Area : SNET-L
Date : Oct 12 '95, 11:32
From : Chris Terraneau, 1:330/201
To   : Ladynada
Subj : high-tech terror outp


 -=> Quoting Ladynada to All <=-

 La> From: ladynada 
 La> Subject: High-tech terror outpaces the FAA
 La> Message-ID: <199510142251.PAA16856@ix8.ix.netcom.com>
 La> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 95 18:52:05 -0400

 > High-tech terror outpaces the FAA
 >
 > Keay Davidson
 > EXAMINER SCIENCE WRITER
 >
 > Mon, July 3, 1995
 >
 > After spending more than $160 million since 1990 to protect against
 > terrorists like the Unabomber, the Federal Aviation Administration
 > is stuck on the same basic problem: Technology still isn't smart
 > enough to reliably distinguish between a plastic explosive and a
 > plastic purse.

That's all about to change!

 > Several bomb-detecting gadgets have encountered technical problems,
 > the worst being the sheer flood of baggage - any piece of which
 > might conceal an explosive smaller than a stick of butter.

The Thermal Neutron Activation technique (TNA) was tried in a joint effort by
the FAA and Scientific Applications Inc (SAIC) a few years ago. Unfortunately,
the one million dollar machines took 45 seconds per bag to inspect for
explosives, and such things as dirty underwear and fur coats in baggage caused
false alarms. The FAA had to suddenly recall a mandate to install such
equipment in every airport in the country, in an attempt to avoid a most
embarassing situation.

 > "It is a problem of physics - not of federal management."
 >
 > Chemically, explosives resemble "many, many, many articles that are
 > commonly carried in suitcases," Butterworth said. When scanned,
 > "many explosive materials commonly resemble purses and leather
 > goods. . . . It's very difficult for the technology to distinguish
 > between these benign articles and plastic explosive."

This is basically true of current technologies. Transmission and backscatter
X-ray, and the newer "dual-energy" X-ray can only see so much. There is also
the training problem in order that the resulting images are correctly analyzed
for such a threat.

Chemical sniffers, gas chromatography, and ion mobility instruments suffer
greatly from confusion by other, perfectly harmless substances. Thermedics,
Inc. makes a sniffer machine that looks like a phone booth, and sniffs the air
around a person looking for telltale vapours. But it is slow, and also prone
to a good number of false alarms. These were tested in airports in the last
couple of years also, but apparently they are not quite good enough.

 > Explosives are easy to conceal, "in many cases artfully. . . . That
 > makes it a very complex matter looking (for a bomb) in a heavily
 > packed suitcase. It's like looking for that blade of grass in a
 > haystack."

 > In 1990, shocked by the terrorist bombing of a Pan Am flight two
 > years earlier over Lockerbie, Scotland, Congress passed the Aviation
 > Security Improvement Act. The act required the FAA to develop and
 > test anti-terrorist monitoring devices within three years.

The FAA is very slow to test and approve new equipment. That is half their
problem. They are so wrapped up in red tape, it is suprising they get anything
done.

 > But in 1993, the National Research Council warned against undue
 > optimism: "There does not appear to be any single detection
 > technology that can provide levels of sensitivity and specificity
 > that will have both a significant effect on reducing the threat and
 > an acceptable impact on airport operations."

The ultmate technology will be a fusing of several different techniques.

 > Last year, the General Acounting Office issued a report complaining
 > about technical delays in development of bomb-detection devices. At
 > that time, the FAA was running 40 bomb-detection projects and had
 > tested seven - and none would be ready for approval before 1999, the
 > report charged.

Exactly!

 > The more sensitive the technology, the higher the rate of false
 > alarms - and the higher the rate of false alarms, the lower the
 > security staffers' alertness, "no matter how high paid they are,"
 > Butterworth said.

This is not entirely true!

 > "The incidence of finding a bomb in a bag is very, very rare," he
 > said. "And what happens when you keep looking for something that
 > doesn't show up? You can become complacent."

Currently, they don't even look for plastic explosives! And, they have no way
of knowing if a passenger carries a plastic explosive onto a plane. Or a
plastic or ceramic gun. Only old-fashioned metal guns.

