×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Military Develops "Green" Cleaners For Terrorist Attack Sites

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the ultra-concentrated dept.

The Military 97

An anonymous reader writes "Chemists with the US military have developed a set of ultra-strength cleaners to be used in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. The formulas are reportedly tough enough to get rid of nerve gas, mustard gas, radioactive isotopes, and anthrax. But they are also non-toxic, based on ingredients found in foods, cosmetics, and other consumer products."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

97 comments

Let me guess..... (3, Insightful)

bigjoeb (580413) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443588)

Made by Bechtel/(insert cozy contractor here) for only 2600$ a pint

Re:Let me guess..... (4, Funny)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443628)

It wouldn't even need to be that much. You know what's really good at cleaning up toxic chemicals? Lungs. I bet you could use cow lungs from abattoirs. Mmmm, lung juice cocktail, even increases stamina!

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444320)

Dammit, I'm torn between taking the comment as a joke and taking it seriously. Do slaughterhouses even use the spare lungs, and why wouldn't that be the perfect filtering method for things that go through lungs? Damn your humorous yet plausible post!

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 3 years ago | (#32445768)

Purified Lung Extract (PLE) is an ingredient in Prothrombin (http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/cgi/pdf_extract/179/1/149) which assists haemostasis (clotting). Whether it, itself is a purifying agent, I cannot say. But bovine lungs do have their uses outside the feeding of cats and dogs :)

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443832)

The probably are just repackaging oxyclean and marking up the price.

Re:Let me guess..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32444116)

Oxyclean 'goes off' over time, and so will any other peroxide, so does humble bleach.
Spraying the area with blood, or iron dust also effective. Lime and Sulphur.
so far still old hat from the 1800's - carbonic acid anyone?
Iron_Al+peroxide = Thermite. I hope they store their solution carefully.

Is their spokeswoman a bottle blonde?

Re:Let me guess..... (3, Insightful)

happy_place (632005) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443896)

...as opposed to the price of just letting those toxic substances drift through a community, causing untold amount of additional disease and misery... its refreshing to read of military technology that cleans up destruction, rather than just causing it. I hope that someday a perfect defense isn't just a really good offense, but an ingenious defense.

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443960)

It's more fun to complain rather than give kudos.

Heh, I typed judos at first instead of kudos. That would have worked too, I guess.

Re:Let me guess..... (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444370)

North Korea has massive chem warfare capability, so the "community" the chemical agents could be drifting through is South Korea. Chems aren't great in small doses, but slather a few urban targets and widespread panic would ensure (even more than from the accompanying artillery bombardment). Since the POTUS has committed to No First Use of nukes, the NKs could use chems in the safe knowledge that we banned chems and won't use any other WMD to stop them.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/cw.htm [globalsecurity.org]

Marketing the cleaners as a response to "terrorists" conveniently avoids pissing off the Norks or reminding anyone on our side that the US and ROK forces are in deep shit if they get smegged.

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444796)

North Korea has massive chem warfare capability.

... once. After which they'd be the worlds largest crater.

Re:Let me guess..... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32444876)

Yup. Why use tactical nukes when MOABs & Daisy-cutters work just as well with no fallout or international outrage.

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#32445458)

"Yup. Why use tactical nukes when MOABs & Daisy-cutters work just as well".

In what alternate universe do these little weapons with _tons_ of yield work "just as well" in destroying hard military targets compared to devices that yield in _kilotons_?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-82.htm [globalsecurity.org]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm [globalsecurity.org]

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/b61.aspx [brookings.edu]

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 3 years ago | (#32449684)

In what alternate universe do these little weapons with _tons_ of yield work "just as well" in destroying hard military targets compared to devices that yield in _kilotons_?

Quantity.

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#32479402)

"Quantity."

We don't have that quantity. We don't have the airframes to carry that massive amount of explosive if we did. The B-52 fleet seen in Viet Nam war newsreels is mostly cut into pieces at Davis-Monthan.

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#32453270)

Vaporize an airstrip or set it on fire, it's just as useless for launching aircraft either way.

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

AtomicOrange (1667101) | more than 3 years ago | (#32458452)

The Air Force does an excellent job with planning runway denial with minimal damage to the actual runway. A few tactical drops on key locations and you cut an enemies ability to utilize the airfield. The Air Force had to roll in and fix numerous runways in Iraq which had airfield denial operations performed on them once the US moved into Iraq.

