EU Considering Sensors In Sewers To Detect Bomb-Makers 219
Nerval's Lobster writes "Security agencies in Europe have found a whole new way to identify and approach bombmakers and other potentially dangerous radicals. The only problem with the approach is that it stinks. Literally. Researchers in a European-Union funded project called Emphasis are developing chemical sensors that can be embedded in networks of underground sewage tunnels to sniff the air and phone home at the first hint of chemical residue from the manufacture of bombs. Using remote sensors might be effective because the liquid- and gas byproducts of bomb production – and manufacture of many drugs as well – leak, seep or are poured into sinks and toilets to get rid of the evidence, according to Hans Onnerud, an analytical chemist with the Swedish Defense Research Agency. With such a catchall underneath the city streets, and the chemical wherewithal to identify which smells belong to bombs or drugs and which belong to other things, it should be possible to keep a close watch on development of dangerous materials in a city without invading the homes of residents, Onnerud added. In fact, if sewer-sniffing technology had been in place in 2005, British authorities might have had a much easier time tracing the location of the bombers, or even detecting them ahead of time and stopping the London subway bomb attack that killed 54 people. Fumes from the bombs used in those attacks, which were assembled in a house in Leeds that had been turned into a compact bomb factory, were strong enough to kill plants in the garden. It's extremely likely they would have been detectable from the sewer as well, Onnerud said in a statement announcing Emphasis. The sensors developed for Emphasis are designed to detect chemical reagents produced by the breakdown of chemicals in bombs. Each sensor is a 10-centimeter-long electrode that can be submersed in sewer wastewater to look for ions of the right configuration."
Unimaginable wasting of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Bomb attacks are so rare, wouldnâ(TM)t it be cheaper to compensate bomb victims after the fact than include expensive bomb-sniffing equipment in infrastructure upgrades up and down the land?
Big brother (Score:5, Insightful)
What they say vs what they do (Score:5, Insightful)
What they say it will be used for: sniffing for bomb materials
What it will be used for: sniffing for illegal drugs
First they'll put a probe in each neighborhood. Then they'll put a probe in the sewer for each street. Then they'll put a probe in the individual drains from every house. Then when they detect cocaine, you'll get a ticket in the mail.
You know, this brave new world is a lot less Brave New World than we thought it would be...
That old business partner I want to get back at... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just great! Pour a few bags of fertilizer down the drain by his house... next stop, my local IT competitor's shop...
How very enlightened... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the bomb makers just conduct their business in a house in the countryside that uses a septic tank instead of connecting to a sewer system. That's a lot of money and effort and false confidence that can be circumnavigated with great ease. Now, if they'd done this without telling anyone then they might have had an edge... Idiots.
Re:Unimaginable wasting of money (Score:5, Insightful)
It has been my experience that often governments do things because of something specific when all along they wanted to do it anyways.
In other words, "bombs" probably is just a justification the public needs in order to allow this to happen. There are probably other reasons which wouldn't sound so acceptable if officially declared. Think about all the laws that get rammed through in the name of stopping terrorism but primarily end up being used to harass and prosecute drug users/dealers or something along other lines.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry. The terrorists WON already.
We're now LESS free than we were, and the fucking morons claiming to "run" the country (insert your country's name here), are no closer to eradicating or even MITIGATING terrorism.
Oh yes. And they, and a bunch of their friends, are now MUCH richer.
Re:A surprising turn of events (Score:5, Insightful)
In the case, for example of the 7/7 bombings, these were made of organic peroxides.
Nail varnish remover, hair bleach, limescale remover, and you're pretty much done.
(you can't make a bomb from these chemicals simply in the concentrations they are normally used at - but you can't tell from traces if peroxides are part of hair dye, or a bomb.)
The reagents used to make ricin are similarly problematic.
Also - it's important to note that once in solution, you can't go back to the original compound.
If you put Calcium hydroxide and Sodium chloride into the drain - you get a mix of ions.
You can't tell if what went into a drain was Calcium Chloride or Calcium Hydroxide.
This is clearly important if one is innocuous.
In practice, it seems likely that most of the 'unique' signatures will come from illicit drug use - NOT manufacture of drugs or explosives.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-02/your-sewer-drugs [popsci.com]
Re:A surprising turn of events (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a whole field of chemometrics dedicated to the problem of how to deconvolute mixed chemical signatures from background noise. It's been used to identify heroin being warehoused offshore, since they were able to pick out the chemical signatures of several different types being mixed together against the background.
I would be very surprised if you couldn't apply a similar approach to explosives detection in sewerage - at the very least, a raised background would tell you to deploy some more upstream sensors to see if it's benign or localized to 1 property. Then you take a drive around and see if there's anywhere suspicious, then simply wander up to the door and see who answers.
The home bombmaker's going to have problems answering, and if you know it's them all you have to do is wait for them to try and move it.
Re:You can't compensate the dead (Score:4, Insightful)
Does that include the cost of handling the false positives large-scale testing would produce?
Serious question because I think the cost-benefit of mammograms are disputed for this reason.
do you have any idea of how many false positives detecting gunpowder and fertilizer in sewage is going to cause?
I think it would just provide them with an excuse generator if they want to search an entire building block.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)