Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Genetically Modified Flower Detects Landmines 518

cdneng2 writes "Yahoo has the story that a Danish company has developed a plant that can detect landmines. The genetically modified weed that has been coded to change color when its roots come in contact with nitrogen-dioxide (NO2) evaporating from explosives buried in soil." The company website has a bit more information.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Genetically Modified Flower Detects Landmines

Comments Filter:
  • KEEP MOVING!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by docbrown42 ( 535974 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:58PM (#8104031) Homepage
    Stop to smell the roses, and go BOOM? :) Actually, this is a pretty smart idea. Maybe they should code it into something really fast growing, like kudzu. -Ed
  • On the topic of DNA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by $calar ( 590356 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @04:59PM (#8104062) Journal
    One of my professors does research in nanotechnology. He is currently growing nanotubes in his lab and one of the applications of this technology is as a detector, such as what this plant does, only at the nano-scale. Apparently when the technology matures, detectors of certain types of illnesses can be made. By a drop of blood on the detector, one can learn the results instantly instead of waiting for human analysis. Very cool.
  • by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:02PM (#8104104) Homepage Journal
    Glowing fish are neat, but this is the type of breakthrough that should convince holdout countries that genetically modified plants are a good thing. Granted, whatever this plant is it isn't likely it'll grow everywhere, but this is so innovative that I wonder if it can be applied to the detection of other materials in the soil.

    It's even self-limiting, so despite being a weed it won't choke out the local flora.

  • Good Idea (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Ozone Depletion ( 738650 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:02PM (#8104124) Journal
    This seems like a great idea to me. The main problem I see though is getting the flowers to grow in the soil where landmines have been planted. I mean, minefeilds don't seem like fertile places to me.
  • by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:04PM (#8104153)
    Many fertilisers are made from various nitrogen compounds that are similar to explosives. That is why you can make a pretty nice bang with fertiliser + diesel fuel, and why there is a nice little relationship between fertiliser and explosives factories.

    Sure, out in the African bush you would not expect to find fertilisers but I extect some of the mine hot zones in Asia are fertilised quite heavily.

  • Congratulations! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Erick the Red ( 684990 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:04PM (#8104155)

    Landmines are a HUGE problem in so many countries. Engineers Without Borders has a yearly competition for de-mining technology. These plants could make the new devices obsolete.

    One quick question: what about minefields in the desert? Plenty of places have mines where plants don't usually grow (or at least not densely enough for the plants to detect them all).
  • Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SkArcher ( 676201 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:05PM (#8104166) Journal
    RTA -the plant is infertile, so it won't spread into unwanted areas. They'll probably spread the seed from aircraft hoppers - it'll have a fairly light seed casing.
  • by KingJoshi ( 615691 ) <slashdot@joshi.tk> on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:05PM (#8104170) Homepage
    This is ground-breaking technology and it's really cool to see it work to say lives. But I wonder what unintended consequences may occur from planting weeds around. This is very ignorant of me, but what effects could they have if they spread too fast or whatever since some areas where there are landmines are actually agricultural. I guess this technology could be used on other types of plants too, right?
  • Princess Diana (Score:3, Interesting)

    by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:06PM (#8104182)
    Princess Diana, for one, would have been very happy to see this development. Although her calling a ban on international landmines sparked a row [bbc.co.uk] as it was out of sync with the government policy.

    Definitely one of the better use of genetics.
  • by Pure Diluted Reality ( 745905 ) <noahlnx AT hotmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:07PM (#8104189)
    They should make a condom that contains plant material that can detect STD's and change colors accourdingly.
  • Re:Good Idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:07PM (#8104198) Homepage
    If the ground's been fought over, it's probably very fertile now. Not only because of the blood spilled, but because the nitrates from the munitions get into the soil.
  • poetic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theCat ( 36907 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:08PM (#8104212) Journal
    There is something marvelously just and poetic about using flowers to detect land mines. Thousands of children and innocents a year are blown to giblets, or horribly hutilated, by land mines. May a thousand flowers bloom.
  • Re:What Happens (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:11PM (#8104243)
    When the kids of 3 world countries run out into the fields to pick the flowers??