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#32445258)

"... once. After which they'd be the worlds largest crater."

Not anymore! The sweet days of aircraft on Zulu Alert ready with Silver Bullets are long gone, and one Change We Can Believe In is "No First Use".

Re:Let me guess..... (4, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#32445636)

"No First Use" = We have enough conventional weaponry to send anyone back to the stone age if we no longer care about the international repercussions.

AKA "I can beat you with one arm tied behind my back."

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 3 years ago | (#32449192)

"No First Use" = We have enough conventional weaponry to send anyone back to the stone age [...]

Especially when you consider North Korea, which isn't all that far advanced beyond the stone age to begin with--at least not once you look past their military capabilities, anyhow.

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#32479386)

"We have enough conventional weaponry to send anyone back to the stone age if we no longer care about the international repercussions."
That isn't strictly true either. We have lots of weaponry that, given ample time to employ it, could make Nork life difficult, but there are still plenty of targets it can't reach. The Taliban caves in Afghanistan didn't have AAA and SAMs protecting them, and we still didn't blow them all from the air. Tech is seductive. (Don't feel bad, it seduced Rumsfeld into going into Iraq too light.)
BTW we pretty much DID turn Norkland into a Stone Age desolation during the Korean War, but they routed around infrastructure damage by not giving a shit. The difficulty with our precision weapons is that we don't have a lot of airframes to deliver PGMs in-theater. Our bases in the South (this is public record visible from the air and known to the locals) are not extremely hardened. Any base will sustain sortie reduction when it gets smegged with chems, further reducing limited sortie output.
It isn't as easy as it looks on Youtube.

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#32453442)

> Since the POTUS has committed to No First Use of nukes, the NKs could use chems in the safe knowledge that we banned chems and won't use any other WMD to stop them.

That's a real pity, because clearly the right response to a chemical attack is a nuclear holocaust.

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

AtomicOrange (1667101) | more than 3 years ago | (#32458508)

p>That's a real pity, because clearly the right response to a chemical attack is a nuclear holocaust.

I'm curious, is this is more tongue in cheek or actually serious?

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#32446328)

Let this be an example to all those anti-military types: don't let it be said that the US military (and by proxy, US gov't) never does anything good. It's arguable whether actual 'military' actions help anyone to some, but this is pretty indisputable. (Arguing "but they cause so much harm and this doesn't make full amends is a disingenious, intellectually dishonest argument.)

(It's OK; you're free to ignore all the medical and material advances which have helped not only save civilian lives, but have been used in many, many fields/industries. Likewise, you're free to ignore tremendous costs and efforts in creating precise munitions to reduce collateral damage.)

Re:Let me guess..... (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 3 years ago | (#32456962)

The US military/gov't also spends a great deal of effort and money in trying to minimize destruction. As trendy as it is to hate the military and gov't, this is true. We are working very hard to make warfare less destructive.

Cosmetics? (2, Insightful)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443594)

Because we can totally trust what they put in them?

Re:Cosmetics? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443664)

Because we can totally trust what they put in them?

I'm sure that they'll contract it to a trusted supplier [rense.com].

Re:Cosmetics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32443728)

You seriously trust a website run by a guy who looks like this? [rense.com] He looks like he'd be more at home peddling CD's of his pan flute music at the local farmers market than spouting new age mumbo-jumbo and conspiracy theories on the interwebs.

Re:Cosmetics? (2, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443886)

You seriously trust a website run by a guy who looks like this? [rense.com] He looks like he'd be more at home peddling CD's of his pan flute music at the local farmers market than spouting new age mumbo-jumbo and conspiracy theories on the interwebs.

Seriously! It's much safer to only trust people with a more orthodox appearance [wikimedia.org]...

Re:Cosmetics? (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444564)

You seriously trust a website run by a guy who looks like this? [rense.com] He looks like he'd be more at home peddling CD's of his pan flute music at the local farmers market than spouting new age mumbo-jumbo and conspiracy theories on the interwebs.

Seriously! It's much safer to only trust people with a more orthodox appearance [wikimedia.org]...

The first one doesn't matter because Disco's dead. the second one is what nightmares are made of.