 > Research continues on technical solutions. This fall, San Francisco
 > is tentatively scheduled to be the first city to test a system that
 > creates three-dimensional scans of airline baggage, Butterworth
 > said. The device has been developed by a Foster City firm, InVision.
 > Later tests will be conducted in Atlanta and Manila.

This is a dual-energy, tomographic transmission X-ray system. It may be better
than what is currently deployed, but it is not the ultimate answer.

 > The 3-D system generates color images that allow security personnel
 > to identify substances with suspicious chemical compositions. Red,
 > for example, corresponds to a substance that may contain chemical
 > explosive. Because personnel can rotate the computer image on the
 > screen, they can more easily discern a potential bomb inside a
 > cluttered bag.

It is also not very quick. They aren't going to use it if it slows the flow of
baggage too much.

 > Since mid-1993, luggage at San Francisco International Airport has
 > been scanned by so-called "thermal neutron analysis" devices that
 > fire subatomic particles called neutrons at the luggage. On hitting
 > nitrogen-rich substances - such as plastic explosives - the neutrons
 > emit gamma rays that can be detected by sensors.
 >
 > One drawback: The devices may confuse nitogen-rich goods, such as
 > silk shirts, with bombs.

I have seen a report that mentions a 40% false alarm rate.

 > Other technologies-in-the-making include:
 >
 > *Hand-held "sniffers," which can smell vapors from explosives
 > concealed in a passenger's luggage or clothes.
 >
 > A device made by Thermedics Detection Inc. of Massachusetts is
 > reportedly so sensitive that it can detect trace amounts of bomb
 > chemicals in a terrorist's hair. Those amounts are so slight,
 > company officials claim, that the terrorist could eliminate them
 > only by repeatedly washing his or her hair.

That particular device uses an infrared lamp to warm-up an object, encouraging
it to liberate vapours. I have heard a funny story of how it melted some poor
woman's plastic purse.

But, they're getting close!

 > Again, there's a drawback: The system is so sensitive that it might
 > generate numerous false alarms by detecting chemicals that exist in
 > everyday substances as well as bombs.

What is needed is a system that can distinguish precisely the chemical
constitution of materials, not just react to one chemical element. Such a
technique is now just becomming available. It is called Airborne Immunoassay.

AI is sensitive only to complex compounds that exactly contain what is being
searched for. For instance, it does not just detect the nitrogen in an
explosive, but instead only reacts to the complete chemical compound of that
explosive. Nitrogen alone, even in very large quantities, has no effect
whatsoever.

The technology is really bilogical in nature. A small mammal, such as a mouse
or a rabbit, is first injected with the target substance, say C4 plastic
explosive. The animal then develops antibodies, as the material is an invader
of its biological system. The antibodies can then be removed from the animal's
blood, and grown in mass quantities in a laboratory. They are then deposited
in a single layer onto an optical substrate. Light is passed through the
substrate (and the antibodies), and air from the suspected vicinity is
drawn over it. If there is just a few parts per trillion present, a density
change in the material is detected by an optical device, and the operator is
alerted.

Target materials possible include any specific type of explosive compound,
narcotics and drugs of all categories, alcohol, nerve agents, and biohazardous
species. There's almost no limit!

It has been said that the technology will allow the differentiation between a
cocaine user (with nothing on him) and a cocaine smuggler with balloons in his
gut. The device will incorporate both antibodies for cocaine and PVC. If just
cocaine is detected, the security agent will know that he only has a user on
his hands. But, if vinyl is also detected, he will know that there is a good
chance that there is cocaine inside ballons in the subject's gut. Yes, the
technique is so sensitive that exhaled gasses contain enough material for the
process to operate.

It is even possible to detect the presence of humans in a cargo shipment. U.S.
Customs may some day use this to find illegal immigrants being smuggled into
the country in cargo shipments. There are at least two compounds exhaled by
humans that are characteristic. These compounds are not present in other
animals breath, either.

 > Airlines insist they're doing everything they can to protect against
 > bombers. But not everyone is convinced.

Like they are doing to keep our baggage from being pilfered?

Lastly, Immunoassay will not be expensive to deploy. The "sniffers" are simple
optical devices no more complicated than a cheap camera's automatic exposure
system. Once in production, they should be less than $500 a piece.


... Catch the Blue Wave!
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10


--- GEcho 1.02+
 * Origin: Request SNETNEWS from your Fido Feed! (1:330/201)