I agree that dogs work well. In Germany back in the 80's the MP's used beagles as well to detect drugs. Problem was they were too small to smell anything say.... on the top of a wall locker. The dog we had in Iraq, 15, was a damn good one and went on all of our missions for our first part of the tour in Kirkuk. So use dogs. I am all for it. I was just throwing out ideas of things that we have. Sometimes the least costly method escapes me.
Larry C. Lyons wrote: > Iin grad school one of the Profs I worked with had a side line of > raising and training dogs for a couple of different government > agencies. The USDA dogs were pretty cool. Their job was to detect any > restricted vegetables or fruit that people may try to get through > customs. These beagles (yes beagles - they were thought to be the > least threatening), would wander along the baggage pickup and would > sit down beside a suspect piece of luggage if it contained something > suspicious. Their reliability (false hits misses etc) was better than > 99%. And the cost of raising and training the dog is much less than a > lot of the detectors now proposed. > > Its just basic stuff not rocket science, just basic behavioral psych. > The animals can be trained to pick up a variety of different targets, > explosives, drugs etc. So why waste millions on a system that may or > may not work half as well as 3 or 4 dogs and their handlers. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:309897 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
