Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Fish Work as Anti-terror Agents

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:24 PM
from the mr-limpet dept.
sdriver writes "San Francisco's bluegills went to work about a month ago, guarding the drinking water of more than 1 million people from substances such as cyanide, diesel fuel, mercury and pesticides. "There's no known manmade sensor that can do the same job as the bluegill." The New York City Department of Environmental Protection reported at least one instance in which the system caught a toxin before it made it into the water supply."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by MrNaz (730548) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:27PM (#16151492) Homepage
    *mumbles something about preferring sharks with frikkin' laser beams*
  • by Monkeys!!! (831558) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:28PM (#16151498) Homepage
    How do we know this isn't a red herring by some terroist group?

    *ducks and runs*
  • Fishing? (Score:3, Funny)

    by atomicstrawberry (955148) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:28PM (#16151500)
    Does this mean that if you go fishing you're aiding terrorism?
    • Re:Fishing? (Score:5, Funny)

      by ultranova (717540) on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:35AM (#16151809)

      Does this mean that if you go fishing you're aiding terrorism?

      Yes. You should get your fish from a market. Preferably fish imported from Japan. If you are self-sufficient in some respect, you are destroying the pillars of mutual dependence on which current capitalism and world economy are built.

      Besides, the fish are not privately owned. You are benefiting from public property. Which means that:

      When you're fishing, you're catching communism !

      • Re:Fishing? (Score:5, Funny)

        by atomicstrawberry (955148) on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:43AM (#16151819)
        Communism and Terrorism? All we need now is a flimsy excuse for protecting our fish from the horrors of child pornography and we'll be set!
        • Are you kidding? There is sea life that not only mates under 1 year of age, but sometimes actually changes gender! I'm expecting a Focus on the Family talking paper any day now. Don't tell them that some frogs are transexuals as well. It all started with Janet Jackson's nipple. I don't remember any of this crap happening before we had aureolas on the boob tu... well, on the television.
  • good idea! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Wizzerd911 (1003980) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:29PM (#16151502)
    Well when you think about it, they're really just super complex biological machines that built themselves so they're the perfect solution...except in my area that is. We may have the 2nd most terror targets in the US but the only thing the fish are telling us so far is that you "should not exceed eating two in one year." Looooots of PCB's in there. Terrorists could dump all sorts of stuff in there and we could be pulling up two headed fish without thinking anything was out of the ordinary :P
    • We may have the 2nd most terror targets in the US

      According to the DHS system of accounting for targets, that means you have the world's largest fair along side the world's largest petting zoo?
    • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:44PM (#16151558) Homepage Journal
      I think there may be a little extra Mercury in the fish supply. All the fish have grown little moustaches and started singing about champions and radios.
  • The name is Pond. James Pond [imdb.com].
  • by Mydron (456525) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:35PM (#16151524)
    [Blugills] are no use against other sorts of attacks -- say [...] an attack by computer hackers on the systems that control the flow of water.
    So, is this news for nerds or not?
  • Not likely method (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:39PM (#16151541) Journal
    Using cyanide to poison drinking water for a major city? It would be easy to catch the guys, they'd be the ones dumping the tanker truck full of cyanide.

    Plutonium would work much better.
    • by YesIAmAScript (886271) on Thursday September 21 2006, @02:48AM (#16151935)
      Plutonium is toxic, that's true.

      But the descriptions you hear all the time about how one gram can kill a bazillion people assumes that each person gets exactly a lethal dose and no more.

      In reality, this is difficult to do. Plutonium, for example, is not soluble in water and is very heavy. So distributing it through the water supply would be very difficult.

      If you drop a bit in the water supply, it'll just sink to the bottom in the first eddy it reaches and sit there, killing only things that come near it instead of the intended targets. It might kill nothing except a few rats.

      http://www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/ [llnl.gov]
      • ...one gram can kill a bazillion people...

        Plutonium, for example, is not soluble in water and is very heavy...
        ... So, does a gram of plutonium way more, or less, than a gram of feathers?
        • by tehcyder (746570) on Thursday September 21 2006, @11:00AM (#16154124) Journal
          So, does a gram of plutonium way more, or less, than a gram of feathers?
          I think the standard of scientific knowledge displayed recently on slashdot is absolutely appalling, and a terrible indictment of the failings of our education system in modern society.

          I mean, what sort of an idiot needs to even ask this question - obviously the plutonium weighs more.

      • by debrain (29228) on Thursday September 21 2006, @08:22AM (#16152843) Journal
        It might kill nothing except a few rats.


        Or turning them and four baby turtles into ninjas, heros in a half-shell so to speak, which grow up to be a crime-fighting team of pizza-loving mutants.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Using it as a poison does not require any technical knowledge and is quite effective. While not as poisonous as some mercury compounds or pesticides, it is still poisonous enough to have effect. In addition to that, the howling of the media about Pu discovered in drinking water will provide the terrorists with what they want even if nobody dies. Go and try to explain Joe Average that the concentration is so low that it will not do a thing. As far as he is concerned it is plutonium. Scary stuff.

