Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Catch Oil Polluters With Open Source Tools Using the Homebrew Oil Testing Kit

Posted by timothy on from the or-you-could-just-taste-it dept.

First time accepted submitter jywarren writes Ever wish you could investigate pollution yourself? Public Lab's recently announced open source kit aims to make it possible for anyone to become a "pollution detective" by comparing samples of oil contamination. Under the hood, the kit is pretty interesting. It uses the ultraviolet fluorescence caused by a Blu-Ray laser pen in oil samples, and includes a "papercraft" spectrometer to scan and classify oil types. The group's Kickstarter campaign is also seeking 50 early-access beta testers to help test and refine the kit before release.

52 comments

  1. LIDAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Looks like they're trying to replicate a LIDAR system from the '80's. interesting.
    http://publiclab.org/notes/mathew/09-23-2014/graded-oils-using-uv-fluorescence

  2. not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever wish you could investigate pollution yourself?

    I think I can safely so no. Not really. But then I dont get all bent out of shape about it.

    1. Re: not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not get bent out of shape about losing a chunk of Louisiana the size of Delaware to oil extraction and shipping.

      Let's not get bent out of shape about the complete ecosystem death of the Niger delta.

      Let's keep the discussion polite about the rapid toxification of the Athabaskan river from tar sands extraction.

    2. Re: not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not get bent out of shape about losing a chunk of Louisiana the size of Delaware to oil extraction and shipping.

      What was the land being used for before?

      Let's not get bent out of shape about the complete ecosystem death of the Niger delta.

      So all life is gone from the area?

    3. Re: not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your response suggests you don't like, eat food or drink water.

      The wetlands of the gulf coast are the largest fishery in N. America. Open water doesn't grow nearly as many fish. The wetlands also filter and clean the Mississippi

      The Niger Delta is a catastrophe that is hard to explain quickly. The ecological distraction is driving armed insurrection too.
      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/04/niger-delta-oil-spill-clean-up-un

    4. Re:not really by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Make sure to not live downstream/wind of any plants then.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re: not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not get bent out of shape about losing a chunk of Louisiana the size of Delaware to oil extraction and shipping.

      What was the land being used for before?

      Of what use is a newborn baby?

    6. Re: not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Of what use is a newborn baby?

      When ground up they make a high-protein feed for farm animals, insulation for low-income housing, a powerful explosive and a top-notch engine coolant.

    7. Re: not really by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Each one costs a quarter million dollars to raise, so they're great for the economy. You know, like broken windows.

      Plus some of them breastfeed.

    8. Re:not really by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      i read the k/s page, and i know a bit about environmental issues. but I'm not exactly sure where the pollution issue is, or what we'd be testing.

      i guess you can test your groundwater for diesel oil contamination. this could be a problem in places that use ground wells for drinking water and have 100 yo houses with underground storage tanks for diesel or heating oil. but in CA this wouldn't apply because our water comes from an aquaduct and is presumably monitored at the wellhead.

      i guess if you're freaking out about fracking you could test your tap water. although my understanding is you'd be more at risk for benzene and similar chemicals that may not show up here.

      i guess if you live near an old gross polluter you could test to see if its leaking out, but thats just paranoia.

      point is, what's the intended market for these thigns? I named some hypotheticals, but hopefully somebody more informed has done a bit of analysis about specific areas of risk that this thing could address.

    9. Re: not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't understand, why aren't you wowed by how cool and above it all the gp is? /s

  3. Is this a joke? by tacokill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Time to grow up. Homebrew oil testing for big bad oil when you don't even understand the chemistry is a bad idea. This kickstarter looks like it was written up by a 2nd grader.

    I bet these guys know a lot more about this than a dinky little kickstarter project. I hope the kickstarter team realizes that they've been identifying, measuring, and studying hydrocarbons for over a century so there's a pretty significant body of work already. Use it.

    1. Re:Is this a joke? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I'm going to bet that "those guys" won't even send you a printed catalog for the same $100 that the kickstarter campaign is looking for. So the cost for detection is going to be orders of magnitude different. But you're going to have orders of magnitude more accurate results too.