    Kind of puts a new twist on the old anti-Goldwater commercial, eh?

    Any kid growing up in a country where landmines are a problem is probably very likely to listen to the nice soldiers that say "stay away from flowers that look like this... we grow them on mine fields."

    The alternative is to further engineer the flowers to look or smell unpleasant, so kids will leave them alone.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:21PM (#8104408)
    This might also be useful for World War I battlefields in France and Belgium, where a number of farmers are killed every year by unexploded shells buried underground.

    sPh
  • Re:Cost? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Carnildo ( 712617 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:23PM (#8104429) Homepage Journal
    The nice thing about these flowers is they have a pretty good idea of what the market will be like. Price the seeds so that de-mining the world will cover the research and production costs, leaving about a 10% profit.
  • Re:Yes, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by brinch ( 729945 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:26PM (#8104462) Homepage
    Now correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe that producing seeds isn't exactly the only way a plant can spread over a very large area.
  • Re:Yes, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sajma ( 78337 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @05:39PM (#8104596) Homepage
    While airborne seeding and infertility are necessary to make this work, they might make it difficult to get the right "resolution" of seeds on the field. I assume mines are not too large (2ft radius?), so one needs seeds at least that close together, if not closer. Is possible using airborne seeding?

    If the weeds were fertile, then they could increase their density to the maximum the field could sustain. If one could make the weed's fertility "time out" after a few generations or depend on some fertilizer only present in the area of deployment, then one could deploy a fertile weed that could not spread too far.

    Of course, "Jurassic Park" showed us that any genetically-engineered technique for controlling a population is doomed to spectacular failure :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @06:13PM (#8105067)
    That's not so bad. I thought it was about flower-detecting mimes.

    "What's so great about that? I've always been able to detect flowers. What's wrong with the current mimes that they... oh."

    Of course, the image of "Mime Squads" driving around in their Mimemobiles looking out for flowers is quite funny. They would see one, stop the car, run over to it and make hand gestures around it. Is it a box? A warning sign? Who knows!

    Those wacky mimes.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @06:26PM (#8105208)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @06:31PM (#8105286) Homepage
    The US military has an issue with getting rid of landmines. North Korea. The entire defense of South Korea weighs heavily on the use of landmines (both anti-personnel and anti-tank).

    The US does, however, clean up areas that it's mined once it's done with them. I doubt it's a perfect job, but it's considerably better than the vast number of military forces that use mines and don't clean them up (which is where the issue has come from).

    If anyone can suggest an equally effective deterrent to invasion that requires an equal amount of manpower, I'm sure the US Army would like to hear about it.

    It's not an issue of "landmine lovers", it's an issue of doing protection in an effective manner. (Which, BTW, is the condition on signing in 2006... AFAIK, nobody has stepped up to the plate). I haven't found any reports of the US using landmines anywhere else -- including Iraq -- since 1997 (the mines at Guantanamo were removed in 1999). They did stockpile them, but they apparantly weren't used. The US has not sold landmines internationally since 1993.

    BTW, you missed Pakistan, Georgia, Belarus, Egypt, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Mongolia (parliamentary - very much questionable), Morocco (constitutional monarchy; similar to the UK's), Nepal, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Tuvalu. All have some form of representive government along the lines of a republic or democracy (no, the US is not a democracy -- it's a republic). Between those and the ones you listed, it's about a third of the list. Admittedly, some of the countries on the (full) list probably just haven't bothered -- particularly Tuvalu and Tonga.
  • In Quebec City (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @06:50PM (#8105509)
    People still find unexploded cannonballs in their backyards dating back to the British/French colonial war.

    They just use metal detectors though.
  • by danharan ( 714822 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @07:33PM (#8106023) Journal
    The company "hopes to have a prototype ready for use within a few years". Vaporware?

    Also, are there real cost advantages to use that over, say, little rovers with metal detectors? What percentage of the cost of clearing landmines is spent on detection?

    And, as many people have mentionned already, there are a few places with desert conditions where this approach won't be useful.

