing my optical enhancers to avoid the aforementioned mistake to begin with.

  10. Acidifies soils by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the article it acidifies soils which the author finds good for areas with alkaline soils. And he says that some areas of Afghanistan have alkaline soils. Fine, but unless Afghanistan is unlike the rest of the world, some areas will have alkaline soils and some have acidic soils. I happen to have acidic soils on my farm and would never use a fertilizer that would further decrease the pH. We have plenty of iron in the soils here already too.

    The cost increase may be low, but they cannot argue that with the added materials and logistics, the cost will be the same in places that already have ammonium nitrate fertilizers in use. Perhaps where their crony governments force farmers to buy calcium carbonate fertilizer it would be cost neutral.

    But until hunger is eliminated in the world and all the world has healthy food to eat, governments have no business increasing the cost of food. Far more than 180 have died due to malnutrition since the Murrah building. Governments could trying sticking to courts, police and defense if they want to minimize the incidence of terrorism. And maybe help out with world hunger if they just can't stand sitting on their hands.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Acidifies soils by xquercus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, the soil acidification would be a downside. Alternatives to ammonium nitrate already exist, but they all have downsides. Ammonium sulphate is one example. One downside of ammonium sulphate is that it's inappropriate to use on crops which don't tolerate acid soil -- the same downside as the formula referenced in the article. We aren't all growing acid loving rhododendrons. Urea is another common alternative. It's an organic fertilizer which requires microbial action (in situ) before becoming bio-available. It's slow release which can be desirable for some management techniques but often farmers fertilize just weeks before planting. Quick release ammonium nitrate is generally preferable in that situation. Finally anhydrous ammonia is available. While not practical for the homeowner and subject to significant regulation due to its high potential for diversion for the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, it's hardly ideal. Ammonium nitrate really is the silver bullet when it comes to quick release and cheap nitrogen for agricultural use. It would be great if farmers were concerned about the long term quality of their soils and we adopted farming techniques which reflected this. Unfortunately, this isn't the way it works, and for a farmer who needs nitrogen NOW for THIS YEAR'S crop, ammonium nitrate is an excellent solution.

    2. Re:Acidifies soils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah governments, leave the food-price-speculation to the hedge funds and banks!

      Just remember to bail them out if they bet the wrong way.

    3. Re:Acidifies soils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf? I was with you till your 3rd paragraph. It is easy to eliminate hunger. Mostly it involves not sending free food and water to cultures that breed like rabbits and insist on living in deserts.
      Even in America, i don't take the blame for the homeless guy who is too well off to show up at the homeless shelter or red cross.
      Government increase the cost of food? Left to it's own devices, the American farmer would have to PAY supermarkets to stock their oversupply and set up some type of google ad revenue to make any money at all.
      I guess I missed your point in your whole anti gov't rant. On this one, it's the only thing they still manage well - considering all the players.

    4. Re:Acidifies soils by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Feric sulphate has an additional advantage: it stops the "Shake and Bake" production of meth cold by converting the lithium used to Lithium Amide: LiN2. It's been suggested as an instant cold pack additive for that reason.

      "Shake and Bake" meth production involves generating ammonia in-situ with the reaction of NaOH (drain cleaner) with NH4NO3 (instant cold packs). This dissolves in some organic solvent, like methyl ethyl ketone, in which one has already dissolved pseudo-ephedrine. The presence of lithium (from batteries) results in a "Birch-like" reduction (sodium in anhydrous ammonia) of the pseudo-ephedrine to methamphetamine. The organic layer is filtered off, and the filtrate "crashed" with hydrigen chloride gas (from a battery acid/salt generator) to yield crystals of crude methamphetamine hydrochloride. The production of ammonia also results in production of water, and water is sometimes introduced at the start to kick-start the reaction.

