This blog is intended to ask important questions about the claimed explosive and drug detection rods sold around the world. Anyone thinking about buying one of these "detectors" should do extensive research before making a purchase. We also examine nearly identical products such as the Quadro Tracker, MOLE, the Alpha 6, the GT200 Molecular Detector, and ADE 651. This blog is not affiliated with the manufacturer of the Sniffex, ATSC, or any of the other products mentioned.
While some in the Iraqi Military have insisted their worthless ADE-651, GT-200, and Alpha 6 devices actually work despite overwhelming evidence they are nothing but a dowsing rod scam, the Thai government has finally shown a wise restraint in delaying a planned purchase of more GT200 detectors. The people of Thailand should commend their leaders for this action and encourage them to cancel the purchase entirely, as well as prosecute the people who committed the fraud against the nation's police and military. The video of Thai officers being killed after these devices failed should be enough to prove the danger of the fraud that resulted in the death of at least 4 officers.
Army may delay purchase GT200 bomb detector
BANGKOK, Jan 28 (TNA) - Thai army chief Gen Anupong Paochinda on Thursday asserted that the British-made GT200 bomb detector used in the security forces operations in the three restive southern border provinces is effective, but the army may delay the new purchase of the controversial gear for reasons of transparency.
Gen Anupong commented following criticism by many parties on the effectiveness of the GT200 bomb detector after the British government banned exports of the ADE651 bomb detector to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The ADE651 bomb detector is manufactured by the British-based company Global Technical, and is similar to the GT200 bomb detector, widely used in security operations in Thailand's Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat provinces in which insurgency attacks have killed more than 4,000 lives since violence erupted 2004.
The army chief said he has recently been told by the Fourth Army Area commander who oversees security in the far South that the device is effective. Without them, it would be more difficult for security forces to carry out their work.
Gen Anupong said no verification has been made regarding the percentage of the device's effectiveness, but he said that concerned agencies will look into it.
Regarding the planned purchase of another lot of the scanners, Gen Anupong said that the army may consider delaying the purchase for transparency, but must study the purchase process carefully to avoid facing possible legal action from the seller.
Meanwhile, Jessada Denduangboripant, lecturer at the Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, told the House committee on National Security that the GT200 bomb detector is simply a bogus device, while questioning how the scanners are widely used in many agencies despite its unually high cost at about Bt1.4 million each.
The academic pointed out technical errors in detecting bomb of GT200 occurred more than twice as earlier reported.
There are many cases which the device failed to detect bombs and that caused huge loss of lives and property he said, adding that the scanner also gave wrong results in many drug-testing cases. This destroys the people's confidence on state agencies as legal action has been wrongly taken against many innocent people.
Mr Jessada added that he is surprised over the qualification of the GT200 bomb detector which claims it can detect many materials from bomb-making substances, drugs, chemical substances, uranium, gold, ivory, banknotes and even biologic substance such as corpse.
No scientist in this world can prove how the GT200 bomb scanner is able to effectively detect different kinds of materials, he said.
Following Mr Jessada's explanation, the House committee resolved to continue further probe on the case with the army and academics given that it is considered the matter of life and death of people in the restive region. (TNA)
Political News : Last Update : 20:02:40 28 January 2010 (GMT+7:00)
gruttepier666 posted a new video on YouTube about the use of these bogus detectors in Thailand. As he describes it:
" A cop from thai forensic science dept. confessed to this perky host that There's no any electronic sensor at all in gt200.
It's simply just an useless 40000usd plastic case which thai soldiers 've been using for bomb detection for years . (oh boy!)
Here's an excerpt from BBC ,"The British Foreign Office has told the BBC that they will now be urgently warning all governments who may have bought devices such as the ADE651 and GT200 that they are "wholly ineffective" at detecting bombs and explosives. "
Followers of this blog will know the citizens of Thailand have also been struggling to get their government to stop using dowsing rods to try to detect weapons and drugs. The video of Thai police officers being killed by an explosive that their dowsing rod did not detect should have been sufficient proof of the danger presented by GT200, ADE-651, HEDD1, Sniffex, PSD22, H3 Tec, or any other such device. The Tumbler Blog takes a look at the response of Thai government officials to the overwhelming evidence that the devices do not work:
Authorities Insist GT200 Does Work, The Nation Says No10
PM Abhisit Vejjajiva on his internet Q&A programme, talking about the GT200
If anyone wants an indicator of how low our government has sunk in recent months, there is probably no better one than the fact that The Nation is now talking more sense than the Oxford-educated PM Abhisit Vejjajiva.
