Iraq Swears By Dowsing Rod Bomb Detector 652
jggimi writes "According to the New York Times, more than fifteen hundred remote sensing devices have been sold to Iraq's Ministry of the Interior, at prices ranging from $16,500 to $60,000 each. The devices are used for bomb and weapon detection at checkpoints, and have no battery or other power source. Sounds great, but according to a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, they work on the same principle as a Ouija board — the power of suggestion. He described the wand as nothing more than an explosives divining rod. Even though the device has been debunked by the US Military, the US Department of Justice, and even Sandia National Laboratories, the Iraqis are thrilled with the devices. 'Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,' said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives."
Re:This kind of upsets me (Score:5, Informative)
Why should our good men and (and a few women) have to die to 'help' these people?
They have oil, and lots of it. As do their neighbours. You seriously have not heard? There is no other reason.
The US alone uses something like 20 million barrels a day and rising, while production is well under half that and falling.
That's a billion dollars per day, and set to rise dramatically as production fails to rise with global demand.
Re:Water for Thought... (Score:3, Informative)
You better call him because the Randi folks would give him a million dollars if he could do that.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html [randi.org]
Re:Another reason why (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Insightful (Score:4, Informative)
Presuming that those "tiny ferrite dots being pumped around" are iron in your blood, you're wrong. Blood iron isn't ferrous.
Divining has long been shown to be explained by the ideomotor effect, environmental cues [1], and confirmation bias. It isn't any better than chance.
If you think your abilities are genuine, allow me to introduce you to the 1 Million Dollars that must be waiting for you over at the JREF. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html [randi.org]
[1] Cues that anyone can pick up on, nothing that is unique to dowsing or dowsers.
Re:So What? We use "Lie Detectors". (Score:3, Informative)
You think. The few reasonable controlled studies that have been done tend to disagree with you. Polygraphs perform fairly poorly, and probably perform better under laboratory conditions than they do in the wild, but they do appear to do better than chance, under controlled conditions.
Sorry, the ad hominem attack on the inventor doesn't really carry any weight, being a logical fallacy and all.
Re:This kind of upsets me (Score:3, Informative)
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
Canada #2
Iraq #4.
If we stopped exporting the stuff we'd have enough for ourselves for a longgg time.
Re:Another reason why (Score:5, Informative)
Agree, but MAD is hardly the best example... in fact, it actually makes a lot of sense, despite the fact that it is, indeed, mad. But look at some of the more ridiculous weapons exercises and theories funded by the Pentagon over the years -- who the hell else would come up with the idea of an anti-ballistic missile system based on a satellite and powered by a nuclear explosion? Or even more ridiculous stuff like the gay bomb [cbs3.com]. The Pentagon and intel agencies actually spent millions on "psychic warfare" projects at one point; one of the projects allegedly included a plan to develop some sort of time-travel based ABM device -- zap the enemy's missiles back in time so they can explode harmlessly in the past. Seriously. If the Iraqis are spending only $60k apiece on divining rods they are getting off cheap.
Expensive placebos are more effective. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Insightful (Score:2, Informative)
You're wrong too.
link w/ source [wikipedia.org]
Re:Insightful (Score:5, Informative)
Mentioning James Randi's 'challenge' doesn't garner you (or him) any credibility. Its not exactly in the same league as an 'X' prize. He's backed out of his offer several times to my knowledge.
You will have to do better than that. The only 'backing out' I've ever heard of has really just been sour grapes from losers who couldn't even pass the preliminary requirements of minimal verification, much less the full test of scientific reproducibility.
These are in use throughout the Middle East (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Insightful (Score:3, Informative)
OTOH, detecting magnetic fields would be an interesting ability on its own, and there's a lot of pseudoscience associated with it. But, AFAIK, nobody has been able to demonstrate it outside of a few non-repeatable studies (e.g. a magnet on the nose screwing up grad students' sense of direction, or cows and other mammals preferring North-South orientations.)
Re:Insightful (Score:4, Informative)
Thing is, they were the first to tell you they had no clue how or why they could dowse out water, but they could.
They could, could they? You know, I bet there are psychics and faith healers out there that would shovel you the same bullshit.
Sorry, until you've got a controlled study showing your little "witches" perform better than random chance, I'm gonna remain skeptical. Meanwhile, you should send one over to JREF... if her "powers" are real, she could win a million bucks! [randi.org]
Re:Insightful (Score:5, Informative)
Your explanation might work except all test requirements are agreed upon by both parties. The tests are always accepted beforehand by both parties. And the conditions are always mind-numbingly simple, and people with real abilities should have no problem passing them. Look at the list of some who claim to be Dowsers:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87076
-> was given a list of people on the missing persons list, he claimed he could indicate whether they were dead or alive. he picked half dead, half alive. They were all dead.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=37686
-> never formally applied
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33082
-> Would not allow analysis of his homemade 'amplifier'
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=29682
-> performed his own double-blind tests only to discover that he had deluded himself
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=28111
-> Withdrew his application
Which ones of these do you think were gypped by the JRF? See them at http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43, and find me one that you think was treated unfairly.
Of the few people who have come forward to try to pursue the "I got gypped!" angle, I watched the videos and read the transcripts and they all failed miserably.
In short, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
Re:Insightful (Score:5, Informative)
Even today, the city of DeQueen, Arkansas employs an old Native American in the water department. He has the willow sticks like father in law used, but he also has a pair of copper rods that he likes better.
That was such a fascinating story, I called up John O'Connor, Water Superintendent for DeQueen. Despite almost two decades with the city's water department, he knows nothing of such a man and denies that the city has used dowsing in his tenure or, to his knowledge, in his lifetime. Nor is he familiar with any local legends of such a thing. Since the department employs only 70 people, I'm pretty sure Mr. O'Connor is familiar with them all.
I assume your father-in-law's acuity with the "witchin' sticks" is equally fictitious, and that your personal experience is simple wishful thinking.
Re:Insightful (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Insightful (Score:2, Informative)
Besides... what do slashdot and facts have to do with each other? Review the moderator guidelines, they expressly call out this sort of moderation as abuse. Disagreeing doesn't mean you get to silence your opposition.
Re:Insightful (Score:3, Informative)
Data is available from USGS online regarding the Aquifers. This one http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_c/jpeg/C011.jpeg [usgs.gov] might be helpful to you.
Re:Insightful (Score:3, Informative)
"There are no viewpoints here. Either you have facts, or you have nothing."
Wrong. If that were the case, there would be a moderation option of "-1 Not Factual". This forum's rules are pretty open; people get to express their views whether they are right or wrong, scientific or anecdotal, fact or opinion. Disagreement is handled through response/discussion, not censorship.
Censorship (moderation) is used to control behaviors that would harm the quality of discussion. If you believe that expressing alternative viewpoints hurts discussion, then public discourse isn't for you.
"Your parent pointed out facts." ...but also started his comment by asking for mis-use of the moderation system to suppress a comment that does not meet any legitimate down-modding criteria. It would appear the community believes that calling for moderation abuse, ironically, does meet down-modding criteria.