      The "cooking" (prior to filtration and crashing with HCL) generally takes place in a sealed soda bottle, with all reagents present. Besides the pressure buildup from the ammonia gas (requiring periodic "burping" of the bottle), a signficant side reaction of 2Li + 2H2O -> 2LiOH +H2(g) is exothermic, and can both igniite the H2 (and organic solvent) if any oxygen is present, as well as possibly have the lithium melt through the plastic wall of the container (which will then expose the contents to atmospheric oxygen, possibly igniting them).

      It's amazing that people resort to doing this.

      Now, lithium and ammonia will react to produce lithium amide: Li + 2NH3 -> LiN2 + 3H2, and the reaction is exothermic, but it requires a high activation energy, so is usally slow enough to ignore in this case. Iron ions catalyse this, and the production of Lithium Amide kills the Birch-like reduction cold. Thus, it has been suggested to add iron salts to instant cold packs so they can't be used as a source of ammonia for "shake and bake" meth synthesis. The reader is left to figure out how this can be overcome.

      Note: this was intended for educational purposes. I strongly discourage meth production. The process above is extremely dangerous, and the product is really bad for your health. It should be necessary to state that producing methamphetamine is illegal as well. Attempts to make it "safe" generally involve trying to keep the lithium floating on the organic solvent layer while the water is being produced below it. However, periodic shaking tends to bring the two together for brief periods, until the reaction between them is quenched once the bottle is stilled and the lithium floats to the top of the organic solvent layer again. I learned about it while researching solvated electrons. Seriously, the process described is already "all over the internet".

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    5. Re:Acidifies soils by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I guess I missed your point in your whole anti gov't rant. On this one, it's the only thing they still manage well - considering all the players.

      Not sure where you live, but in America, the standard diet is absolutely abysmal, and guided mostly by subsidies for the most unhealthy types of foods and trade embargoes against some of the alternatives. Meanwhile, they mandate absurd ideas that take away arable land from crops and drive up the cost of food, while prohibiting labelling of GMO foods and appointing agribusiness apparatchiks to the highest regulatory offices.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  11. BLEV by Latent+Heat · · Score: 0
    Unless someone tells me differently, the West, Texas accident was a BLEV -- boiling liquid expanding vapor -- accident.

    When you rupture a vessel containing a liquid under pressure, the liquid "flashes" into vapor driving an explosion, the power of which is enhanced by the conflagration of the ammonia when it meets air.

    BLEV's were the mechanism behind boiler explosions involving incombustible H2O back in the day of steam locomotives (and in this day with accidents with antique steam tractors). You can also get BLEVs with propane or other hydrocarbon liquids. There was some recent controversy about Google Page Rank, where a search for some campground in Spain turns up a horrific disaster where a BLEV from a badly maintained tanker truck taking a shortcut over back roads to avoid tolls blew up.

    I fully expect someone on the TV news to make such a mistake, but to conflate West, Texas with the explosive properties of the ANFO mix, yes, some heads need to be removed from back sides, and some persons of limited intellect need to stop procreating. Is there anyway to remove this thread from Slashdot so we don't look like people who should be prevented from reproducing?

    1. Re:BLEV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too late with respect to your parents

    2. Re:BLEV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides what the poster below mentioned, I'm pretty sure they concluded that the vapor explosion wouldn't have had the explosive force to, say, level the town. That required the excessive unregulated buildup of tons of ammonium nitrate without proper safety controls for something with the potential to be that explosive.

    3. Re:BLEV by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Is there anyway to remove this thread from Slashdot so we don't look like people who should be prevented from reproducing?

      Your concern is misplaced. To reproduce sexually, an organism has to engage in actual (rather than simulated or conjectured) intercourse with the other gender of the same species.

      For the universe of Slashdot readers, a theoretical possibility to be sure, but in actual practice it is of little consequence.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  12. industrial chemicals, by the ton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the problem is that millions of pounds (if not tons) of AN is made each year for fertilizer and explosives use. Do you want to set up two sets of manufacturing plants so that the explosives grade stuff doesn't get contaminated with the iron compounds? And it's not like AN is unique. There's lots of things that can be used as an explosive in an IED. AN gets used because it's cheap. $20/50 pound sack (600-700/ton, last time I checked).