Re:Cosmetics? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32444038)

Can we trust you to not be a nigger (afro-american for the PC bitches)?

malbo-shit

Re:Cosmetics? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444232)

You're worried about cosmetics? Not everyone uses those. You should be more worried about what toxic ingredients are in your food items.

Re:Cosmetics? (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444890)

I've decided to enshew food. I plan to install a cleft in my palette that secretes nectar from the gods that will give me all the nourishment I need.

Yes (0, Offtopic)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443602)

Italians have been fouling up our air and water for too long. Finally the generals are emerging from their fat complacency about the Italian eco-islamocommunist terror threat. Now I will post this because an Italian stole my shoe and is using it to create a vacuum in the scanner of Greek chickens on sky.

Its good stuff (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443616)

They tested it on CowboyNeal's underpants.

Re:Its good stuff (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32443806)

And then decided to try it on nerve gas, mustard gas, radioactive isotopes, and anthrax instead?

Remove or neutralize? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32443654)

The formulas are reportedly tough enough to get rid of nerve gas, mustard gas, radioactive isotopes, and anthrax.

Summary makes it sound like this wonder neutralizes the components instead simply physically removing them. Are radioactive isotopes harder to remove than your generic chocolate stain?

Re:Remove or neutralize? (3, Informative)

orzetto (545509) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443810)

Are radioactive isotopes harder to remove than your generic chocolate stain?

Considering most radioactive isotopes are heavy metals with a relatively "fuzzy" chemistry, which can easily become soft acids [wikipedia.org], yes, it's tougher than chocolate, as any student who attended an inorganic-chemistry course could confirm you. Ever tried removing stains of Mercurochrome?

Re:Remove or neutralize? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32445512)

Ever tried removing stains of Mercurochrome?

Only like every day. Don't ask ...

Oil Spills (3, Interesting)

ehaggis (879721) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443680)

Does it work on oil spills or only terrorist induced disasters?

Re:Oil Spills (5, Funny)

inamorty (1227366) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443766)

Why on earth would you want to remove rainbows from the sea?!
BP spent so much effort putting them there.

Re:Oil Spills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32451332)

"terrorist induced disaster" vs "BP induced disaster" sounds to be the same.

Am I alone in translating "green" (-1, Troll)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443692)

Whenever I hear a product called "Green-" I always translate that to mean "inferior".

Any product that is designed to be "green" rather than the best is probably GOING to be inferior because there was some compromise made in order to make it "green".

I make it a point to avoid PC parts from "green" product lines because to me, "green" means SLOW.

If we suffer a WMD terrorist attack, I want the BEST products to be used to deal with it, who cares if it's "green"?

Isn't a massive terrorist attack causing widespread destruction likely to cause FAR more pollution than anything we'd have to do to clean up AFTER IT?

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (2, Insightful)

asukasoryu (1804858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443816)

If we suffer a WMD terrorist attack, I want the BEST products to be used to deal with it, who cares if it's "green"?

If the fastest decontamination agent creates dangerous byproducts to neutralize NBC agents, is it the best? I think it's hardly worth decontaminating a site if you contaminate the site with your cleaners. "Green" in this article means the site is actually clean when you're done.

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443954)

If we suffer a WMD terrorist attack, I want the BEST products to be used to deal with it, who cares if it's "green"?

If the fastest decontamination agent creates dangerous byproducts to neutralize NBC agents, is it the best? I think it's hardly worth decontaminating a site if you contaminate the site with your cleaners. "Green" in this article means the site is actually clean when you're done.

I don't know if I'd consider STB (Super Tropical Bleach) as a product to create "dangerous byproducts". Especially when you consider that the agents it cleans will have you doing the kickin' chicken within minutes of exposure. I'm afraid I have to agree with the GP here. If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works. I really don't care if it kills the grass I'm standing on.

STB is basically chlorine bleach and lime. Yes, it's not the kind of thing I would want on my skin or lungs, but there are many household and garden products that would fit into that category.

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444276)

I'm afraid I have to agree with the GP here. If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works. I really don't care if it kills the grass I'm standing on.

The problem is that stuff that kills the grass you're standing on tends to get into the water table. Anyway, some of the decontamination products used today are probably not all that harmful, as you say; for example, if your humvee gets an agent sprayed on it, the official response is to wash it with a pressure washer and soap. Or, you know, so says the book [tpub.com].