    While this is nice technology (and they at least took care to make the plants infertile, which is great), I don't know if it will have any practical applications. In the meantime, I suggest either badgering your gummint to fund clean up efforts and/or donating to NGOs that are de-mining.
  • Detection limits (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Big Bob the Finder ( 714285 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @07:53PM (#8106303) Homepage Journal
    There are a couple of big problems with this technique that I didn't see mentioned. Right now, I genetically engineer plants for a living; before that, I used to be an explosives chemist. Yes, it's been a wacky life.

    The biggest problem will be that nitrous oxide naturally occurs in some soils; your false positive rate would be high. Moreover, as explosives rot and decay in the ground, the residue spreads out over a fairly large area. Many military bases are plagued with "pink water" from TNT leachate, for example. As a result, a single landmine might produce a fairly large disc of activity, meaning you'd still need to manually probe for the landmine. In some cases, these are nothing more than plywood boxes, which rapidly degrade when put in place in areas that receive plenty of rainfall. In war-torn areas, trying to find something like this after it has aged, even when you have a rough idea of where it might be, is still hazardous and time-consuming.

    Next to this, the biggest problem is going to be that the plant being used is not capable of growing in very dry areas, where landmines are a serious issue (Angola, Namibia, Afghanistan, etc.). Even worse are areas like Kosovo, which receive so much rainfall that the vegetation has grown up and around landmines; wet areas like this have grown trees tall enough to make detection and removal a very serious problem. Large areas are not safely traversable once one leaves pavement, much less mow so that weeds like those used to detect explosives simply won't be visible. They're not tall enough.

    There is no panacea to landmines, and although it's good to see one possibility, I doubt many people in the business of landmine removal will find this to be a useful technique, much less stake their lives on it. The folks doing the tinkering in the lab have little or no idea what it's like in the field. It is a very, very difficult problem that a lot of smart people have spent a lot of time on. And it's still not enough.

  • As of 23 October 2003 the 1997 treaty banning the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of antipersonnel landmines has been ratified or acceded to by 141 countries which are States Parties. Another 9 countries have signed but have not yet completed their ratification process, bringing the total number of countries supporting the treaty to 150. 44 Countries have not yet joined the treaty.

    1997 Mine Ban Treaty - NON SIGNATORIES

    This is the list of the 44 countries that have not signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty as of 23 October 2003.

    1. ARMENIA
    2. AZERBAIJAN
    3. BAHRAIN
    4. BHUTAN
    5. CHINA
    6. CUBA
    7. EGYPT
    8. ESTONIA
    9. FINLAND
    10. GEORGIA
    11. INDIA
    12. IRAN
    13. IRAQ
    14. ISRAEL
    15. KAZAKHSTAN
    16. KOREA, NORTH
    17. KOREA, SOUTH
    18. KUWAIT
    19. KYRGYZSTAN
    20. LAOS
    21. LATVIA
    22. LEBANON
    23. LIBYA
    24. MICRONESIA
    25. MONGOLIA
    26. MOROCCO
    27. MYANMAR (BURMA)
    28. NEPAL
    29. OMAN
    30. PAKISTAN
    31. PALAU
    32. PAPUA NEW GUINEA
    33. RUSSIA
    34. SAUDI ARABIA
    35. SINGAPORE
    36. SOMALIA
    37. SRI LANKA
    38. SYRIA
    39. TONGA
    40. TUVALU
    41. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
    42. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    43. UZBEKISTAN
    44. VIETNAM
    (Source International Campaign to Ban Landmines [icblm.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28, 2004 @03:59AM (#8110417)
    Shit - If I was a Baltic state, or Finland, I certainly won't want to be denied using landmines to even the odds a bit when the Ruskies change their minds and decide they want to restore the old Glorious Russian Empire by annexing .. err reacquiring former states...

    And, somehow I think both the Indians and Pakistanis like landmines between the 2 of them.
    Makes another war harder ..

    likewise the Koreas..

    And Israeli .. well, if they would I bet they
    would love to have a lot more landmines between themselves and the rest of their neighbors..

    seriously, the only reason why the bloody brits don't care about keeping landmines is that THEY not next to anyone anymore! Surrounded by this giant frick'n moat. Don't even need landmines to protect HK against the Reds anymore.

    yup - U beat Princess Di would have been told to shut her trap had England still had their old empire.

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...