      That being said, you're right although I probably go with a 3rd grader. The kit diagram wasn't draw in crayon but it does look like the pencil was traced. It really looks like a primary school science fair project.

    2. Re:Is this a joke? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Sure looks like similar tech, laser absorption/fluorescence.

      Shoot a laser through a sample & see what the response is.

      http://www.spectrasensors.com/...

      Just a *slight* difference in price.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Is this a joke? by tacokill · · Score: 1

      Of course its more expensive. Real science isn't cheap.

    4. Re: Is this a joke? by Mathew_publiclab · · Score: 4, Informative

      Public lab staff here- Its not a joke. We're replicating a well-researched and straightforward methodology for grading oil based on the relative "blueness" or "redness" of the spectrum. Its very simple to perform. During an oil spill there is a lot of public interest in identifying oils. People collect samples and send them to researchers, and they never get tested. Because testing has a low return--he sample could be anything, and the experts dont have the time. There are tons of coastal oil slicks, many of them naturally occuring from decaying organic matter. Why would it be bad to help people figure out if they're looking at petroleum or not?

    5. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Time to grow up. Homebrew oil testing for big bad oil when you don't even understand the chemistry is a bad idea. This kickstarter looks like it was written up by a 2nd grader.

      Posting AC to avoid burning moderation points.

      Do you actually think that the court system is going to go on the say so of your "second graders?" NO - the system would alert the authorities, and then they come in with the real toys.

      On a related issue, although not at all contentious, there are a lot of people with personal weather stations that are tied into NOAA via the web. I'll bet some of those folks are first grade level, and they don't have NIST current certifications on their equipment. But something tells me thay can contribute to understanding of weather, and localization of trouble spots. And NOAA really likes the program.

      IOW, You don't need to see every derailed car to know there was a train wreck.

    6. Re: Is this a joke? by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      There are tons of coastal oil slicks, many of them naturally occuring from decaying organic matter.

        Why would it be bad to help people figure out if they're looking at petroleum or not?

      Then what? What do you expect to be done with the results?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re: Is this a joke? by Mathew_publiclab · · Score: 4, Informative

      We'll release it public domain and use our existing relationships with universities, state DEQs and the EPA to assist in accurately mapping the disaster and recovery. The data would be really useful for figuring out where to deploy more expensive equipment, or to pre-scan for which sites to go back and sample.

    8. Re: Is this a joke? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      to assist in accurately mapping the disaster and recovery.

      To me that implies that you think that the relevant agencies aren't capable of or do not accurately map spill locations.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    9. Re: Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Base on what we saw during the BP Oil spill, I'd say that's correct. Put the criminals in charge of the crime scene--what do you expect to happen. And EPA certainly doesn't have the person-power to be doing all the monitoring they or citizens would like to see when it comes to oil spills or other types of industrial pollution.

    10. Re: Is this a joke? by Mathew_publiclab · · Score: 3, Interesting

      After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the ERMA SCAT database--the official database-- was built by QUALITATIVE assessements of oil thickness on a 1-4 scale. A civic response with quantitative data collection tools could do better than "well, I think that looks like a 4." So yes. The responsible agencies are rarely capable of deploying enough trained people to actually cover the whole area with the types of expert methods people are mentioning in this thread, so more often than not they rely on estimates and other less-than-quantitative methodologies.

    11. Re: Is this a joke? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I don't really have anything against this, but will re-ask the question above. "What do you expect to happen with the data?" Agencies can't or won't deal with what they have today, so the benefactor and beneficiary's of this data is who?

      Maybe it will begin to instill cynicism at a much younger age, as kids will see that when they submit the findings nothing happens. No clean up occurs, companies continue to receive more tax money for "clean up", and politicians continue to smile and laugh as their next reelection campaign is funded by those same companies they are pumping with tax payer money.

