Bees trained to find bombs

Reuters reports that bees have been sucessfully trained to smell out explosives:

By exposing the insects to the odor of explosives followed by a sugar water reward, researchers said they trained bees to recognize substances ranging from dynamite and C-4 plastic explosives to the Howitzer propellant grains used in improvised explosive devices in Iraq.

“When bees detect the presence of explosives, they simply stick their proboscis out,” research scientist Tim Haarmann told Reuters in a telephone interview. “You don’t have to be an expert in animal behavior to understand it as there is no ambiguity.”

If you have to get close enough to see their proboscis sticking out, you might be too close to the bomb to do much about it.

Now if they could just be trained not to get so angry and sting. Or, alternatively, maybe they could be used to swarm and attack anything that smells like a bomb. Imagine stopping a suicide bomber in his/her tracks by covering them with attack bees.

EDITED TO ADD (06 Dec 2006): Curiosity was getting the better of me so I found a source that describes how bee communication can be interpreted by humans from a distance. An optics.org report from August 2005 explains that trained bees will alter their behavior when flying over landmines, which can be detected by horizontal LIDAR:

The co-polarised LIDAR system uses a frequency-doubled 532 nm Nd:YAG emitting 100 mJ pulses at a repetition rate of 30 Hz. The back-scattered light is passed through a receiver with a linear polarisation parallel to that of the emitted light.

To test the feasibility of the approach, the team carried out an experiment on a live mine field. Using tens of thousands of bees, the researchers conclude that the scanning LIDAR consistently detected a higher bee density near most of the significant chemical plumes. But there is still a lot of work to do.

[…]

“The primary limitation was identifying bee-specific signatures from grass and other interfering objects,” said Shaw.

I love the details in optics.org. Ok, so let’s say that bees would be flying around checkpoints with LIDAR sensors. Could anyone stung by a bee, or that bees hover by, be reasonably assumed to have trace amounts of explosives? Not only does this present a very interesting partnership with nature and science, but imagine all the side benefits like military checkpoints planting flowers and selling honey on the side.

Creative Destruction of Signs

FlowCreative Destruction seems to completely misunderstand the results of removing signs from streets, as first mentioned here. Sameer writes:

But the question no one seems to address is what impact this has on traffic? Maybe this works in towns where there are only a few cars on the road and traffic is not an issue, but traffic control devices don’t just exist to improve safety, they exist to increase road throughput! This appears like a recipe for gridlock! I can’t say for sure that this is the case, however, because NONE of the press accounts have read have said anything about the impact this has had on traffic. They didnt say it got worse, they didn’t say it got better — they are simply silent on the question. I know it is old hat to complain about how useless our news media is these days, but really. They are useless.

Strange conclusion when you consider how moving at a constant rate increases throughput versus having regulated intermittent traffic flow. In fact, most drivers I know curse at the stop signs and lights that burden them with unnecessary stops and gridlock where there could be even flow. Ever wait at a light for no apparent reason?

This is proven out in the wave theory of traffic congestion, not to mention the practical application of roundabouts versus stoplights. If you can keep everyone moving, albeit somewhat carefully and at a reduced rate, you increase the throughput of traffic. It is only when intelligent signalling is applied (think switching based on complex addressing, which we simply do not have for cars) that stop-and-go signs begin to approximate the throughput of fluid systems.

Also, the articles say that this is just the start of some experiments but so far accidents have decreased. I don’t know why that is not sufficient empirical data for Sameer, but there will surely be more data forthcoming as other cities adopt the same strategy.

I suppose it is most amusing, actually, that Sameer jumps from a dead-end in his search for answers in a simple news reporter’s story to the conclusion that all news media are useless. That makes me think he might also go into a shop for lunch, not find the exact sandwich he is seeking, and therefore decide that all restaurants are useless.

The Block Plan for Civilian War Services

A post by Bruce about a recent bioterrorism drill based on the USPS reminded me of US Defense Council plans from WWII.

