Slashdot Mirror


The Little Bomb-Detecting Device That Couldn't

theodp writes "Widely deployed in Iraq and promoted by military leaders, BusinessWeek reports the ADE 651 bomb-detecting device had one little problem: it wouldn't detect explosives (earlier Slashdot story). 'The ADE 651,' reports Adam Higginbotham, 'was modeled on a novelty trinket conceived decades before by a former used-car salesman from South Carolina, which was purported to detect golf balls. It wasn't even good at that.' One thing the ADE 651 did excel at, however, was making money — estimates suggest that the authorities in Baghdad bought more than 6,000 useless bomb detectors, at a cost of at least $38 million. Even though ADE 651 manufacturer James McCormick was found guilty of three counts of fraud and sentenced to 10 years in prison in May, the ADE 651 is still being used at thousands of checkpoints across Baghdad. Elsewhere, authorities have never stopped believing in the detectors. Why? According to Sandia Labs' Dale Murray, the ideomotor effect is so persuasive that for anyone who wants or needs to believe in it, even conclusive scientific evidence undermining the technology it exploits has little power."

20 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. I knew it by lesincompetent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    James randi too was amazed at how basically all dowsers keep believing they have their special powers even after they've been thoroughly debunked.

  2. nothing new... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In Ramadi '05 we had these cool spray kits.
    It was a little plastic case with several sprays and swabs with some instructions for various kinds of explosive testing.

    One day we caught these dudes out on the desert who would dig up UXO's and sell them to local insurgents who would use them for IEDs.
    Lat Long: 33.16845,43.635263
    We had been trying to catch them for a while but they were on motorcycles... try catching a motorcycle in an up-armor hmmwv.

    When we caught them, they didn't have any explosives on them. So we though, hey... why not try out this kit?

    They tested positive for 2 kinds of explosives. So we detained them, shipped them off to the detention facility with all the appropriate paper work and evidence... as best we could since we aren't investigators by trade.

    So we are back at the OP, thinking how bad-ass we are. Then we get the idea to play with the kit some more. We tested our hands, HESCO barriers, lunch meat, hmmwv windows... everything tested positive. Guess the kits didn't really work as advertised but every unit had one.

    Of course, maybe our kit was bad. Or maybe we didn't use the kit correctly. Or there was really explosive residue on everything.

    At least the kits weren't WHY we detained them. They were going to be detained anyway. But the Military being dazzled by salesmen or shiny new stuff is nothing new.

    1. Re:nothing new... by bfandreas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This bomb detector thing was a mixture of greed, negligence, incompetence and corruption. I can't even begin to imagine the mindset that enables somebody to make money by directly endangering lives. Every aspect of this war stinks.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    2. Re:nothing new... by mooingyak · · Score: 5, Funny

      It serves the same purpose as telling your sleepless and scared toddler that their blanket is actually an anti-monster device. So that they'll shut up and go to bed.

      I told my daughter that the monsters had nibbled on her while she was sleeping and reported to me that she didn't taste good. It worked about as well as you might imagine.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  3. Re:I haven't played golf in several years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But, back when I did, I can tell you: a functional golf ball detector would've been very handy.

    Real duffers come back to the clubhouse with more balls than they started with.

  4. Re:Thank you... by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to Sandia Labs' Dale Murray, the ideomotor effect is so persuasive that for anyone who wants or needs to believe in it, even conclusive scientific evidence undermining the technology it exploits has little power."

    That explains a LOT about how the US Congress thinks/works.

    ...And those who elect them.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  5. wtf by Flozzin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why do we get this story about once every 3 months? This has been shoved into the ground. Let's finally bury it for god's sake.

    --
    "Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
  6. Is this the real reason? by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real reason they continue to use these isn't because they somehow have convinced themselves that it works. It's probably not even directly a scam insofar as they're shoving money to some business cohort through the military industrial complex. I would suspect that what this is really about is that it's far cheaper to stick a device in a young man's hand and convince him that it's there to protect him, so that he'll actually continue to actively do his job, and have him wind up being blown up -- than it is to spend money on any sort of real device. The man is disposable. The worthless device is the placebo to motivate him to feel safe in doing his job. And when he dies, it was a far cheaper investment than the amount that any sort of real device would cost to produce, purchase, train on, and deploy.

  7. Re:but Perfect for America security theatre by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Funny

    I like to yell "halt" before I shoot. It's easier if they aren't moving.

  8. Re:But remember kids by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All those FDA approved food additives are are fine.

    The scanners the TSA uses are safe and effective.

    Putting millions on subsidized healthcare and ensuring even more of the incidental costs are hidden from consumers will reduce healthcare spending.

    There was no coup in Egypt ...

    One of those, the third one specifically, stands out as not fitting the theme.

    You do realise it's the *same government* that has given us the TSA, the FDA, and the many other ruinous mistakes in every area it's involved in that you expect is magically going to take charge of health care and make us all better?

    Surely you jest.

    This is also the same government that put a lander on Mars with a sky crane and created the internet. And how come the FDA doesn't get credit for making food and drugs in the USA among the safest in the world?

  9. Re:But remember kids by jythie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Selection bais. If people do not like something, the failures define the thing. If they like something, the success define it. Many people like reality to match books and movies and such, nice and simple with clear right and wrong, works and doesn't work.

  10. It has a deep tradition it seems by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some people don't even think it is special powers, just a thing you do. My grandpa did the dowsing thing to decide where to put the various wells on his property. Not because he thought he had special powers, it was just how he'd learned you select your well spot. Anyone could do it. He figured it worked since every time he'd drill that spot, and before long have a functional well.

    For him it wasn't magical or special powers, it was just the standard process. Get Y shaped stick, walk around, it signals where the well goes, put it there.