      I don't mean to imply that as completely negative, it takes a whole lot of people being fed up with the system to change the system. I see this as a double edged sword however, and a lot of people that may have curiosity piqued will give up on both the corrupt system and science to boot. Psychologically it's very difficult to recover the enthusiasm for science once that occurs.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    12. Re: Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for posting Anon, but your comments are extremely cynical in premise, it seems to me. "What are you doing with the data?" is a loaded question in the area of regulation - the Bush admin sat on years of environmental/habitat quality data related to the effects of mountaintop coal removal in multiple states. Pollutants and pollution levels generated were in clear violation of water quality and air quality standards established decades ago, but the administration chose to allow it and did not impose fines on those responsible (while taxpayers in their respective states ended up paying for remediation and clean-up anyway to the extent that it was done). The point being, what people - important people or 'regular joes' - do with the data is not the stated goal of this project.

      The stated goal is to supply an affordable kit for detecting the presence of oils in water samples and distinguishing their origin. Plenty of nations which have neglected environmental regulation standards could use this technology to crow-source real improvements for local habitats and the data from those efforts could also feed back into highly regulated systems like the US. Let the scientists make science accessible and don't claim it is bad science when you are really talking about uninformed (or downright corrupt) politics.

    13. Re: Is this a joke? by tacokill · · Score: 1

      well-researched and straightforward methodology for grading oil
      What methodology are you using? Normally API is used to "grade" oil but that's for API gravity. You could be measuring viscosity. Or density. Or who knows what else. But that's the point.....:"Grading oil with a homebrew test kit" is not a viable project until it is better defined.

    14. Re:Is this a joke? by Mathew_publiclab · · Score: 2

      Nice job throwing up a googled link to spit FUD when you don't know what you're talking about, tacokill. Spectrasensors.com sell laser absorbance spectroscopy systems operating in the mid-IR range, and don't sell UV fluorescence gear. I see somone before you left a comment detailing our real research [LIDAR, above], which you didn't look at, or you'd notice that we're building on 40 years research into laser fluorescence for field identification of oil. What we're doing was cutting-edge in the early '80's. now it isn't. We aren't trying to do anything new, except use cheap equipment. http://publiclab.org/notes/mat...

    15. Re: Is this a joke? by Mathew_publiclab · · Score: 1

      We can't get as accurate as API grades, and aren't tring to because that would be too involved for quick field assessments by people without chemistry training. try searching for the keywords "Laser induced Fluorescence" or LIF, and look for older stuff. all the new research is on fluorescence decay, which we can't meaasure with a consumer camera. a lot of the research we're building on is paywalled but look at this, it gives a good history of our method too: http://mobile.www.eproceedings...

    16. Re:Is this a joke? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So you find an oil slick and do more than just report that there is an oil slick. How big of a window are you opening up for the entity responsible to claim the evidence was planted by you or whomever with the kit and how much of a window for liability do you think is there when your low budget kit points to one entity who is innocent but suffers huge costs because of it?

      They sell amateur detective kits relatively cheap too. Go to a murder scene and start investigating before the cops show up and you could very well open the window to letting the murderer go free as well as possible charges against yourself. You have to be careful with this stuff or unintended consequences could steam roll you quickly.

    17. Re:Is this a joke? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I know that you didn't read the k/s page but it really does help:

      "We’ve based much of our work on the large amount of scientific literature available on fluorescence spectroscopy for oil identification. A selection of articles have been collected and summarized on this page -- and we welcome contributions to the list. "
      http://publiclab.org/wiki/oil-...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    18. Re: Is this a joke? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      And then you get sued by the polluter for libel.

    19. Re:Is this a joke? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the kit is to show that it isn't. Apparently, you missed that.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  4. Great for schools by style7711 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a great idea for a school science project or demonstration / lecture.

  5. Fill'r up, Larry! by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Remember the Exxon Valdez? There's justice for the likes of you (yes, you! [do prisons have connectivity btw.?]) and there's justice for Exxon and the like.

    1. Re:Fill'r up, Larry! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Exxon were initially fined $5B in damage - but this was reduce after appeal to only $500M. The spill was eventually attributed to a series of errors which could at best be described as gross incompetence and easily constitute criminal negligence, including operating the ship with a non-functional radar. Despite this no criminal charges were ever brought. It took ten years just go get the compensation from Exxon, as they appealed every decision made by the courts, including the unfavorable appeals.

