Wow! Just wat I've Always wanted: A Drug and Explosive Dete

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

It detects to picogram levels! Wow!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2592135336
Gee, I wonder how many bids they'll get on that one.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a81111c3cd8f5dc989ba2@news.dslextreme.com...

It detects to picogram levels! Wow!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2592135336
Gee, I wonder how many bids they'll get on that one.

So do the beagles at our local airport - they also reproduce themselves and

are cheaper. Mind you the waste is a little off-putting....

Ken

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ken Taylor wrote:

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a81111c3cd8f5dc989ba2@news.dslextreme.com...

It detects to picogram levels! Wow!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2592135336
Gee, I wonder how many bids they'll get on that one.

So do the beagles at our local airport - they also reproduce themselves and
are cheaper. Mind you the waste is a little off-putting....

Ken

There is always a downside to any level of technology. Š

--
We now return you to our normally scheduled programming.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:401874D1.45FDCF0F@earthlink.net...

Ken Taylor wrote:

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote
in
message news:MPG.1a81111c3cd8f5dc989ba2@news.dslextreme.com...

It detects to picogram levels! Wow!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2592135336
Gee, I wonder how many bids they'll get on that one.

So do the beagles at our local airport - they also reproduce themselves
and
are cheaper. Mind you the waste is a little off-putting....

Ken

There is always a downside to any level of technology. Š

--
We now return you to our normally scheduled programming.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

It's always nicer to pat the computer. I mean the beagle.

Ken

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ken Taylor wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:401874D1.45FDCF0F@earthlink.net...

There is always a downside to any level of technology. Š

--
We now return you to our normally scheduled programming.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

It's always nicer to pat the computer. I mean the beagle.

Ken

Beagles are ok, but this is my favorite one to pat:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.terrell/photos.html

If you scratch her gently on the top of her head and she'll roll over
to have her belly scratched, too.

--
We now return you to our normally scheduled programming.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Mjolinor]

"Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bv9af7$ps1la$1@ID-76636.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a81111c3cd8f5dc989ba2@news.dslextreme.com...

It detects to picogram levels! Wow!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2592135336
Gee, I wonder how many bids they'll get on that one.

So do the beagles at our local airport - they also reproduce themselves
and
are cheaper. Mind you the waste is a little off-putting....

Ken

Certainly could be if they ate any of the picograms they found.

"Careful walking round the garden dear, the dog's just been out, mind you
don't get your foot blown off"

 

[Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun]

Ken Taylor wrote:

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a81111c3cd8f5dc989ba2@news.dslextreme.com...

It detects to picogram levels! Wow!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2592135336
Gee, I wonder how many bids they'll get on that one.


So do the beagles at our local airport - they also reproduce themselves and
are cheaper. Mind you the waste is a little off-putting....

We recently had an article on a weekly TV newsmagazine that revealed
that the dogs are not as accurate at detecting stuff as people think. I
believe they mentioned that their error rate was as high as 30%.

> Ken

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote
in message news:bvcc90$5p90l$2@hades.csu.net...

Ken Taylor wrote:

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote
in
message news:MPG.1a81111c3cd8f5dc989ba2@news.dslextreme.com...

It detects to picogram levels! Wow!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2592135336
Gee, I wonder how many bids they'll get on that one.


So do the beagles at our local airport - they also reproduce themselves
and
are cheaper. Mind you the waste is a little off-putting....

We recently had an article on a weekly TV newsmagazine that revealed
that the dogs are not as accurate at detecting stuff as people think. I
believe they mentioned that their error rate was as high as 30%.

Ken

Saw the same item in 'Fortune', though they said something like 'up to 40%'.

However this was in relation to broad-spectrum (for want of a better
expression) detection, rather than instantaneous detection of a single
substance or group of substances. The really bad results were from detecting
a culprit in a line-up (nose-up?) from a sample of something they touched
some time ago.

Ken

 

[Harry Conover]

"Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<bvce2i$qm3gq$1@ID-76636.news.uni-berlin.de>...