        On the subjec
  • OH MY GAWD! (Score:5, Funny)

    by BLAG-blast (302533) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:40PM (#16151545)
    Fish are peeing in our water supply!!!!
  • E-Mail, eh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrNonchalant (767683) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:40PM (#16151546)
    The computerized system in use in San Francisco and elsewhere is designed to detect even slight changes in the bluegills' vital signs and send an e-mail alert when something is wrong.
    From: The Bluegills <bluegills@tank1.resevoir2.dopw.sf.ca.us>
    To: Bob Thompson <bthompson@dopw.sf.ca.us>
    Subject: Our Contract

    Dear Bob,

    We don't want to seem ungrateful and we appreciate all you've done. However, it has just come to our attention, and our solicitor's attention, that our job is to test the water for poison. In light of this we'd like to renegotiate. We're looking forward to hearing back from you ASAP concerning this issue.

    Sincerely,
    Tim, Ed, and Bill
    The Bluegills
  • by hullabalucination (886901) * on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:48PM (#16151571) Journal

    At the other end of the issue, we've used animals as agents of destruction in some pretty weird ways. Probably everybody here has heard of the U.S. Navy's experiments using dolphins or porpoises as a delivery system for below-the-water-line bombs targeting ships. The weirdest I've ever heard of was the Army's Bat Bomb project during WWII:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb [wikipedia.org]

    Does anyone here watch the History Channel (North America)? Didn't they run a documentary on this project a couple of years ago?

    * * * * *

    My goal is to someday be the person my dog thinks I am.
    --Unknown

  • by Durandal64 (658649) on Thursday September 21 2006, @12:00AM (#16151608)
    "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."
    -George W. Bush, Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

    Give credit where credit's due.
  • by !splut (512711) <sput&alum,rpi,edu> on Thursday September 21 2006, @12:11AM (#16151638) Journal
    That reminds me of a similar article:

    SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A type of person so common that practically every American who ever attended grade school has probably harassed one is being enlisted in the fight against terrorism.

    San Francisco, New York, Washington and other big cities are using computer geeks -- also known as computer nerds or slashdotters -- as a sort of canary in a coal mine to safeguard the internet.

    Small numbers of the geeks are kept in cubicles supplied with Mountain Dew and a broadband internet connection from local internet service providers (ISPs), and sensors in each cubicle work around the clock to register changes in the breathing, heartbeat and browsing patterns of the geeks that occur in the presence of internet attacks.

    "Nature's given us pretty much the most powerful and reliable early warning center out there," said Bill Lawler, co-founder of Intelligent Automation Corporation, a Southern California company that makes and sells the geek monitoring system. "There's no known manmade sensor that can do the same job as the computer nerd."

    Since September 11, the government has taken very seriously the threat of attacks on the U.S. internet. Federal law requires nearly all internet service providers to assess their vulnerability to terrorism.

    Big cities employ a range of safeguards against chemical and biological agents, constantly monitoring, testing and treating the water. But protection systems for electronic networks can trace only the hacks they are programmed to detect, Lawler said.

    Computer geeks -- a hardy species about the size of a normal human being, but thinner and paler -- are considered more versatile. They are highly attuned to internet integrity, and when exposed to even brief internet outages, they experience the geek version of coughing, compulsively reloading browser windows and pinging gateways to determine the source of the congestion.

    The computerized system in use in San Francisco and elsewhere is designed to detect even slight changes in the geek's vital signs and send an e-mail alert when something is wrong.
  • PETA & SPCA (Score:3, Funny)

    by aalu.paneer (872021) on Thursday September 21 2006, @12:12AM (#16151643)
    Won't PETA & SPCA complain?
  • by techno-vampire (666512) on Thursday September 21 2006, @12:16AM (#16151653) Homepage
    Using animals as sensors to detect contaminants isn't exactly a new idea. Coal miners have been using canaries to detect coal damp and other noxious gases for at least a century. The only new thing is using fish instead of birds. Nice idea, though, and a lot more cost effective than trying to design something sensative enough to be useful.
    • The only new thing is using fish instead of birds

      Yeah, when they tested the water using birds the only conclusion was 'That must be REALLY poisoned water!'
  • by ArizonaKid (893047) on Thursday September 21 2006, @12:26AM (#16151682)
    As someone who grew up in New Jersey, there were many lakes that had those little guys swimming all over the place...

    And there isn't a change in hell that I would drink any of the water in those lakes. Those fish are survivors, and although I am not a scientist, I could only conclude that the fish in the lakes nearby had to have gone through some type of resistant mutation... That really doesn't help my confidence in the safety of the water.

    I say use goldfish. Those little bastards take one day of me forgetting to feed them to go belly up.
  • "Fishkill" test (Score:5, Informative)

    by Barbarian (9467) on Thursday September 21 2006, @12:30AM (#16151691)
    This is also pretty standard for treated industrial wastewater--take a sample from the outflow on a regular basis, send it to a lab, and they stick fish in it and see how many die within 24 hours. Some setups even have a small side stream so that you can get results in real time.
  • Not the first (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ross.w (87751) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {yelrednowr}> on Thursday September 21 2006, @12:44AM (#16151716) Journal
    This was done in Sydney 15 years ago, when they still drew their water supply via an open canal. The Water Board had identified a risk fronm the canal that wound its way through teh suburbs and was very easy to get access to, so they put in a fish tank connected to the canal to pick up anything toxic that might have found its way into the water. In this cas the fish were Macquarie perch (I think).