The BBC recently conducted an investigation into one of the many types of so-called hand-held “substance detectors” being used by government agencies in a handful of Third World countries including Thailand. The Iraqis are using them at checkpoints to thwart suicide bombers. Thai police forces have them in hand when looking for illegal drugs. Thai troops in the deep south also use them to save people from bombs, for example.
The investigation concluded that the device is completely bogus, consisting of nothing more than cheaply-made plastic and unsophisticated parts. While the model of the detector examined (ADE-651) was different from the ones being used in Thailand (GT200), the UK government has issued a ban on the ADE-651 “and other similar devices” and also arrested the man behind the ADE-651 detector. The BBC makes it clear that no Western government uses these types of detectors. For more information see Bangkok Pundit’s posts here, here and here.
(Click “read the rest of this entry” below to see Thailand’s response.)
In Thailand, netizens and university lecturers have been campaigning against the use of the GT200 for quite a while, but their efforts have proved largely fruitless, with the authorities insisting that the detectors do work reliably and help cut violence in the deep south. The media-friendly Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand has challenged sceptics to observe her team use the device in their daily forensic job.
Now, after the BBC’s revelation, one would expect that the Thai authorities would have seen the truth and stopped using the GT200 by now. Yet, their responses have been absolutely astonishing, even by the standard of our beloved Thailand.
First we have Anupong the army chief:
In response to reporters’ angry questions about the British-made scanner, Army chief Anupong Paochinda shot back: “Is the company using you to ask these questions?” (The Nation)
Then, another one in the military top brass:
Joint Military Police Civilian Taskforce commander Lt-General Kasikorn Kirisri said the GT200 scanner was very useful in detecting and preventing explosions in the deep South, where violent incidents on an almost daily basis have killed more than 3,900 people to date.
“Not using the bomb detector may affect efforts to restore peace in the deep South,” he warned, adding that there might have been some problems with the detector, but they mostly involved human error. (The Nation)
Then this, a bit more promising but still under the illusion that the GT200 is a real functioning detector:
However, the police believe the bomb detector is not effective enough, with only a 30-40-per-cent reliability factor, which means the chance of it failing is higher than succeeding.
“It is not accurate. If the operator is too close to the target – less than 3 metres – it will not work,” said Pol Senior Sgt-Major Chan Warongpaisit, who regularly operates the equipment in the South. (The Nation)
But what about Dr Pornthip? :
Meanwhile, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, director of the Forensic Science Institute and who always uses the GT200, said the UK had only banned the ADE651.
She said the detector was effective when searching for bombs and even nails under water. (The Nation)
Not to be outdone, our dear Prime Minister in his internet broadcast (Thai language):
[My translation]:
In the past these detectors were purchased. If you ask me whether they have been of any use, I’d say “yes, they have.” But a weakness has been found. As far as I know from talking to people familiar with it, a limit of this device is that it relies on static charges within the body of the user. Hence, sometimes if the user hasn’t had enough rest or is not well-prepared, the detector’s effectiveness will be reduced. So, at the moment, the Office of the Narcotics Control Board is asking for similar detectors, maybe with different names or brands, but which are battery-operated. They will replace the GT200.
Perhaps the PM had been briefed by some security officials before the programme, and that was probably his only source of information. He should be pretty embarrassed to know that even The Nation sounds more sensible than him. From the same report:
Just like the ADE651, no tests have proved the GT200 to be totally effective.
[...]
Yet, the GT200 failed to detect many bombs in the deep South, which led to several tragic incidents. Last October, two bombs killed two people and injured dozens of others in Yala and Narathiwat provinces after the so-called bomb detector failed to detect any explosive devices in the area. However, military officials say the operators were in an excited state, which prevented the equipment from working properly.