    Everything useful has other uses. Anhydrous ammonia is a great fertilizer.. inject it into the soil and the soil moisture picks it up. But it's also used to synthesize methamphetamine. Sulfuric and Nitric acids have so many uses it's hard to imagine them all, and sure, you can make explosives. What about acetone and hydrogen peroxide: both have lots of uses, but can be used to make TATP of "no more than 100 ml liquid" fame.

  13. Why buy this? by guevera · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why would I buy this stuff?
    Right now you can buy Amonium Nitrate that gives you a ton of readily available nitrogen for your crops at a relatively small cost.
    And, in case I need it, I can build a bomb with the stuff, too.
    I don't often need to build an IED, but whether it's a stump in your field or a neighbor messing with you or the damn federals raiding your moonshine still, sometimes you need to blow something up. With amonium nitrate, I don't have to buy and store expensive and potentially dangerous explosives just on the off chance I need to blow something sky high.
    But this new no-go-boom-fertilizer just takes away the features I'm used to getting for free with my fertilizer. It's like DRM for ag chemicals.

    1. Re:Why buy this? by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1

      You would buy it because the government bans sale of pure ammonium nitrate for example. Anyway this is old news and doesnt really solve the problem. The mix doesnt detonate if you mix fuel with it - IED makers usually do that to increase potency of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Problem is that fertilizel blows up on its own too without fuel addition, what probably happened in Texas, just that its not very potent explosive. Still if you are talking about what sort of quantities agriculture uses thats kind of a moot point.

    2. Re:Why buy this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KClO3 can be made easily with readily-available materials and would be just fine for a Boston-style IED.

      A small "plant" for KClO3 in your garage could be made to produce a few kg per month of KClO3, would raise essentially no suspicions, and would be vastly
          less dangerous to operate than, for example, a meth lab.

      The whole "cracking down on precursors" thing only really works against the too-stupid-to-google IED crowd...

    3. Re:Why buy this? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      As someone who leveled hills with AN explosives as a child (to increase grazable land, of course), I heartily agree with this sentiment.

      Sorry, decreasing the availability of AN will only do one significant thing: it will make farming and ranching (by proxy) more expensive and even less "profitable". For ag, there is no significant incentive to switching, particularly since it is likely to cost more (you'll need amendments to counteract the acidity) and/or it will have limited applicability (increasing soil acidity is not a common problem - it's usually the other way around). No doubt it'll be less effective for its intended purpose, too.

      Make a fertilizer that will neutralize soil acidity and then we're starting to talk.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    4. Re:Why buy this? by smash · · Score: 1

      ANFO is also extensively used in the mining industry. If they get rid of it they will need to come up with an equivalent cheap explosive or deal with the price increase in everything that comes out of holes in the ground.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    5. Re:Why buy this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who leveled hills with AN explosives as a child (to increase grazable land, of course), ...

      You chump! You decreased grazable land - hills have more surface area then their footprint has.

    6. Re:Why buy this? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      no you have to think of the whole plot of land

      if you blow the hills up (and then plow the loose soil into the gullies/ dips) you make more FLATish land.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    7. Re:Why buy this? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      We're talking about hills which are more like plateaus, in accessible from their perimeter by grazing cattle. It levels out the perimeter (and dents the center) if you bury it a good 5' down...

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  14. Re: Did you read the summary??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did you read the summary? First line: "Ammonium nitrate is a commonly used fertilizer, but when mixed with a fuel such as diesel, it makes a powerful explosive – as seen in last week's fertilizer plant explosion in Texas." Your parent points out that the explosion in Texas does not demonstrate that it makes a powerful explosive when mixed with diesel. The explosion in Texas demonstrated that it's pretty explosive all on its own.

    The interesting thing is that this heightened interest in ANFO seems to have been caused by two explosions that did not involve ANFO. The explosion in Texas was straight AN. The explosions at the Boston Marathon were powered by gunpowder. It's possible that the next explosion could be caused by ANFO, but that's not the current problem.