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (3, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444550)

I'm afraid I have to agree with the GP here. If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works. I really don't care if it kills the grass I'm standing on.

The problem is that stuff that kills the grass you're standing on tends to get into the water table. Anyway, some of the decontamination products used today are probably not all that harmful, as you say; for example, if your humvee gets an agent sprayed on it, the official response is to wash it with a pressure washer and soap. Or, you know, so says the book [tpub.com].

It's bleach. It's just like your standard bottle of Clorox, only about 7x stronger. Bleach breaks down pretty quickly to relatively harmless chemicals except for AOX, which is harmful to invertebrates and fish. STB is not used in large enough quantities to do any real damage. If the decom site is next to a pond, expect all the fish to die. If it is next to a small lake, it won't be much of a problem.

So, the question to you is this: What is more important, the possible death of a pond full of fish or the certain death of large group of human soldiers and a victory to the types of assholes that would use chem/bio weapons?

Of course, if this "green" product works as well or better than the products we are using today, like STB, the great! I'm all for it. However, when it's my ass on the line, don't ask me to be the one to test it. When I've been "contaminated", I don't even want the NBC Decom specialist even taking the time to tell me how green the product is. Just get this human pesticide off of me!

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#32445392)

It's bleach. It's just like your standard bottle of Clorox, only about 7x stronger. Bleach breaks down pretty quickly to relatively harmless chemicals except for AOX, which is harmful to invertebrates and fish. STB is not used in large enough quantities to do any real damage. If the decom site is next to a pond, expect all the fish to die. If it is next to a small lake, it won't be much of a problem.

So, the question to you is this: What is more important, the possible death of a pond full of fish or the certain death of large group of human soldiers and a victory to the types of assholes that would use chem/bio weapons?

Of course, if this "green" product works as well or better than the products we are using today, like STB, the great! I'm all for it. However, when it's my ass on the line, don't ask me to be the one to test it. When I've been "contaminated", I don't even want the NBC Decom specialist even taking the time to tell me how green the product is. Just get this human pesticide off of me!

I think you're missing the point. The point is, after the attack happened and people are treated, now you need to clean up the crap from the buildings and the ground - you know, to prevent other people from being affected. Especially if it gets into the water table.

A pond of fish dying after an attack isn't a big deal if they died because STB was used to decontaminate people. But once the people are gone, the ground is still contaminated with whatever crap was unleashed, and if untreated, it may go into that pond, leech into the water table, and kill everyone in the neighbouring town.

This green stuff is used to decontaminate the site afterwards. You want it to be green because you don't really want to contaminate the land some more (great, you just replaced one problem with another).

It's not for the OMG Attack! time. It's for the time after all the excitement is over and done with, and the real work begins.

Just like there's a niche speciality in "forensic cleaners" who clean up crime scenes after the investigation is over (removing all the blood and other crap that can embed itself into walls and such - it's a very difficult job), there's a need for stuff like this too.

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (2, Insightful)

asukasoryu (1804858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444362)

If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works.

You're missing the point. This is not a treatment for exposure, it's a cleaner for contaminated sites. The question is whether you want to use a cleaner that has known negative effects on the environment (especially when used in large quantities) or one that is less destructive. It doesn't make sense to use super bleach when the military has come up with an effective "green" cleaning agent.

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#32445182)

If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works.

You're missing the point. This is not a treatment for exposure, it's a cleaner for contaminated sites. The question is whether you want to use a cleaner that has known negative effects on the environment (especially when used in large quantities) or one that is less destructive. It doesn't make sense to use super bleach when the military has come up with an effective "green" cleaning agent.

If it works better than what we use today, then I'm OK with it. But until I know that for absolutely sure, I would feel better taking my family into a previously contaminated area if all the walls were bleached white than one where some EPA tree-hugger is on TV saying, "It's OK, we chose it because it's GREEN!"

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443862)

Whenever I hear a product called "Green-" I always translate that to mean "inferior".

That's because you're either stupid or a troll. This is not a false dichotomy: there's no third way. For example, orange oil kills ants faster than poison, while mint oil kills yellowjackets faster than poison. Both smell nice and have zero nasty side effects even if you get them on your skin (they can cause irritation if not washed away, but that's about it.)