In reality though, bomb detectors like the GT200 have never succeeded in double-blind tests. A test of the equipment conducted for Thai authorities by a sales agent resulted in a “random chance” finding, which meant a sniffer dog would be better at detecting explosives.
A 1999 guideline from the US Justice Department regarding commercial explosive-detection systems said so far, there were no devices that could successfully detect specific materials like explosives as part of controlled double-blind tests.
[...]
An Chulalongkorn University engineer said the bomb detector was being used in the deep South as if it were a magic dowsing rod.
After the arrest of ATSC owner and maker of the ADE-651, Unival which sold the Sniffex, Sniffex Plus, and now the HEDD1 (Sniffex with a battery stuck inside) put out the press release below to explain why their dowsing rod is so much better than the ADE651, H3 Tec, GT200, or any other similar dowsing device for explosives, weapons, or drugs. Enjoy the laughs!
Unival Group comments alleged fraud linked to ADE651 explosive detectors
16:17 GMT, January 25, 2010 On 22 January 2010 BBC 2 television reported on an alleged fraud linked to the sale of 1,500 ADE651 reference-card based explosive detectors sold to the Iraqi government, claiming these devices did not function as promised.
During the related investigation, the device was tested by Cambridge University's Computer Laboratory. Dr. Kuhn of CU stated unambiguously that the ADE651 contained nothing but the type of anti-theft tag sensor used to prevent theft from retail shops. He added, “It was impossible that it could detect anything at all” and that the card had “absolutely nothing to do with the detection of TNT or other explosives”.
Against this background, unival® group would like to pro-actively inform its clients and distributors that the HEDD1®, along with all previous generations of our handheld explosive detection devices, are completely different from reference-card based devices, as our systems work on the patented Magneto-Electrostatic-Detection (MED) principle. That is, they are active devices that modulate a specific magnetic field detecting only the modulation of the special bond balance (energy) between Nitrogen and Oxygen found in -NO2/-NO3 and H2O2 compounds, which are part of almost all conventional, military and also liquid explosives.
HEDD1 works by creating a magnetic field that is specifically modulated through its internal container which houses a non explosive/ non radioactive reference source generated for explosive detection. HEDD1, in comparison to the previous generation models, also contains a specific Lithium battery that further enhances the magnetic field to make the device even more sensitive and user-friendly and now allows for static detection, which is especially helpful for detection scenarios at access points. The operator does not need to move but can detect explosives in persons, cars and objects, even while operating behind barriers during covert detection operations.
The only similarity between HEDD1 and ADE651 (or similar devices such as GT200, MOLE, Alpha6 etc.) is the antenna. The antenna is currently needed in the HEDD1 to point the direction towards explosives by applying the cross-bearing-method to detect the exact location of explosives. The antenna installed in the HEDD1, however, is unique and is specially produced for our devices. Even though the antenna is often criticized for making HEDD1 a rather analogue device, it allows the device to remain handheld and independent from a continuous power-supply, making possible real-time and stand-alone detection of explosives.
For this reason, HEDD1 is highly complementary to currently available detection methods based upon trace detection and other technologies. We are also working in cooperation with specialized research laboratories on sensor integration to digitize the device and remove the antenna, but this will take additional time and intensive R&D as the currently available technology is not capable of being integrated into handheld devices. In addition, we are also working on a stationary version that will be available in 2010 that will contain communication interfaces allowing for the seamless integration into electronic access control scenarios.
We have strong reason to believe that the reference-card based devices have been created by a group of people who initially tried to copy our technology but failed to reproduce the MED method. This is why they only copied the general shape and had to add another method, which they believed would be close to our approach. The result has been disastrous and they have created a massive scam, which is despicable.
Rumours about the malfunctioning of the ADE 651/ GT200 have circulated in several international markets for some time now. These rumours finally escalated when bombings in Iraq could not be prevented at ADE651-equipped checkpoints . The perpetrators and vehicles used in these attacks were able to transport explosives and weapons unhindered, as the ADE651 simply did not work. This obviously comes as no surprise.