    There was a video camera trained on the tank and the operators in the control room could cut off the canal if they noticed the fish were dead.

    There was a guy whose job it was to feed the fish and run the dechlorination system that removed the chlorine from the water going into the tank, since that's also toxic to fish.

    One weekend , he forgot to top up the sodium thiosulphate solution that was used for this purpose, and all the fish died from chlorine poisoning some time on Sunday night when it ran out.

    That was bad enough, but it was Monday morning before the operators noticed.

    They don't use that system anymore. The canal has been filled in and there is a pipeline and a fully filtered treatment plant.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Slightly off topic, but a related story.

      I took an environmental law class once, and the guy who taught it used to work county health or something.

      In California, there are a few ways of determining if somethning is toxic, and one of the ways is to put the suspected agent into a fish tank with an "indicator species" of fish and wait a few days to see if the fish live or die. If the fish die, then the suspected agent is thus toxic.

      Well, one time he was infront of a judge explaining the test, and presenting th
  • bluegills? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) <[patrik.vanostaeyen] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday September 21 2006, @12:58AM (#16151739) Journal
    I would have picked piranas and crocodiles. The bluegills just let you know the water is poisend after which you have the large expence of finding and trialing the terrorist. My system makes it very easy: The terrorist are the little pieces of pirana feces floating in the water. Or the guy stuck in the tree above the crocodiles. Either way we save at lot of money.
  • by SendBot (29932) on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:21AM (#16151774) Homepage Journal
    This thing with the fish sounds great and all, but I'm worry about my 4th amendment rights being eroded by little birds telling my government things.

    At least I can count on moles to uphold le resistance.
  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Thursday September 21 2006, @01:57AM (#16151843)
    OK, I'm fine with the idea of protecting people's water supply. But to say this is part of the fight against terrorism frankly, is ridiculous.

    ISTM that each time "terrorism" is included as a reason to improve public safety, it's just assisting the terrorist agenda by keeping them inthe news and instilling fear where it didn't previously exist.

    Better to celebrate the improvements that progress brings, rather than trying to keep everyone cowering in fear with cheap, sensationalist news copy.

  • by archeopterix (594938) on Thursday September 21 2006, @02:06AM (#16151864) Journal
    I've read an article about clams used for the same purpose - they might be even better than fish, because they speak binary (clam open/clam clammed up) and don't move so much, so it's easier to monitor them automatically. The system in question raised alarm if more than a preset percentage of the clams clammed up. I cannot find the original article, but here's a short press note [sgnis.org] about a similar system that I found:
    Delta Consult, a Dutch company, markets a water pollution monitor that uses live zebra mussels as sensors.

    The product uses changes in mussels behavior - as determined by monitoring shell movement through electromagnetic induction - to detect water quality changes. The mussels are glued to the device.

    Delta Consult reports that the system can detect low concentrations of tributyl-tin oxide, chlorine, crude oil and such heavy metals as copper, cadmium, selenium, zinc and lead.

    The best part of the system is that the mussels are replaceable - but you must supply your own.

  • by tomatoguy (545272) on Thursday September 21 2006, @02:12AM (#16151870)
    of a technique used by water-testing labs. Trout and Daphnia are used in the lab I consulted to once. For things with a higher ppm range trout were used, and for lower ppm concentrations Daphia (which are barely naked-eye visible) are used. The waterborne equivalent of canaries in coal mines.
  • by houghi (78078) on Thursday September 21 2006, @04:06AM (#16152105) Homepage
    Is this some lame attempt to link terorism to the problems cause by the farming and other industry? "Anti-terror" It soubds as if somebody is crying "Wolf" all the time.
  • by griffjon (14945) <GriffJon AT Hotmail DOT com> on Thursday September 21 2006, @08:13AM (#16152792) Homepage Journal
    Does this mean we can carry water bottles on planes again -- if they have bluefish swimming in them?

  • by nasor (690345) on Thursday September 21 2006, @11:00AM (#16154130)
    "There's no known manmade sensor that can do the same job as the bluegill."

    This claim is absurd on its face. Who told him that? The guy who sold him the fish? He's obviously not an analytical chemist. Things like high-resolution mass spectrometry can detect cyanide, diesel fuel, mercury and pesticides at parts-per-trillion levels, far lower than anything that could ever possibly have any sort of detectible biological effect on a fish. There is no way that a fish is going to be effected by a nanogram/liter concentration of mercury, but a good mass spec would be able to see it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The problem with a spectrometer is that the more you have in the substance you're testing, the harder it is to detect a single substance. It's not like every chemical has a single line that shows up on a spectrometer scan... actually, everything has several lines that show up. The more complex a substance is (and the heavier the atoms that make it up), the more lines appear. Pure Iron (Fe), for example, has 43 lines that show up on its spectrum. And drinking water isn't pure H2O. Not by a long shot... pure