    The big issue here is that we could stop treating farmers buying fertilizer as potential terrorists. They could buy all of this new fertilizer that they wanted without triggering terror checks. That doesn't really make us safer (the current system seems to be successful at preventing ANFO's use in terrorism), but it would make farmers' lives easier. Frankly, I think that that would be a good thing.

  15. Save the farmers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When only terrorists can buy fertilizer they've won.

    1. Re:Save the farmers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build a working firearm that can only shoot bad guys, and your joke will start to make any sense.

      But thanks for playing.

  16. all the tanks are intact; not a BLEVE by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Informative

    Look st the post-explosion photos and you'll see that the anhydrous ammonia tanks are all intact. They're hard to miss - they're virtually the only thing left standing. BLEVE explosions obliterate the tanks they occur in and throw massive amounts of shrapnel.

    Sorry, chief. It was an ammonium nitrate explosion. It was not a BLEVE (note the correct spelling.)

    1. Re:all the tanks are intact; not a BLEVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spelling smart ass

      BLEVE is correct but if you say BLEVE explosion as you did, you are being redundant, like DC Comics.

  17. should take about zero seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For most people to secure alternate sources of ammonium nitrate. And only slightly longer for the black SUV's to show up if you try and purchase more than a cupfull of the raw material.
    As usual, farmers wont go for this and others can make their own.

  18. Wont go boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But wont do a damned thing for your crops either.

    Reminds me of that orange scented modeling "glue" back in the 80's.. sure you couldn't sniff it but it didn't hold 2 pieces of plastic together to save your life.

  19. Why Is Terrorism Worse? by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But it's the deliberate use of the compound in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and acts of terror such as the Oklahoma City bombing that gives rise to even greater cause for concern.

    Why? If the number of people dying from industrial accidents is greater than the number dying from terrorism, shouldn't we be focusing on the greater threat to human life? Particularly given that the explosion in Texas looks like it was caused, at least in part, by lax regulatory compliance.

    The only reason I can see for terrorism being worse is that it terrifies us. But the rational solution for that is, colloquially, to grow a pair. Stop saying things like "terrorism is a greater cause for concern" when it is not. Be rational, and help the public to be rational -- stop adding to the emotionalistic, irrational fear of terrorism.

    The reason-for-being of terrorism is asymmetric warfare. That only works if a society offers the asymmetric, panicky response that terrorism is meant to induce. Stop contributing to that by claiming that a statistically smaller threat is a greater concern.

    1. Re:Why Is Terrorism Worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because War pays big money to the military industrial complex, who in turn fund political campaigns. Regulatory compliance would be achieved by simply hiring and training more inspectors. There is no big money in that.

      Also, suppose the USA adjusted it defense posture to be truly defense of America. We would withdraw all gear and soldiers from foreign lands and our Navy would patrol/sail off out coasts. Obviously we would need a lot less soldiers in service (unemployment) and a lot less ships/planes/tanks, this would lead to unemployed factory workers in the USA and less money in the economy. You could probably cut the DoD budget in half. Refocus some personal to "cyber" (sorry had to use that word) defense. Now you are really cutting into the military industrial complexes way of life and since they own a lot more politicians than you do citizen, guess what is going to happen.

    2. Re:Why Is Terrorism Worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HEAR HEAR!!!

      Somebody mod the parent up. Finally a rational voice crying out in the wilderness amongst the sheep.

  20. Wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective if there were enough enforcement of the laws so that a facility with a permit to hold ONE ton of fertiliser could not hold FORTY tons?

    That would have reduced the explosion to 2.5% of the strength at a stroke.

  21. Re: Did you read the summary??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was a huge explosion back in 1917: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
    That actually started the trend of mining use of ANFO as a safe explosive.

    The chemical companies do not just make Ammonia Nitrate for fertilizer _ALONE_, as there are other industrial uses for the chemical. So your comment would only apply to Fertilizer plants alone.

