Trained Rats for Mine Detection 456
rikomatic writes "The dangerous profession of anti-personnel mine detection is getting a surprising new tool: giant Gambian rats (NY Times reg). Some resourceful Belgians have figured out how to train these 30-inch rodents to hunt out landmines. They are cheaper and work harder than dogs and are more reliable than metal detectors. Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?"
Dumb rats! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dumb rats! (Score:5, Informative)
Rats are:
*Effective
*Cheap
*Relentless
*Not attractive
*Not heavy enough to detonate mines
Therefore, the ultimate mine-detecting device.
from the article:
Rats are abundant, cheap and easily transported. At three pounds, they are too light to detonate mines accidentally. They can sift the bouquet of land-mine aromas far better than any machine. Unlike even the best mine-detecting dog or human, they are relentlessly single-minded.
"Throw a stick for a dog to fetch, and after 10 times the dog will say, `Get it yourself, buddy,' " Mr. Weetjens said. "Rats will keep working as long as they want food."
Re:Dumb rats! (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly Mr. Weetjens has never met a Border Collie
Re:Dumb rats! (Score:5, Funny)
I had a friend with a pitbull who purchased one fresh case of frisbees per summer because after the tenth throw, the dog didn't want to run again. So he shredded the frisbee with his teeth and dropped it at his owner's feet and looked at him like "There, throw that, m-f'er..."
I saw one, too. Poor frisbee...
Re:Dumb rats! (Score:4, Interesting)
In my experience, only if the dog is abysmally lazy. Dogs don't fetch a stick to do work, they fetch because they want to play.
<anecdote> I recall when I lived with my parents, they had a sheltie that had way more endurance for "fetch" than I, or anyone else in the family for that matter, ever did. She'd go for 30 or 40 tosses easily before wanting to take a breather and you'd think she'd had enough, but then after about 3 or 4 minutes, she'd be carrying the stick up to you again and drop it at your feet to throw it again... rather comical to watch, really... she'd drop it, and look up at you expectantly, and wait for a few seconds... if you didn't pick it up, she'd pick it up herself and then drop it again right at your feet, then she'd run away, all the while looking back to see if you are throwing the stick, if you still didn't pick it up, she'd come back to you and pick the stick up and drop it again at your feet (rinse, lather, repeat). Talk about single-minded!!! </anecdote>
Re:Dumb rats! (Score:3, Funny)
Stuart Little just got drafted! (Score:5, Funny)
Or...
Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? Pinky: I think so Brain, but I'd rather go hump a landmine.. Narf! {BOOM!!!}
Re:Dumb rats! (Score:3, Funny)
There are some things a rat won't do. For everything else there's HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Even dogs are getting outsourced... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Even dogs are getting outsourced... (Score:2, Funny)
The rats will get outsourced too (Score:5, Funny)
"Rats don't have a union and get paid 1/10th the food dogs do..."
That's OK, just wait 'til those damn rats get outsourced to IT workers, who don't have a union and get paid 1/10th of the rats.
I HATE mine sweeper... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Even dogs are getting outsourced... (Score:5, Funny)
Who is going to care? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Insightful)
How exactly do dolphns detect mines on a soccer field? Perhaps you meant water polo?
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:5, Funny)
Why the hell are kids playing soccer in the ocean surrounded by mines?
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey I think you just invented the next x-game.
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. But I've never heard of dolphins being trained to find them.
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Informative)
Q: "Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?"
A: No. Look at it another way: Suppose that the only way to save 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn't that be worth it? Most people would agree that it would be wrong to sacrifice one human for the "greater good" of others because it would violate that
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now don't get me wrong, if animals arn't need they shouldn't be used. Its not ok to substitute an animal for a machine just becuase its cheaper. In this instance there isn't an as effective alternative to the rats. In this case not only is it fine to use the rats w
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, thinking about it you do make a point. I agree that there should be an ethical differentiation of sentient species and non-sentient species.
However, I think you are wrong in saying that any number of animals should be risked to save a single human. The key point being: how do you decidee when a species is sentient or not? You really can't, can you? To some degree, maybe. Apes, for instance, should be considered sentient. And what about robots? (OK, that part of the discussion is probably best left out for a few more years :)
It seems that you just think that only humans are sentient, which I certainly don't agree with.
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Humans don't develop this ability until 1 or 2 years of age. So maybe we should use infants for mine detection?
Cheers.
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe in your opinion, but that is very, very far from being considered a universal truth of any sort. Certainly not all of us have such a high opinion of humans. If I had to choose between saving the life of a cat or my boss, sentient or not guess which I would choose? And I'd feel it was at least as morally neutral as choosing one human over another to save.