As a consequence of the related skepticism about these types of devices that has been mounting for quite some time, we have had to overcome very serious, yet understandable, doubts from our clients. As a result, all of our recent sales, concluded either directly or through our local distributors, were based upon highly intensive demonstrations and audits. All demonstrations that we have conducted since 2005 have been successful, leading to our clients purchasing the device and its technology based upon these test results. The average detection rate has always been between 70-80% and with the further improvement of the HEDD1, which is based upon very intensive research and development, we have recently achieved demonstrations with 80-100% detection rates of hidden explosives, weapons and ammunition.
The last demonstration of the HEDD1 to European Special Police and EOD forces took place on 18th January 2010. This demonstration achieved a 100% detection rate and the original wording from this client’s review of our product is as follows:
- C4 M112
- TNT-block 125 gr.
- TNT-Block 250 gr.
- detonating cord PETN
- detonating cord (black powder)
- Yugoslavian hand grenade M75 PETN
- Glock 17 pistol with magazine
- SIG 228 assault rifle without magazine (detection was thus only possible through residual gun powder traces left from firing 4 months previously)
The above explosives have been positioned in misc. cases and hiding spots (up to 50 meters away) and have all been detected and located with the HEDD1 (reference available from unival group).
HEDD1 is therefore perfectly capable to improve security standards significantly if embedded into the correct scenarios. For this reason, our clients will be specially trained for use in the required scenarios in order to provide the best possible device for them. All unival distributors are widely trained on HEDD1 and our product portfolio in order to generate real values for our clients. This also includes a transparent, fair and adequate price strategy that is constantly reviewed by our sales department in order to prevent any potential malpractice.
Serial production of the HEDD1 is ISO 9001 certified and the device is in full compliance with CE regulations. In addition, HEDD1 has been tested and approved by TUV in 2010.
In early February 2010 we will begin testing, along with German authorities, and within this framework we will also certify the device in its function once it is determined which certification body is best suitable for our international clients.
We pledge that unival group will only supply reliable technologies that have been tested and approved by independent testing authorities. We are strongly committed to supporting our clients in the fight against global terror and will continue to strive for the best products and technologies.
----------------------------
Let us look at some of these claims
"The only similarity between HEDD1 and ADE651 (or similar devices such as GT200, MOLE, Alpha6 etc.) is the antenna."
That is because all of them are dowsing rods! The long antenna swings freely, and is not controlled by a motor, servo, actuator, or any other method. It is on a pivot, and will tilt easily with gravity or wind. This magnifies the slight hand movements of the user when they tilt their hand without noticing it.
All demonstrations that we have conducted since 2005 have been successful, leading to our clients purchasing the device and its technology based upon these test results. The HEDD1 is a new version of Sniffex and Sniffex Plus. Are they calling the test of the Sniffex in front of the US Navy explosives experts successful? The American representative of the company was the one doing the demonstration and admitted to the Dallas Morning News that it was a complete failure. The device was less accurate at finding a hidden explosive than flipping a coin or randomly guessing. A DEMONSTRATION IS NOT THE SAME AS A SCIENTIFIC DOUBLE BLIND TEST! A demonstration is ADVERTISING, to make the product look good and to sell it to the customer!
"we have recently achieved demonstrations with 80-100% detection rates of hidden explosives, weapons and ammunition." Prove it! In the tests by the US Navy, the improvement in finding hidden weapons over guessing was ZERO percent. Now you are saying it is 100 percent accurate?? Why not take Mr. James Randi up on his challenge and win the $1 million from him. That would be great publicity if your device really did work. But since it does not work, I will bet you will not take the challenge.
he boss of a British company that has sold million of dollars worth of “bomb detectors” to Iraq’s security forces has been arrested on suspicion of fraud.
Jim McCormick, 53, the managing director of ATSC which is based in a former dairy in Sparkford, Somerset, has been questioned by detectives from Avon and Somerset Police after a complaint that he misrepresented the devices.
In November, Mr McCormick, a former Merseyside police officer, told The Times that his devices, which consist of little more than a telescopic antenna on a molded plastic handle, are able to detect explosives in the same way as a dowsing rod finds water.
Thousands of the devices are in use at military and police check points across Baghdad where they are used to search vehicles and pedestrians for explosives. In recent months hundreds of people have died after car bombers were able to penetrate the security cordon supposed to protect the centre of the Iraqi capital.