    This is a knee jerk reaction and not something new. If there were a safe way to handle _OTHER_ industrial uses for the chemical, they would have done so in the 90+ years of know the explosive properties.

  22. Unintended Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've heard it said that one of the biggest reasons why we've tolerated opium poppy cultivation so much over the years is that if we ever managed to crack down hard on it, the growers would switch to other poppy species and the clandestine chemists would figure out economical ways of creating Bentley compounds from them. Apparently, this class of opiates is incredibly potent (Russia used one of these to gas that one theater held hostage), incredibly cost effective and even more addictive than heroin.

    I'm wondering if there isn't a similar sort of danger here. If we manage to make it difficult or impossible to obtain traditional high explosives, what if terrorists and rebels everywhere begin to seriously tinker with thermobaric weapons? In principle, they are incredibly simple. A combustable substance is heated in an airtight container well above its autoignition point, then a small low-explosive charge (gunpowder, etc.) is detonated to scatter it. Getting it to detonate (instead of deflagrate) can be tricky, but there are so many different detonation-capable mixtures out there what if one of them is easy to achieve using nothing but gasoline or alcohol or hydrogen? Or steel or aluminum dust? Even a botched (deflagrating) bomb could have devestating effects, especially indoors where the fireball will effortlessly travel around corners.

    So I'm not quite sure an ammonium nitrate replacement would be such a good thing.

    Ehm, think I'll post this AC...

  23. Finally! by olip85 · · Score: 1

    No more terrorism!

  24. Iron by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although iron is typically deficient in soils and adding iron promotes growth, is the amount required to make a high nitrate fertilizer difficult to explode going to poison the soil over a period of several years? Will it make the iron content of foods too high? I don't know. Is there some agricultural expert here that can illuminate the subject?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Iron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Is there some agricultural expert here that can illuminate the subject?

      They're called farmers, and they have no internet. If you really must know, I'm afraid you're going to need to leave the basement to find out.

    2. Re:Iron by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      AN doesn't explode all that readily. That's why it gets mixed with diesel.

      If you've ever been to a small time farm or ranch, you'd see how the conditions there might be conductive to an "accidential explosion". You'd hear of farmers getting blowed up all the damn time while out having a smoke in the barn. It's easier to make diesel light on its own, or make gasoline 'explode' like in the movies. Sorry, but no: it doesn't explode all too easily on its own. Since West didn't have diesel in the explosion, one has to wonder what the catalyst was.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:Iron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ANFO is really hard to detonate (you need a primary explosive). AN will decompose rapidly under the right temperature conditions. The only catalyst you need is a decent fire. An ANFO barrel can survive a fire.

    4. Re:Iron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AN does explode readily, as shown in West. The addition of fuel oil (or any other combustible material) is to add energy. AN decomposition quickly produces lots of radical oxidizers, but if there's nothing to oxidize that's just a waste.

      Diesel, on the other hand, is not explosive at all with 20% O2 at room temperature and pressure. Farmers don't get blown up by smoking. The vapor pressure is way too low. You can drop a burning match in diesel and it will not catch fire. It burns in engines because of the high temperatures and pressures, and in ANFO because the radicals are far more reactive than O2.

  25. Is it Worth It? by X!0mbarg · · Score: 1

    Ultimately, the question I pose is this: Is this fertilizer going to be worth all the trouble to make, distribute, use and clean up after? Another series of questions I have is; What kind of affect does this new product have on the nutrient value(s) of the crop it's used on? Are there any potential Health Hazards? Is it Toxic, or produce toxic effects, directly in the food, or indirectly, in the soil it's used on? After the side effects of genetically engineering Corn and Wheat and the now rampant intolerance to these two products, what is next? Maybe it's time to just get away from fossil fuels, like we've been pushing for for such a long time. After all, there seems to be a lot of uses for them in the bomb-making field, anyway. Determined terrorists will always find Something they can use to cause mayhem. I'm surprised there aren't better ways to 'sniff out' fertilizer-and-fuel based bombs already.