      You are quite right: One of the purposes of a corporation is to shield the individuals behind it from liability, both civil and criminal. But this also encourages illegality and recklessness. If they get caught, they are protected from any serious consequences. At worst their personal wealth may be reduced slightly.

  6. Install bash on the Cpus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That'll teach em.

  7. Is the company the Washington Red Skins? by s.petry · · Score: 1

    If you don't get it, you don't watch Southpark.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  8. The car doesn't win the race, the driver does. by Hussman32 · · Score: 1
    I gotta bad feeling about this. The proposed equipment (which does look like existing technology) may work just fine, but then the new practitioners will make every possible mistake and invalidate the measurement and have useless data. Here are some hypotheticals:
    • Wearing sunscreen while collecting a sample.
    • Not washing the sample container.
    • Not cleaning the container/laser.
    • Improper reference comparison.
    • Blatant misrepresentation trying to cash in on bad publicity and getting on the news.

    Then there will be a lot of extra work trying to validate and verify the inconsistently taken data, which would drain resources. The equipment is important, but more important is the consistency of the practitioners.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    1. Re:The car doesn't win the race, the driver does. by Mathew_publiclab · · Score: 1

      Hussman32 is right, proper methodology is critical, but its important to remember that the same criticisms apply to ALL field data. That is why we are running our beta test as a verification/replication trial. we want to know how accurate non-expert volunteer data will be, in the aggregate. Between now and next summer we'll hopefully find out.

  9. Big Oil isn't the main problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While the Exxon Valdez and BP get all the headlines, most oil pollution around the world comes from small point sources - such as automobiles, trucks, and boats. People changing automobile oil at home and dumping it down the sewer or into a vacant lot because its easier than taking to a garage for recycling. Oil drips from car or truck engines onto parking lots, roads, and driveways, then it gets rinsed off and flows into the sewer. Badly maintained boat or outboard motors that leak oil into the lake or ocean.

    So you might run this test on your local pond, and discover its got a mix of oil from Pennzoil, Mobil, Shell, etc. Then what are you going to do with that information?

  10. Maybe *YOURS* does.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But plenty of people out in the boonies of California have wells, and even a few in the cities (Sacramento and surrounding urban areas even have a few 'grandfathered' wells still in existence around the count(y|ies).

    And I know for a fact up in the foothills there are plenty of white trash who dump oil in their OWN backyards, nevermind rental properties, etc, so plenty of places you'd like a cheap way to check for oil and similiar contaminants in your own groundwater, even in California.

    The level of disconnect on Slashdot, and the US in general nowadays is overwhelming. Are people really this stupid/uneducated/narrowminded? On a supposedly *NERD* site no less?

  11. Maybe *YOURS* does.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You left off 'arrogant' and 'confrontational'

  12. Fracking by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    If you live near fracking wells, using this kit is a much better way to determine if your water is safe than the alternative- holding a lit match under your faucet..

    1. Re:Fracking by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      What, these kits also detect methane?

    2. Re:Fracking by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      The methane itself is relatively harmless- but usually indicates the 999 other chemicals in fracking fluid are there too, and when the methane catches fire it creates even more toxins. If the kit can detect 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol without igniting it, it's a better option.

  13. Paid oil trolls are censoring posts like this by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't be surprised if the guy you're responding to is getting paid to troll as well. Why is he so pissed off about a well-meaning product like this?

    1. Re:Paid oil trolls are censoring posts like this by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      A guy with a low UID is a paid troll for oil companies on slashdot which feature articles related to oil once in a blue moon, and you came to this conclusion because he thinks the kickstarter is crap?

      How about asking yourself if he's right or now. The premise of the kickstarter is to avoid going to an independent lab. Then what? Without going to an independent lab you have evidence that could be tainted, isn't admissible in court, and likely has problems to begin with (many oils in a common region share very common traits).