Saw the same item in 'Fortune', though they said something like 'up to 40%'.
However this was in relation to broad-spectrum (for want of a better
expression) detection, rather than instantaneous detection of a single
substance or group of substances. The really bad results were from detecting
a culprit in a line-up (nose-up?) from a sample of something they touched
some time ago.

Ken

Ken, scent tracking by dogs is an entirely different application than
their use in the detection of certain illegal drugs. While I suspect
that the vapor pressure of well packaged designer drugs, cocaine, etc.
are well below the detection capabilities of both dogs and machines,
dogs perform extremly well for the detection of high vapor pressure
materials like poorly sealed packages of cannabis. (I won't suggest
what "well packaged" means, to avoid giving ideas to the bad
guys...but any chemist or physicist understands.)

Inadequate training is the limiting factor on the accuracy of drug
sniffing dogs. By this I mean that a well trained hunting dog can
detect and go into a specific "point" when it detects a game bird...It
doesn't do this if it happens to encounter a piece of meat or other
tasty food...By contrast, a drug sniffing dog gives no specific
indication that it has drugs, and often displays an identical interest
reaction when it sniffs cannabis or some sausages being brought home
in a suitcase! If the suitcase is constructed of leather, it may even
display interest in the suitcase itself.

Given this lack of adequate training, the dogs will in fact produce a
high number of false alarms because they exhibit identical behavior
patterns with both food and drugs. Perhaps this is a characteristic
useful to the FDA, but not to the DEA!

So, why not simply teach the drug dogs to go to "Point" when they
stiff drugs, but not when they sniff food? Seems like a 'no brainer'
to me. The question to me is why, with the billions available to them,
why isn't the 'War on Drugs' already researching this?

One possible soulution would be to commission several well known
"Pointer" trainers to teach drug sniffing dogs and see what the
outcome is.

Harry C.

p.s. The same problem is experienced with cadaver sniffing dogs, with
the same rather obvious solution for the problem.

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Harry Conover" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.0401301549.515d0508@posting.google.com...

"Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<bvce2i$qm3gq$1@ID-76636.news.uni-berlin.de>...

Saw the same item in 'Fortune', though they said something like 'up to
40%'.
However this was in relation to broad-spectrum (for want of a better
expression) detection, rather than instantaneous detection of a single
substance or group of substances. The really bad results were from
detecting
a culprit in a line-up (nose-up?) from a sample of something they
touched
some time ago.

Ken

Ken, scent tracking by dogs is an entirely different application than
their use in the detection of certain illegal drugs. While I suspect
that the vapor pressure of well packaged designer drugs, cocaine, etc.
are well below the detection capabilities of both dogs and machines,
dogs perform extremly well for the detection of high vapor pressure
materials like poorly sealed packages of cannabis. (I won't suggest
what "well packaged" means, to avoid giving ideas to the bad
guys...but any chemist or physicist understands.)

Inadequate training is the limiting factor on the accuracy of drug
sniffing dogs. By this I mean that a well trained hunting dog can
detect and go into a specific "point" when it detects a game bird...It
doesn't do this if it happens to encounter a piece of meat or other
tasty food...By contrast, a drug sniffing dog gives no specific
indication that it has drugs, and often displays an identical interest
reaction when it sniffs cannabis or some sausages being brought home
in a suitcase! If the suitcase is constructed of leather, it may even
display interest in the suitcase itself.

Given this lack of adequate training, the dogs will in fact produce a
high number of false alarms because they exhibit identical behavior
patterns with both food and drugs. Perhaps this is a characteristic
useful to the FDA, but not to the DEA!

So, why not simply teach the drug dogs to go to "Point" when they
stiff drugs, but not when they sniff food? Seems like a 'no brainer'
to me. The question to me is why, with the billions available to them,
why isn't the 'War on Drugs' already researching this?

One possible soulution would be to commission several well known
"Pointer" trainers to teach drug sniffing dogs and see what the
outcome is.

Harry C.

p.s. The same problem is experienced with cadaver sniffing dogs, with
the same rather obvious solution for the problem.

Not disagreeing with anything you've written. In New Zealand and Australia
there are different dogs for food and drug detection. The Fortune article
also mentioned poor training and human induced errors as a reason for the
high rate of false detections.

Cheers.

Ken