  26. Said to be safe can be more dangerous. by nosh · · Score: 1

    While making it harder for terrorists is nice, it might actually increase the rate of accidental fertilizer plant explosions.

    See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppau_explosion for an example what happens if people think their fertilizer cannot explode so the easiest way to get some stuck in a silo out is a little charge of dynamite.

  27. Re: Did you read the summary??? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "unless you live in Texas in which case be sure to live far away from fertilizer plants and cargo ships. "

    ...and grassy knolls.

  28. ammonia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm no chemist, but isn't ammonia in cleaning products? or is the ammonia in fertilizer different from the liquid in the cleaning fluid? why would you put a cleaning fluid on your grass and flowers? just asking.

    1. Re:ammonia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pure ammonium nitrate.
      Dilute ammonium hydroxide.

      See the difference?

      Anyway, you'd put any of a number of ammonia compounds in the ground because your crops have depleted the soil of nitrogen, and it's cheaper to add nitrogen-bearing compounds and replant the same crop than to use sustainable farming practices.

      Ammonium nitrate is nice -- it's pretty concentrated, it's a easy-to-handle solid, it's chemically stable in air, and not too dangerous in any way except exploding.
      Anhydrous ammonia (which becomes ammonium hydroxide when you add water) is about twice as concentrated a nitrogen source, but needs to be kept at 250psi to remain liquid, it's more corrosive, and generally kind of a bitch to handle.
      Ammonium hydroxide would work, and is (comparatively) ridiculously safe and easy to handle because it's much less concentrated than the others. But it also means you need 10 times as much, which costs nearly 10 times as much (transportation costs dominate), so nobody uses it.

  29. I hadn't heard... by Bartles · · Score: 1

    ...that the fertilizer in Texas was mixed with diesel fuel.

    1. Re:I hadn't heard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, typical poorly worded /. summary.

    2. Re:I hadn't heard... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      No, it was a spontaneous act of God...

      I'm personally terribly interested in hearing the AAR on the West, TX explosion... I've seen no likely explanation for why AN would explode so catastrophically on its own, yet.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:I hadn't heard... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      It actually happens more frequently than you expect. Any time you have a large amount of oxidizer burning, it has the potential to accelerate vigorously. See the Texas City disaster of 1947.

  30. Re: Did you read the summary??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The interesting thing is that this heightened interest in ANFO seems to have been caused by two explosions that did not involve ANFO. The explosion in Texas was straight AN. The explosions at the Boston Marathon were powered by gunpowder. It's possible that the next explosion could be caused by ANFO, but that's not the current problem.

    And of course there is the oklahoma city bombing which is often cited as an example of ANFO; the actual bomb was ANNM.

  31. How hard is it to chemically process back again? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    Looking at this page I see that you could dissolve NH4NO3/FeSO4 mixture and add lead(II) citrate, which should cause the Fe to precipitate as citrate and the SO4 to precipitate with the lead, leaving NH4NO3 solution behind which can be dried and used in a bomb.

    Practical problems abound - most notably, can you get lead citrate, and can you find a way to reuse it? However, I have only high school chemistry and it is unlikely that I found the optimal 'cleaning' reaction in a few minutes of web searching. Can anyone with more chemistry than me comment on whether there are practical ways for a mad bomber to separate out the NH4NO3?

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  32. Re: Did you read the summary??? by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    Yes i recall my high school chemistry teacher telling us about the dangers of ammonia based compounds how a farmer tried to remove an old pile of fertilizer with a 1/4 stick of dynamite and flattened his farm.

  33. Mining? by rzzzwilson · · Score: 1

    Ask a mining engineer what could be substituted for ANFO, and the cost.

  34. Re: Did you read the summary??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could buy all of this new fertilizer that they wanted without triggering terror checks. That doesn't really make us safer (the current system seems to be successful at preventing ANFO's use in terrorism), but it would make farmers' lives easier. Frankly, I think that that would be a good thing.