    1. Re:It has a deep tradition it seems by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the ideomotor effect. You know, possibly subconsciously, where the water is likely to be (read Blink! by Malcolm Gladwell) based on experience. So when you walk to that spot, the stick points down.

      I've had well drillers dowse for wells before. I didn't give them any crap for their show. Because they had a track record for finding water. Why? Probably 30 or 40 years drilling wells. But even if they think its the stick, that's fine with me. Same as with the baseball players with the lucky socks.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:It has a deep tradition it seems by master_kaos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was a skeptic to, but my grandfather was one (they called it water witching around here). There were a few locally, but my grandfather was the most known and best, everyone within a half hour radius would call my grandfather when they needed a well dug out (and this was 30+ years ago). He would use any standard stick that was laying around. He never charged the people money (people were a lot more neighborly back then instead of just looking out for themselves), so wasn't like he was out scamming them, very religious so not a liar.

      Not once did he screw it up, he hit water every time. I was a skeptic to before I seen it, and it didn't seem like it would work for just anyone. I tried it along with a lot of my relatives, and it wouldn't do a thing, my one uncle it did it a bit.

      It was funny one time this guy tried digging a well on his property twice kept getting dry, my grandfather went out and did the dowsing told him here this is where you got to dig(they guy didn't like my grandfather for some reason, and was a major skeptic), the guy ignored my grandfathers advice, dug up 3 more spots in the following 2 years, kept hitting dry again. Finally fed up he called my grandfather back to confirm the location, grandfather goes back, exact same spot detects water, guy digs there and sure enough hits water.

    3. Re:It has a deep tradition it seems by black3d · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right, which is the exact ideometer effect that's being discussed here. There are other (subconcious) cues at work which lead him to believe where the water will be - or just pure coincidence. Aside from the obvious fact there's no actual mechanism at work, it can be easily disproven. Take a dowser out until they find a spot "with water", then blindfold them and drive them around to re-test various random spots including this one. The vast majority of the time, they'll get it wrong - suddenly not able to detect water at the spot they previously said it was at, or detect water in places they previously said it wasn't. Also fun is taking them to an area known to be entirely over a natural aquifier and watch them wander around until they "find" water in some exclusive spot.
       
      Map-based dowsing is even easier to disprove - again, aside from the obvious lack of any mechanism (ie, it doesn't really need proof, but just to satisfy the idiots out there we have to go through it). Give a map-dowser a map without orientation or contour lines and suddenly their "abilities" go away. Give them a fully-detailed map but blind-fold them, and similarly, they're no longer able to "detect" where the water is.
       
      In all cases, it's either fraudulent, subconcious, or simply luck. Likewise, stories about "other people" are steeped in grandeur. A guy who gets it right "a couple of times" is suddenly a legendary dowser, and every re-telling by both others and himself get better and better each time.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    4. Re:It has a deep tradition it seems by dcollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "... very religious so not a liar."

      Yeah, because that obviates any concern that someone might be self-deluded into believing in magical things.

      (Btw, I also have relatives said to be wonderful dowsers... and I don't believe it a bit from them either.)

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    5. Re:It has a deep tradition it seems by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Funny

      very religious so not a liar

      Can you explain the logic of this part of your statement? I can't discern any.

    6. Re:It has a deep tradition it seems by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > There is something to this. If you have an approved mechanism for intuitively detecting bombs they
      > you have probable cause to terminate a prospective bomber, and if your intuition is right more than
      > half the time on average, you're a hero. Since some few are more accurate with intuition and some
      > less, and the metrics are classified, you are free to open fire indiscriminately anywhere anywhen.

      Half the time? Nah, I think you are overestimating how accurate you need to be, because, even if you find nothing, you can, like the scammer of these did, claim that it hit on some residue and you just got them at the wrong time.

      In fact, this is very much the way drug dogs are used. Dogs, it turns out, have great snouts and can detect all manner of things, and do great in really blind trials. However, they are even better at playing "Clever Hans" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans ), that is, if the handler is given any clues as to where their might be hits, the animals false positive rate goes through the roof...in exactly the places where the handler expects to find something.

      So.... dogs are great at finding bombs or drugs in random packages... but in one of their most common use cases, sniffing a suspects car, they are just about guaranteed a hit, because their handler is expecting one. A hit, that can be explained away and dismissed when nothing is found, so their real hit rate can be far lower than chance without bringing them into question.

      One study used no drugs or explosives at all, but flagged several points with information for the handler indicating the type of hit expected to set his expectations. If the dogs were 100% effective, there would have been not a single hit amongst any of the trials...the results?

      from http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/02/animal_behaviour

      The findings, which Dr Lit reports in Animal Cognition, reveal that of 144 searches, only 21 were clean (no alerts). All the others raised one alert or more. In total, the teams raised 225 alerts, all of them false. While the sheer number of false alerts struck Dr Lit as fascinating, it was where they took place that was of greatest interest.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  11. Re:I wish by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know what you are talking about. There is loads of scientific evidence on the oil reserves in Iraq.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  12. Effectiveness of fake bomb detectors by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now, while they're technologically incapable of their purpose, I wonder if they might actually be somewhat effective in real life? IE a different type of placebo?

    It says that they're being used at a number of checkpoints. Now, one of the things I know about is that the insurgents/terrorists tend to observe such places before they target them. Often at some distance, but eh.

    The ones doing the observing are often no more educated than those working the checkpoint, often less. So they see the operators using their 'bomb detector' in all seriousness. They think 'crap! They'd find our bomb, time to figure out a different plan!' and either delay or go elsewhere. So the end result is that they still have fewer attacks against that checkpoint.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right