Colin Port, the Somerset and Avon Police Chief Constable, personally ordered the investigation. A force spokesman said in a statement: “We are conducting a criminal investigation, and as part of that, a 53-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of fraud by misrepresentation. That man has been released on bail pending further inquiries.
“The force became aware of the existence of a piece of equipment around which there were many concerns, and in the interests of public safety, launched its investigation.
“It was reported to the Chief Constable Colin Port, through his role as the Association of Chief Police Officers’ lead on international development. He is chair of the International Police Assistance Board.
“Given the obvious sensitivities around this matter, the fact that an arrest has been made, and in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation, we cannot discuss it any further at this time.” The Iraqi Government has spent a total of $85 million (£52.7 million) buying 1,500 of the bomb detectors from ATSC.
Mr McCormick told The Times that his company sold the device known as the ADE-651 for $8,000 each, a total of £12 million. The balance went on training and on middlemen. He admitted that despite his claim to have invented the detector, the precise principle on which it works was still unexplained.
The American magician and sceptic James Randi has condemned the bomb detectors as a “blatant fraud” and challenged Mr McCormick to prove that the ADE-651 really can find explosives, with the offer of $1 million if he succeeds. The challenge has not been taken up. Senior US military sources have also expressed doubts that it could ever work.
The Times tested the flimsy device which has no electronic components and no working parts and was unable to detect a paper bag containing fireworks from a few feet away. ATSC’s sales literature claims the device can detect minute quantities of explosives at up to one kilometre, or three kilometres from the air.
Mr McCormick told The Times that his device was being criticised because of its crude appearance.
He added: “We have been dealing with doubters for ten years. One of the problems we have is that the machine does look a little primitive. We are working on a new model that has flashing lights.”
A police source said: “We are satisfied the bomb detectors don’t work.”
Just when you were sad that the Sniffex device that was the inspirer of this blog had died for good, the Sniffex is born from the ashes as the HEDD1. The High Explosive Detection Device 1. What is it? A Sniffex with a battery stuck on it. You see, we complained that the Sniffex was too close to the definition of the worthless dowsing rods called "bogus explosive detection equipment" by the engineers at the National Institute of Justice. What is the correct response to that? Stop selling a device in a category that has led to the deaths of police and civilians around the world? Including hundreds in Iraq? No! The answer is to put a plaster on the problem and pretend it never existed. Now the Sniffex HEDD1 has a battery, so evidently the sellers hope we do not notice that it still cannot find explosives. They even changed the name to spell out exactly what they claim it should do. That also does not make the HEDD1 into a miracle explosive detection rod any more than the H3 Tec device, or the ADE651, or the GT200, or the Sniffex Plus, or the Sniffex, or the MOLE, or the Quadro Tracker.
Don't forget to push the reset button. Also do not forget to wear your baseball hat and jumpsuit. This clothing is critical for finding explosives. Without a hat, the Modulated Magnetic Field (MMF) might get in your eyes!
After the US Navy embarrassed Sniffex by testing the device and finding it worthless for finding bombs, they checked to see if it emitted a signal as claimed in the patent. It did not. Nothing. No signal. But without a battery or other power source, that is not surprising.
Now, HEDD1 says "The device creates no RF [radio frequency] signals, but creates MMF (Modulated Magnetic Field.)" We already know the makers of Sniffex have a dangerously low understanding of chemistry and physics, but how do they violate the laws of physics by separating electromagnetism? Are they using outdated ideas that electric fields are completely separate from magnetic fields, and that RF has nothing to do with electromagnetics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation These inventors need to go to their local school and take a class for physics so they can be as smart as a 15 year old.
If you want to see the advertisement from Unival and decide for yourself if the product will work this time or be as worthless as the Sniffex when tested, you can get it here:
News reports in Thailand have reported the deaths of 3 police officers and one civilian due to the failure of the GT-200Detection Device not finding hidden explosives.
US Navy Test Results
James Randi obtained a copy of the US Navy Test Results of Sniffex and published portions. Later, the Dallas Morning News also got a copy and the writer put it on the Propublica web site.
Thank you to Bruce Schneier for the warning about this product, and to James Randi for having already done so much work researching it. And thank you to everyone else who has posted information on the web or sent links.