Most animals with moderately sized brains have the ability
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Interesting)
> The lives of black people were obviously not worth as much as white people's lives.
Okay, so let's take this to the logical head.
Your baby and a rat both wander into the path of a speeding truck. Which one do you save? Think quickly.
Tick tock, hero. Tick tock...
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Funny)
Because the dog's family are less likely to sue if I hurt the person in the process of saving their life.
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:2)
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:2)
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:2)
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Erwos
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the above, as long as these giant Gambian rats are treated well until their eventual explosive demise (which is a quicker cleaner death than some of the destruction and death caused to humans by PETA fanatics), I don't have a problem with it.
What I get angry about is people who don't treat their animals well: they don't feed them, care for them, or provide an environment that is enriching for the animal during its life. The wanton destruction through neglect is really the problem - not animals used in testing, or Gambian rat mine detectors. What is worse is when people decide they have to abandon an animal 'in the wild'.
I can't count how many dogs and cats have been dropped off at the rural crossroads near my house. If you aren't going to be able to take care of an animal, why have it in the first place? We end up having to kill them anyway when they become a nuisance (hungry, scared and lost, they put pressure on the local ecology and farms - and become dangerous to young children). It would be more humane for these people just to take these animals into their back yards and shoot them in the head in the first place.
This lack of responsibility is immature and disturbing; adults who in many cases hold responsible positions in society - yet stoop so low. Worse is the poor example they show their children - who themselves become poor stewards.
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, this isn't true. It's perfectly possible to have a balanced diet with all the human nutritional requirement simply by eating plants. The problem is that it's not easy: you have to know which foods have what nutrients, and be sure to eat enough of them. Protein is a big problem too; there are non-animal foods with a lot of protein (like nuts), but just eating salads isn't going to be enough. That's why there's so many college kids that have nutritional problems. They decide to become vegetarians because it's "cool" or whatever, but they don't actually do their homework and learn how to do it properly, so they end up with insufficient protein, low iron, etc. Eating meat makes it much easier to have a balanced diet.
For the record, I'm a happy carnivore.
Now, if you were talking about cats, you'd be correct: cats require certain amino acids that can only be found in meat. Dogs and humans are omnivorous, and can survive without meat if necessary, but not cats.
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:4, Funny)
Silly me, I thought my nutritional problems in college were due to junk food and alcohol.
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:4, Informative)
While it's true you need to eat a well varied diet to make sure you're getting enough of everything, and you must be conscious of protein, if what you're eating is fairly widely varied, even protein isn't difficult to get.
Your body will get all it needs to build its proteins or assemble what is present in what you eat.
It is no longer the thinking you need to eat rice+beans (for example) to have a complete protein. You're more likely to have to worry about iron and a few other things than protein.
Here's a few links:
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/proteinexplain.ht
http://veggietable.allinfo-about.com/articles/
http://www.ivillage.com/food/hlth
(And, yes, I am an herbivore.)
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Insightful)
I eat vegetarian food quite frequently: pizza, pasta dishes, etc. But vegans can't eat any of that, since there's usual
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Informative)
Wow. I must tell that to all my vegetarian friends. All of whom are way healthier than me (who loves a good steak) and some of whom do athletic things like run marathons. Which would kill me dead.
I mean - I support the freedom of choice in what to eat, and I have no problems at all with killing animals for food (provided those animals aren't in short supply and are treated humanley) but many years of experience from many mill
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hah, you know how many gophers you've got to plough under to grow an acre of corn? EVERYTHING we do impacts nature, kills living stuff, and reduces resources.
We need only to be aware, to respect, to manage, and to not be cruel. Give a little respect to that cow that made that delicious burger. Honor that wonderful salmon [altamente.com] steak.
It's not wrong to kill to eat/survive/learn. It's wrong to not appreciate or to carelessly waste life.
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally think rats are cute. I have a exceptionally cute rat sitting on me licking my hand as I'm typing this, so I'd argue that I have some idea of what I'm talking about. They're also intelligent, clean (yes, clean), and they make excellent, and increasingly popular, pets. I have eight myself (not as excessive a number as it might sound - they're social creatures who like company, and looking after multiple rats isn't hugely different from looking after one).
Most people when they've met rats I've had have tended to find them cute, despite some of their initial preconceptions. That's just my experience of course, and if you think rats aren't cute, fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But I do find it somewhat depressing that the majority of people (and I'm not saying you're one of them) who express that opinion know pretty much nothing about rats. Just shows how easily people in general accept the opinions foisted on them by the society in which they develop I suppose.