      Have you ever heard of the saying "Just enough information to be dangerous?" That's what this is and if the person isn't incredibly careful could very quickly lead to being in legal hot water for slander and whatnot.

    2. Re: Paid oil trolls are censoring posts like this by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      A low UID? So what? cold fjord, Taco Cowboy, Jeremiah Cornelius: these guys have all been around awhile, and they're some of the most obvious shills of the lot.

      And why would someone collecting a an "inadmissable" sample prevent them from collecting another from the exact same area?

    3. Re: Paid oil trolls are censoring posts like this by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It doesn't which leads me to ask why they would collect the inadmissible one in the first place.

      Also your post fails Occams Razor but sure let's just keep on thinking that oil companies spend time and effort trawling through obscure sites looking for references and then look up users they can pay to post comments. Because what happens on Slashdot as far as the resources industry is concern really makes a reputable difference... / sarcasm.

    4. Re: Paid oil trolls are censoring posts like this by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      Because the inadmissable sample is a much cheaper lead that can be done before spending money on the real thing.

      Alright buddy, I look forward to your response to this. Occam's razor is a funny thing--it bends every which way depending on how uninformed the user is. After the Deepwater Horizon spill, BP launched a $200 million whitewashing campaign, including a now-defunct youtube channel full of propaganda videos--
      http://www.prwatch.org/news/20...
      --but there's no way any of that would go towards paid trolls! Oh wait, there totally is.
      http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

      The slashdot summary doesn't even mention the death threats sent by BP agents in the original article.
      http://www.aljazeera.com/indep...
      "Billie Garde, BP's deputy ombudsman, in a letter to the Government Accountability Project dated December 18, 2012, stated clearly that "BP America contracts management of its Facebook page to Ogilvy Public Relations" and added, "Ogilvy manages all of BP America's social media matters". According to BP America, Ogilvy has a group of 10 individuals in different time zones that perform comment screening of the page," wrote Garde.

      In spite of this, you want to tell me that, even though Samsung pays trolls:
      http://www.techmtaa.com/2013/1...
      http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/...

      Even though telecoms pay trolls:
      http://www.vice.com/read/troll...
      Even though non-domestic propaganda contractors like Leonie Industries pay trolls to troll domestically:
      http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw...
      "USA Today reports that in his campaign against the reporters, Chidiac created "fan sites" with URLs matching the names of the reporter and editor who worked on the stories and then filled those sites with content that criticized the journalist's past reporting."

      ...even despite all this, you somehow think that Exxon-Mobil, the second richest corporation in the world, wouldn't pay trolls for the purpose of PR cleanup?
      If you don't think opinion here makes a difference, then ask yourself why every topic about the NSA is full of endless "fuck beta" comments and huge blobs of meaningless text with bolded sections telling you how to configure your router. Maybe it doesn't make a difference, but it seems like there are many with deep pockets who do not agree with you.

      Regardless, you have a lot of reading to do before you're fit to tell anyone about occam's razor re: paid shills.

    5. Re: Paid oil trolls are censoring posts like this by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      At no point did I say that BP didn't pay trolls.

      What I did say is that you were responding to a person who has been on slashdot, a fringe tech site (let's face it we are just a bunch of nerds), for a long time, and claiming he's a troll simply because he disagrees in the usefulness of a product.

      I suppose next you'll tell me that Samsung's paid trolls also monitor a Mormon interest group forum just in case they mention an Apple product?

      $200million doesn't go very far unless it's targeted and trolls are bloody easy to spot most of the time. Get some bloody perspective before spouting out that crap.

    6. Re: Paid oil trolls are censoring posts like this by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      First you said they don't pay people to trawl through sites, and now the line in the sand has been moved to "they don't troll slashdot". The government does, and as i've shown, oil companies have the resources to do so as well. Be sure to keep telling yourself that every time you have to scroll through a wall of meaningless shaggy dog story filler text, "fuck beta", "blah blah dice.com" and ACs calling each other niggerfaggots or something of the like. Read the comments section on more mainstream articles about the oil industry elsewhere and you'll begin to have a scope of what's really going on here.