Isn't a massive terrorist attack causing widespread destruction likely to cause FAR more pollution than anything we'd have to do to clean up AFTER IT?

Your argument can be summed up as thus: If I have already been shot with a large-caliber weapon, who cares if I must be shot with a small-caliber weapon during surgery? Thus it is just as stupid as everything else you said.

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (0, Troll)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444602)

For example, orange oil kills ants faster than poison

No it doesn't. I've used it straight and as I've used products based on orange oil. The ants flounder around for hours before they die. Spray Raid on them and they are dead within minutes.

Given your record with orange oil and ants, I'm sure as hell not going to test mint oil on yellow jackets.

Your argument can be summed up as thus: If I have already been shot with a large-caliber weapon, who cares if I must be shot with a small-caliber weapon during surgery? Thus it is just as stupid as everything else you said.

If that small caliber weapon will save my life, I'm all for it. Consider using lasers to stop bleeding.

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (3, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443948)

Isn't a massive terrorist attack causing widespread destruction likely to cause FAR more pollution than anything we'd have to do to clean up AFTER IT?

Well who knows, but the less toxic they can make it, the better, so they can slather it on like crazy without having to worry about anything except the immediate threat... if it's somewhat less effective but can be used much more freely and quickly, in greater quantity, "green" may be a huge advantage.

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444210)

> If we suffer a WMD terrorist attack, I want the BEST products to be used to deal with it, who cares if it's "green"?

Sure me too, but... I figure there are far more likely scenarios for me to worry about.

All of the bad guys intentionally doing bad things doesn't add up to the danger of random chance or well intentioned bungling.

Spending on mitigation should be allocated accordingly.

As such, in a budget the size of the federal budget, the entire budget for these sorts of terrorism preparedness products shouldn't eceede maybe $50.

-Steve

Re:Am I alone in translating "green" (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#32453612)

> Whenever I hear a product called "Green-" I always translate that to mean "inferior".
> Any product that is designed to be "green" rather than the best is probably GOING to be inferior because there was some compromise made in order to make it "green".

Quite often, that compromise is "higher price, better raw materials, new processes". Not always, mind. And there seems to be some inflation in the word "green". Still, the point remains.

> I make it a point to avoid PC parts from "green" product lines because to me, "green" means SLOW.

Yah. The power from a highly efficient switching PSU lacks the punch which power from copper coils has.

> If we suffer a WMD terrorist attack, I want the BEST products to be used to deal with it, who cares if it's "green"?

The best clean-up would be a black hole. As those are hard to come by, a nuke is your best bet.

> Isn't a massive terrorist attack causing widespread destruction likely to cause FAR more pollution than anything we'd have to do to clean up AFTER IT?

See above; no.

On the plus side, you don't need spooky terrorists to wreck havoc. Large companies have you covered, there.

No surprise (1)

Trufagus (1803250) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443706)

Looking for chemical agents that could defeat the biological and chemical weapons that might be used by the terrorists?

No surprise they decided to use stuff found in fast-food and cosmetics. I just don't know what the 'green' reference is about?

Re:No surprise (1)

PatrickThomson (712694) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443930)

Well basically, because nerve agents are reactive (reactive enough to react with your nerves) they're also reasonably chemically unstable. If you left some mustard gas out for a few weeks it would all break down, but we don't usually have that long. Harsh chemicals like mineral acids or strong alkali (lye) are the gold standard for decontamination. The radioactive materials reference is likely things like dirty bomb fallout on walls, roofs. If the radioactive isotopes can be dissolved in water and washed away, they'll break down by the time the water cycle ends up somewhere near humans again.

Problem is, pouring a thousand tuns of sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide solution into a local drain/river/water table isn't good for anyone. Another class of "really really awesome cleaners" are the peroxy anions, which are made on demand from hydrogen peroxide and weaker bases like baking soda. Hydrogen peroxide breaks down very quickly in the environment and isn't very toxic (don't go swimming in it though).

The actual cleaning mixture is still bloody harsh, but the post-cleanup cleanup is nicer, it's probably cheaper, it's less harmful to people, and the environment is a nice PR bonus.

I'll make an exception for this one (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443708)

If the chemical that's most effective at removing nuclear fallout is a little toxic, I'm going to be okay with that.