Anyway, I'd also argue that whether they're cute or not is irrelevant to this topic, or it should be anyway. 'Animal rights' shouldn't be based on the cuteness of the animal in question, it should be based on the actual facts of the situation in question, and cuteness doesn't really enter into that. In this case, the rats are rewarded for the work, and there's little risk - as the article says, they're too light to set off the mines. So while I care - and as I expect anyone else who is concerned with 'animal rights' and isn't irrationally prejudiced against rats cares - I don't have a problem with using rats for this purpose, so long as they're treated humanely otherwise.
Re:Who is going to care? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know what they think their mirror images are, if they know it's themselves, or if they've just learned to ignore it. But they certainly don't believe it's another
reg free (Score:3, Informative)
Google links (Score:4, Informative)
The Age [theage.com.au]
Seattle Post [nwsource.com]
Anti-rodent bias in humans! (Score:5, Funny)
Fuckin' speciests, the lot of you!
On a more serious note, people will be upset about this, if only because it costs time and money to train any animal, even rats.
Re:Anti-rodent bias in humans! (Score:3, Insightful)
Use Lawyers Instead (Score:5, Funny)
Why not use lawyers instead. They aren't as cute and no-one gets attached to them.
Re:Use Lawyers Instead (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Use Lawyers Instead (Score:5, Funny)
The article points out that you have to be at least as smart as a gambian rat to do this kind of work.
-Adam
Re:Use Lawyers Instead (Score:2)
I guess saving lives is one of them rather than ruining them...
Re:Use Lawyers Instead (Score:5, Funny)
Reasons Why A Lawyer Won't Suffice
1. They're harder to train than rats.
2. They won't actually work, but they'll demand to be paid.
3. If there's a loophole, they'll find it. But they won't find any mines.
4. Lawyers won't die when you blow them up. You have to cauterize the wound, or two heads will grow in its place.
5. They're sure to object.
I watch too much Law & Order.
Re:Use Lawyers Instead (Score:4, Funny)
Problem with this is that it may actually encourage people to lay mines, so as to cause lawyers to be consumed in the de-mining process...
Amusing... (Score:2)
Careful now (Score:5, Funny)
My father was a giant Gambian rat, you insensitive clod!
John.
Re:Careful now (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory Princess Bride quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Princess Bride quote (Score:2)
What can I say, rodents were able to break into my inbox and read all of my enlarge your unit spam.
They do exist! (Score:3, Interesting)
Another alternative. (Score:5, Funny)
Let's don't (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Another alternative. (Score:3, Funny)
maybe, but (Score:5, Funny)
HAH! (Score:2, Redundant)
PETA. They'll be all over this. I can't believe you posed the question, sarcasm as it may have been.
Re:HAH! (Score:2)
Re:HAH! (Score:3, Funny)
But clearly your friend wasn't a true PETA member, or he/she would have been violent toward you when you received your meal. This also would have kept you distracted while the ELF people lit your SUV on fire in the parking lot.
Re:HAH! (Score:3, Funny)
We could use PETA members to sniff them out instead but I think the patchouli might interfere with the mine-detection.
Is there a People for the Ethical Treatment of PETA Members (PETPETAM) we need to worry about?
Jason.
Re:HAH! (Score:3, Funny)
(just wondering)
-Goran
hm (Score:2, Funny)
uhm.. the guy who paid x thousand dollars to have it trained?
Re:hm (Score:2)
Naw, I quit getting upset at government wasting my taxes.
Why bother training? (Score:2)
Re:Why bother training? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why bother training? (Score:2)
Rats are too light to detonate the mines.
Who will care? (Score:5, Funny)
Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?
The rats' pan-dimensional, super-intelligent kindred will care, and I would not want to tangle with them.
Bring on... (Score:5, Funny)
And how long 'til we hear "Hey! Whose rat is this?"
"MINE!"
Somebody has to say it... (Score:5, Funny)
Gambian National Anthem (Score:5, Funny)
Dr. Fegg has only ever written one national anthem. Here it is, reproduced for the first time. Dr. Fegg would like to remind all his readers that he has not yet been paid for it.
-The Gambian National Anthem-
Gambia, Oh Gambia,
Though only small and thin,
When it comes to being called Gambia,
You are the one to win.
Your capital is Bathurst
A name that means so much
To you who live in Gambia,
Though less so to the Dutch.
Gambia, where men are men
And trees fit in the ground.
The one six-lettered nation
Where Gambians abound!
Gambians! O Gambians!
Though your country is so thin
And most of it a river
It's the place that you live in.
