Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Falcorian (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 5 November 2009 (Some clean up. Remove large section copied from report.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

The ADE 651 is an expensive device widely used by Iraqi police, produced by ATSC (UK) , that claims to be effective at detecting the presence and perhaps location of explosives. Many experts including The Amazing Randi, who offered $1 million to anyone who could prove its effectiveness, and USAF Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack (retired) doubt its effectiveness.

It is claimed that the ADE 651 failed to prevent many of the bombings in Iraq.

Dowsing rod type explosive detectors

ADE 651 is one of a few devices that are derided as being high tech dowsing rods because of their appearance and lack of proven efficacy. Others include Sniffex and ek-9 GT200.

Testing by Labratories

A previous version of this technology was tested by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexicoand was not capable of performing at a level higher than normal random discoveries.

Quotes from past studies on dousing rod type detectors

"Although there may be other types of nonoperational devices around, dowsing devices for explosives detection have emerged during the past couple of years... .None of these attempts to create devices that can detect specific materials such as explosives (or any materials for that matter) have been proven successful in controlled double-blind scientific tests. In fact, all testing of these inventions has shown these devices to perform no better than random chance."

From the National Institute of Justice Guide for the Selection of Commercial Explosives Detection Systems for Law Enforcement Applications (NIJ Guide 100- 99);

“The SNIFFEX handheld explosives detector performed no better than random chance over the course of testing…" "The SNIFFEX did not detect explosives" "The SNIFFEX failed to show any indication of this much larger quantity of explosives…" "Based upon the observed test results, the SNIFFEX handheld explosives detector is not capable of detecting explosives..."— US Navy

"Had a peer review been performed prior to testing, the Department could have avoided spending $408,750 on this technology.” — The US Inspector General"

References

1. Iraq Swears by Bomb Detector U.S. Sees as Useless
2. Iraq Swears by Bomb Detector U.S. Sees as Useless
3. A Direct, Specific, Challenge From James Randi and the JREF
4. Guide for the Selection of Commercial Explosives Detection Systems for Law Enforcement Applications (NIJ Guide 100-99), Chapter 7. WARNING: DO NOT BUY BOGUS EXPLOSIVES DETECTION EQUIPMENT

External Links

• ATSC corporate website
• e-k9 maker of the gf200
• Blog: Questions About Sniffex, ADE651, GT200 and Other Explosive Detectors

• Occupation of Iraq
• Politics of Iraq