Gotta clean up the place before we take it. (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443754)

The government needs to make sure they can clean up the situation promptly. Eminent domain works out very nicely when there isn't anyone there to challenge it.

Good idea. (3, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443804)

NBC decontamination training is standard in the military, and nearly everyone gets to play. Alternate decon solutions that aren't themselves composed of nasty chemicals would be quite useful considering tens of thousands of gallons would be needed for even a small site. The product would need to kill germs and remove chemical agents while helping break them down (they degrade anyway). Other than washing off radioactive contamination there isn't much to be done, but that still would require effective detergent to break loose ground-in crud.

Have some Very Cool Soviet Decon vehicle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBI43LKuW00 [youtube.com]

Re:Good idea. (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#32447448)

One of the things I hated about working the flight-line was getting tagged to go wash an aircraft. We used some sort of orange-oil based solvent / soap that was friendly to the environment but decidedly unfriendly to bare skin. So we'd get suited up in rain gear, boots, rubber gloves... duct tape to seal intersections between gear.... and a face shield. You did not want that stuff on you. With a high pressure hot water hose and a foam cannon operating in a closed hanger, you got a nice mixture of heat, humidity, and citris scent. I'm pretty sure it was a close approximation to what Hell would be like if it moved to Florida.

Re:Good idea. (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#32479422)

I miss the old days when all you needed was goggles because it was assumed you'd get drenched anyway (and it was easy to wash off with straight water).

The Power of Nightmares (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32443874)

I am always reminded of that fine BBC documentary* about the, for lack of better words, ZOMG TERRORISTS scare that takes it's sweet time to dissipate. Probably because there is too much money to be made. Such as selling this kind of junk.

* Available on Google video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727

Why is this Idle? (4, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 3 years ago | (#32443894)

I know some editors class too many things that should be Idle as something else, but this seems to be the opposite; a legitimate article that is being filed as Idle. How exactly is this not considered news? It's a new application for existing chemicals that helps deal with terrorism without restricting rights, which is a hell of lot better than most of the anti-terrorism procedures we've been putting into place.

Re:Why is this Idle? (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444776)

This is Idle because it's bullshit.

This isn't news. There was no journalism involved here. No reporter investigating the accuracy of the ad copy. And yes, it's an advert. It was written by the military, sent whole-cloth to the journal, which cut out the guts and published the fanfare.

This is propaganda.

That's why it's idle. Thank-goodness the editors aren't dweebs. They recognize that this kind of thing, while interesting, is also insultingly stupid.

-FL

Re:Why is this Idle? (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 3 years ago | (#32445266)

If that's the case, it shouldn't be published at all. Idle isn't a "dump advertising here" section, it's for quirky and offbeat stuff. Basically, if it would be linked on Fark, it's Idle material.

Yea But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32444134)

Do they work on Oil Slicks?

Just want it clean (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444404)

Ok, so the primary ingredients are peroxide and sodium bicarbonate. Fine.

Am I the only one thinking I almost don't care how bad it is, as long as the end result is I'm alive?

They should bomb each others departments (-1, Troll)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 3 years ago | (#32444934)

Favorite line in the ad copy. . .

"Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis; "anthrax" in the public lexicon) is the most notorious biological warfare agent (BWA), having been used with lethal consequences in the 2001 anthrax-letter attacks"

Didn't that anthrax come from your own labs, you idiots? Yes, I believe it did.

Terrorism isn't just state funded, it's an invention of the state itself. A small ember of genuine rebellion sought out and fanned into full flame by the careful ministrations of the American and Israeli secret services. And when that isn't good enough, covertly taken over and managed entirely from the top. "Terrorists" make such a great excuse for selling. . .

Peroxide!

"Get your whites whiter! It's made out of Food! Just like a McDonald's meal is made from meat, bread and milk! SOOOO good for you!"

Ugh.

-FL

Re:They should bomb each others departments (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 3 years ago | (#32447610)

Favorite line in the ad copy. . .

"Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis; "anthrax" in the public lexicon) is the most notorious biological warfare agent (BWA), having been used with lethal consequences in the 2001 anthrax-letter attacks"

Didn't that anthrax come from your own labs, you idiots? Yes, I believe it did.