From mountains down to flat bits,
Ring out your anthem great,
Though now you're part of Senegal
The words are out of date.
-Bertram Wesley Fegg DD
WARNING: Humming of this anthem, even to oneself, renders the reader liable for royalty payments. These should be sent to Dr. Fegg personally and *not*, repeat *not* to the chisellers at the Gambian embassy.
Many people ask: What is Dr. Fegg a doctor *of*? Well, without going into specifics Dr. Fegg has tried his hand at many things in his time.
His is the sort of mind that can encompass deck chair repairing, sweeping, billposting and the buying and selling of cars with one previous owner. So it is perhaps unfair and irrelevant to confine his extraordinary talents to the mundane world of labels and categories.
Dr. Fegg *has* delivered babies, but only during the busy pre-Christmas period when the Post Office can't cope. And Dr. Fegg has done brain surgery-- though *never*, repeat *never* in the Bournemouth area.
Now if only (Score:5, Insightful)
Trained Rats for Mine Detection... (Score:5, Funny)
Did anyone else get the feeling.... (Score:2, Funny)
If you read the story.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If you read the story.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Rats are abundant, cheap and easily transported. At three pounds, they are too light to detonate mines accidentally. They can sift the bouquet of land-mine aromas far better than any machine. Unlike even the best mine-detecting dog or human, they are relentlessly single-minded.
"Throw a stick for a dog to fetch, and after 10 times the dog will say, `Get it yourself, buddy,' " Mr. Weetjens said. "Rats will keep working as long as they want food."
Better than dogs, in this case.
Has an
Who is going to cry? (Score:5, Insightful)
In most of the slashdot penetrating world, we think of dogs primarily as companion animals, and find the thougt of them being blown to bits in mine clearance as "sad" (at least I certainly would)
I suspect from the point of view of the mine-clearing-canine group from Canada (they were recently spotlighted in a television program on National Geographic here) - it is the cost of training the animal that is the more serious loss, than the emotional suffering the handlers may suffer from the loss of a companion. For one project they had on the order of a half-dozen animals. So, losing one in an accident would be a pretty serious reduction in force.
Hopefully with rats, the cost of training, supporting, and getting them into the mine fields would be low enough that the mission would be less adversely impacted by losing one animal.
I am certain my friend who keeps pet rats would be just as horrified imagining a rat being killed ina clearing accident as I would be imagining a dog suffering the same fate.
Why don't they use womp rats? (Score:5, Funny)
They're not much bigger than two meters.
So what if a bunch of kids on Tatooine don't have live targets anymore? They should be using their T16s for more constructive things, anyway.
Crispin Glover might.... (Score:2)
Added Bonus... (Score:2, Funny)
New prison parole scheme for lifers (Score:3, Funny)
RTFA - No exploded rats. (Score:2, Informative)
Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?"
Is answered in the NYT article:
Rats are abundant, cheap and easily transported. At three pounds, they are too light to detonate mines accidentally.
So, now PETA can stop worrying. The rats are not in harms' way.
smart creatures (Score:5, Interesting)
They were training the rats. They had to stop at dishes with TNT traces.
The trainers gradually reduced the amount of TNT. It was reduced so far that it was undetectable, yet the rats still stopped.
The bastards no longer reacted on the TNT, but at the smell of the guy who filled the dishes every day. They had to be retrained, wasting a few months.
But, hey, you can't blame them taking the easy road.
That's Inhumane! (Score:3, Insightful)
Who's going to cry?!?! (Score:5, Funny)
I was raised by giant Gambian rats, you insensitive... oh nevermind. I'm calling Peta, the People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.
Yes, lets finish clearing all the landmines away.. (Score:3, Insightful)
No rats died in the production of this article (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No rats died in the production of this article (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the article does mention rats dying:
'The first batch died en route after being accidentally left for two days on a broiling Johannesburg airport tarmac.'
That sort of negligence is something that certainly (in my opinion) merits complaining about. But it's also not something that's inherent to using the rats for mine detection.
Re:I'm sure the ASPCA will just LOVE this (Score:3, Funny)
Re:why train when.. (Score:2)
Re:Foreing species (Score:2, Insightful)
Excuse me (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I'm seeing things, but did you just try to back up your argument with anecdotal evidence from The Simpsons? And then you got modded up as "Insightful"?!
Sir, you are clearly a better Slashdotter than I.
(P.S. - I'd imagine the rats would be sterilized.)
Re:Why not drop rocks on the minefields? (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, aren't rocks people, too?
Re:they won't (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why not use bulldozers? (Score:3, Interesting)