    Or they could stop treating farmers like terrorists in the first place and just stop doing the background checks.

  35. Re: If you outlaw ammonium nitrate ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know you are being sarcastic but you are an idiot if you think the two arguments are similar.

  36. Re:Useless .? Then try this headline by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Non-explosive fertilizer cast as useless? I beg to differ. But to make it have a better sounding headline, try this one:

    Sandia Labs develops organic compost pile for only $720,000 per pound.

    There! Now you can see how commercial opportunities abound and will help our economy, especially if Haliburton gets a contract to provide automatic compost bins to military mess halls everywhere. (And yes, I expect my thinly veiled reference to Haliburton to push my moderation up to +5)

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  37. Far from useless...but yeah bombs are easy by guevera · · Score: 1

    Yes of course it's ridiculous to expect you can eliminate the ability of people to turn fertilizer into bombs. No matter what security types want, the chemistry here is real simple -- you don't get nitrogen fertilizer without nitrate and ammonia, and without nitrogen fertilizer lots more people are going to starve. This is especially true in places like south Asia.
    But making it just a little more difficult to make a bomb with will go a long way in places like AF-PAK. Not only are people there less capable of performing whatever filtration/synthesis/whatever is needed to get back to boom, they've got to perform that procedure on literally tons of material.
    If someone is looking to do Boston Marathon levels of carnage, they'll get the explosives. You can start by collecting your own piss and evaporating it to get the nitrates you need. It'll take awhile but you'll get there. You won't run a regional insurgency by filtering dried pee to make IEDs.

  38. Now, let's do similar things with Nuclear Reactors by ivi · · Score: 1

    Invest in any additional research that may be needed
    to [further] prove the safety & efficacy of Thorium-based
    reactors (a.k.a. "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors"
    or LFTRs), per Kirk Sorensen's 10-min TED-talk.

    They seem to be safer than the high-pressure reactors
    we use today... and they don't need or produce Plutonium.

    We'll also need changes to nuclear reactor regulations,
    to make it easier to build lots of small ones, closer to
    where the energy (heat &/or electricity) is needed.

  39. That's some stupid straw manning there by guevera · · Score: 1

    To accuse one someone of using a "just following orders" defense has some very specific connotations, and it's total bullshit for you to employ those in this context -- and it's chickenshit to use the connotation without being willing to own up to the full Goodwin your comment implies.
    The actual comment was "that's not my decision," which suggests something between total ignorance (unlikely) to fervent support (does anyone have that for Af-Pak at this point?) to anything up to and including 'This was the worst military decision since Agincourt, but I don't find it morally repugnant enough to betray my duty.' What it probably meant was that it's irrelevant for this discussion. Damn, man, I'm a lefty pinko hippie and even I think you're being a jerk.

    1. Re:That's some stupid straw manning there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram.

      A small book and a very good read that enlightened me on the human nature of how mean we can be when someone else puts us up to it.

  40. I'll just bet by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    The NRA will move from guns to demanding they don't switch to this new fertilizer.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:I'll just bet by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      I'll just bet CNN will lump AN with the arbitrary term "Assault Weapons", along with most other non exploding fertilizers, and push for reintroducing the AW Ban.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:I'll just bet by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'll just bet CNN will lump AN with the arbitrary term "Assault Weapons", along with most other non exploding fertilizers, and push for reintroducing the AW Ban.

      we're so messed up!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  41. Re:How hard is it to chemically process back again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see the cleanup effort required to clean up all the lead sulfate of clandestine disposal activity.

  42. I have a Spanish motor bike by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    "Bultaco"
    "No, I swear it's true!"

  43. Nitrogen wants to be free by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    ask anybody in The Biz anything with a buncha nitrogen tends to be a bit "frisky"

    for example
    http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/01/09/things_i_wont_work_with_azidoazide_azides_more_or_less.php

    is a compound that will go BOOM if you so much as look at it cross-eyed

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  44. FEFCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coming soon, the Freedom of Exploding Fertilizer Choice Act, from your local republican.