For example, here is an image of The Block Plan for Civilian War Services, a sister association to the Civilian Protection function:

CivilianWarServices

Some more background on the Civilian Protection appears here, as unfortunately I do not seem to have a copy of their organization plan:

This series contains correspondence between the director of the Office of Civilian Protection and officers of local civilian protection organizations concerning the administration of civil defense programs in order to coordinate the protection of life and property from possible bomb attacks. The letters discuss procedural and organizational issues.

Meth Labs and Pseudoephedrine Legislation

Ok, I admit it. I have been fighting a cold. So the other day I decide I should get one of those toxic funny-flavored radioactive-colored medicines that promise to alleviate (pun intended) the symptoms. I go to the local pharmacy and before I know it I am giving them my driver’s licence number, my birthday, my underwear size and promising that my first-born will work night shifts for them. Given that I was a little under the weather, I think I might have given them the wrong size underwear, but nonetheless I managed to leave the store with a box of something in hand.

I mentioned before how regulations impact our privacy and access to apparently “regular” substances once they become a source material for meth labs. But I guess I was a little surprised by the lengths I had to go to in order to buy a box of something that used to be sitting out in the open. And I have to say this still seems like a good thing to me for two reasons:

  1. The stuff used for meth labs is generally pretty nasty, and so a little more oversight and control of who gets access and where the stuff goes actually makes some sense. For example, given all the horrible side-effects that exposure to stuff like methanol can cause (e.g. blindness and death) perhaps we should already have been more discriminate about keeping track of who is going through gallons of the stuff by spraying a fine mist through the streets where children play, no? I hate those moments when everyone looks at each other and says “Holy crap, look at that risk to reward ratio! Why wasn’t this horrible stuff regulated a long time ago?”
  2. You have to really, really want something to go through all the paperwork I did. It made a visit to the doctor’s office seem like a walk in the park. This surely cuts down on the casual user, or the user who does not have time to waste. Perhaps if they make the process slow enough people will be cured of their ailment just by taking the time to get the final phases…. Imagine calling your office and telling them “I’ll be out for the next few days so I can start the process for paperwork at the pharmacy on getting some cold and sinus medicine.” Don’t speed it up, slow it down. Or, when someone asks for your papers, choose a different (less toxic) product instead.
  3. It helps provide data for research on controls and externalities.

Ok, three reasons. I told you I was sick, right? Speaking of that last reason, I just noticed that the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Controls (OBNDDC — hard to say three times fast, eh? I hear that correct pronunciation of the acronym is now part of their sobriety test) has posted some interesting numbers on the rise (and apparent fall) of Meth labs. Their site suggests that HB 2176, which started controlling access to meth ingredients in April 2004, has led to a sharp decline in the number of meth lab seizures (down from approximately 1200 in 2003 to only 300 in 2005, with many non-operational). Impressive numbers, but what if locking down ingredients has just forced the criminals to making a different drug instead? Good deal, I say, and let’s hope they move to something less environmentally toxic (less risk and cost to law enforcement officers, neighborhoods, etc.).

By the way, here‘s a good explanation of the risks from windshield wiper fluid as well as an alternative home-brew recipe:

Commercial windshield wiper fluid is not a complex substance. There are three basic ingredients: water, a detergent and, to keep it from freezing, methyl alcohol or methanol. It’s the methanol that makes it dangerous. Methanol is corrosive and toxic, and can cause blindness or death if ingested. Like antifreeze, wiper fluid is also harmful to pets, should any be spilled on the ground.

Just the sort of thing you want to spray into the air at speed, right?

You can make a relatively benign washer fluid yourself with one part alcohol (pure alcohol, not isopropyl) and ammonia mixture and two parts water. If you use too much water, the mixture will freeze in the lines on cold days and destroy your washer pump. A further problem arises, says the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s Ken Giles, if your homemade washer fluid is not properly labeled or stored in a childproof container. Do-it-yourselfers should take both precautions.

Er, ammonia doesn’t seem like much of a step away from toxicity and controlled substances. Destroy the pump? That’s a bit dramatic. What if it never gets below freezing in my area? Should methanol still be included by default in all fluid? Doesn’t make sense to me, given the risks with no/minimal reward.

Anyone have a recipe for non-toxic washer fluid or cold and sinus medicine?