In today’s mailbag article: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbombdog.html#update
Jill gave a thorough and detailed answer. However, it wasn’t exactly the answer to the questions.
“How do bomb-sniffing dogs know what to sniff for? Do bombs have a distinct smell?”
Yes, explosives have a distinct smell, which dogs’ sensitive noses are able to pick up. They are trained to smell those odors and identify them as what the trainers want found.
Now lead in to all the extra stuff Jill said.
No offense, Irishman, but that is quite thoroughly covered in any comprehensive reading of what Jill actually said. Specifically, she said that:
Even a novice would understand the implicit assumption that, in order to smell those items, they must have a scent which can be distinguished from other items. Doh!
Isn’t it duh? We all make mistakes in reading and spelling and typing but duh?
No offence but even a novice should be able to spell duh.
Had you left off the beginning and the end, no, you probably shouldn’t have posted at all.
Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.
Now, Jois, DSYoung was probably trying to spell “D’oh!”, which is Homer Simpson’s favorite exclamation. His punctuation, not his spelling, may be at fault.
Ah, the subtleties of language and the importance of spelling.
DUH: Person A says something. Person B says, “Duh” or “Well, DUH!” to indicate that he/she thinks that what Person A said was obvious to the lowest intelligence.
EXAMPLE:
Bonnie: “I finally figured out why computer wasn’t working, it wasn’t plugged in.”
Clyde: “Well, duh!”
D’OH: From the Simpsons, used when Person A realizes that he/she has made a fool of himself, or has “done it again” or has wedged foot in mouth, or similar. It’s self-recriminating.
Example:
Ataxerxes: “My computer’s not working, I can’t figure out what’s wrong, I’ve tried everything but… oh, here, it’s unplugged! D’OH!”
Now we all clear on that? Or is this all pretty much DUH?
I’m surprised nobody took this cue from Jill:
My guess would be that it means ‘primer/detonator cord’.
Det cord or primacord is a low explosive (i.e.–the blast travels slower than the speed of sound) that is used to detonate (det) or you-guessed-it prime (prepare-means about the same as det) high explosives.
It is in cord form so that it can be used to set off charges sequentially; X feet of det cord = N fractions of a second between charges.
With magic, you can turn a frog into a prince. With science, you can turn a frog into a Ph.D, and you still have the frog you started with.
Re SDSTAFF Jill’s comment:
“I wanna know when they figure out how to detect the scent of ebola virus and smallpox carried in glass vials.”
Has anyone else seen the melanoma-sniffing dogs who can detect the difference between benign and malignant moles? Totally fascinating. I wonder if it wouldn’t be possile to train dogs to smell biological warfare elements. Okay, the glass vial might be a problem…
By moles, you mean the narsty li’l varmits that dig up my yard? … they’re all malignant, you ask me. My dog sniffs 'em out though, but wants to play with them, rather than tar-and-feather 'em and drive 'em out of town on a … eh? What? Oh. Sorry.
Who else thinks it might lend a slightly unprofessional, unsanitary aura to a medical office to have the doctor call in a hairy beast to sniff you in order to diagnose a condition?
Det cord is fast. From Enc. Brit. :
Detonating cord (detonating fuse) resembles safety fuse but contains a high explosive instead of black powder. In France the product was called cordeau détonant, elsewhere shortened to cordeau. Its velocity was about 4,900 metres (16,000 feet) per second.
It’s used to link together explosive charges, but if a delay is required special delay links are used.
[[My guess would be that it means’primer/detonator cord’.]]
No. Primacord is a brand name for a type of flexible fabric tube detonator cord that contains a filler of explosive.
Jill
“Rex here, thinks you mole is benign. But if you’d like, I can bring in my wife’s poodle Muffin for a second opinion.”
melanoma-sniffing dogs: reminds me of the joke about the guy at the doctor’s who keeps wanting a second opinion, so the doctor brings in his Labrador retriever and his Siamese cat to sniff the patient and confirm the diagnosis. Finally, he charges $800 for lab tests and a cat scan.
Yeah, the joke is funnier when told more elaborately, but I guess you all knew it anyway.
Except sometimes (like this case) the person uses “D’oh” as an expression implied to come from the subject person. Person A makes a dumb statement (hey, wait, that would be me). Person B explains how Person A screwed up, then appends “D’oh” as if from the perspective of Person A.
Regarding my criticism, I could have gone into more detail about how Jill should have addressed the nature of odors and what causes them. Odors are caused by microscopic bits of the item in question floating around in the air, detected by nerve endings inside the nose. Then bring concentration levels, sensitivity, and the difference between canines and humans (she did touch on that one). Then elaborate on how explosives each have a different scent characteristic of the distinct chemical formula. Furthermore, there have been electronic “sniffers” created to do that job, and they use chemical analysis and computer sorting to determine not just the type, but the brand of explosives (if commercial). All of that would have been more in line with the actual question than discussions of which dogs are chosen and their training methods.
But I didn’t do that to Jill, because I respect her and she put in a good faith effort. I just wished to point out that the question seemed to be about the explosives, not about the dogs.
[[But I didn’t do that to Jill, because I respect her and she put in a good faith effort. I just wished to point out that the question seemed to be about the explosives, not about the dogs.]]
I don’t agree, but I do appreciate the additional information you added.