Terrorism isn't just state funded, it's an invention of the state itself. A small ember of genuine rebellion sought out and fanned into full flame by the careful ministrations of the American and Israeli secret services. And when that isn't good enough, covertly taken over and managed entirely from the top. "Terrorists" make such a great excuse for selling. . .

Peroxide!

"Get your whites whiter! It's made out of Food! Just like a McDonald's meal is made from meat, bread and milk! SOOOO good for you!"

Ugh.

-FL

Whoa! Modded into troll dust, I see. How amusing that moderators get so upset over, well, things that are true.

Pardon me while I add some references...

The Anthrax Scare in detail. [wikipedia.org]

Please note this item from the above. . .

Congressman Rush Holt, whose district in NJ includes a mailbox from which anthrax letters are believed to have been mailed, was troubled by a number of important questions about the anthrax attacks and the FBI's investigation of it that remain unanswered, and has called for an investigation of the anthrax attacks by Congress or by an independent commission he proposed in a bill entitled the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248)[81] Other members of Congress have also called for an independent investigation.[82]

President Barack Obama, however, opposes such investigations and such legislation on the ground that they may "undermine public confidence" in the FBI probe and would probably veto a bill that contained an investigation provision.[83]

Have a nice day!

-FL

Available in spray bottle? (1)

kmahan (80459) | more than 3 years ago | (#32445776)

Can I get this in a spray bottle for cleaning my kitchen and bathroom?

Bleach? (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 3 years ago | (#32446402)

I thought plain vanilla bleach took care of all biological and most chemical agents just fine? And as far as radioactive isotopes go, use whatever would remove the non-radioactive isotope of the element in question.

Re:Bleach? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32456702)

Vanilla bleach? We cant get that anymore, they only stock the chocolate flavor ever since that nasty little incident with the Venusians.

Oil was not on the list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32446594)

Maybe we can use this crap to take care of real problems, like untra huge oil spills.

old news (1)

munitor (1632747) | more than 3 years ago | (#32449468)

Decon Green has been around since 2003. It's just hydrogen peroxide, soap, propylene glycol and baking soda. It's for decontaminating surfaces, like equipment, suits, etc.

non-toxic...ahem (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 3 years ago | (#32452680)

As I was told by an EPA inspector, once your Green/non-toxic/bio-degradable product comes in contact with the "toxic" contaminant, it TOO becomes a toxic contaminant and must be disposed of with the proper protocols. Even a neutralizing agent would need to be tested - what does the combination become - an inert mass or does it turn into some hybrid toxin we are currently unaware of - like the chocolate bar in the peanut butter....

Non Toxic, hey? (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 3 years ago | (#32452782)

But they are also non-toxic, based on ingredients found in foods, cosmetics, and other consumer products.

If it's killing Anthrax just how non-toxic can it be, hmm? From the original All-Weather Hydrogen Peroxide-Based Decontamination of CBRN Contaminants [acs.org] paper:

A hydrogen peroxide-based decontaminant, Decon Green, is efficacious for the decontamination of chemical agents VX (S-2-(diisopropylamino)ethyl O-ethyl methylphosphonothioate), GD (Soman, pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate), and HD (mustard, bis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide); the biological agent anthrax (Bacillus anthracis); and radiological isotopes 137Cs and 60Co; thus demonstrating the ability of this decontamination approach to ameliorate the aftermath of all three types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). ... Decon Green is an EPA-registered sporicide.

Hydrogen peroxide is considered hazardous because of its highly reactive oxidation ability. It varies around the world a little, but generally in concentrations over 3% it should be accompanied by a Material Safety Data Sheet. In the presence of grease it can even become explosive.

To put its oxidation ability into context... Germany was using hydrogen peroxide to fuel rocket planes towards the end of WW-II. Anyone who had the fuel spilt on them MELTED - and that was just liquid fuel that wasn't burning at the time.

I'd like the person who said this was non-toxic to stand in a bucket of the stuff, without wearing a bio hazard suit, to demonstrate just how non-toxic it is.

Re:Non Toxic, hey? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#32479444)

You can also gargle with dilute hydrogen peroxide. I didn't dissolve like the unfortunate ME-163 pilot, and my wisdom tooth sockets healed nicely.

Vendor Contract: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32458104)

What are the odds the supplier of this product manufactured the products it will be used to clean up?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...