Far more lives are lost due to gun proliferation than Al Qaeda terror attacks.

Thanks for the info. May they rot in hell for preventing a potential lead.

i can easily make a dozen different types of explosives from easily available materials. I learned this 40 years ago-before the internet.

Could those be traced? Isn't that what was used in OK?

but fertilizer batches a so widely used all over the country that realistically it would not help much. Too many farmers and garden stores would have samples of any given batch of fertilizer.

You are correct about OK.

It doesn't say much for our food supply that we fertilize with something that can be used to make a bomb.

While there are natural methods of adding Nitrogen compunds to plants, the plants themselves cannot take it directly from the atmosphere.

but they are volatile in many circumstances.
One way to dispose of old gunpowder is to (widely) spread it in a garden. It will rapidly break down into compounds the plants will absorb and enhance their growth.

It takes nothing more than a stable power supply and some water to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is what blew up in the Hindenburg.

Composting doesn't get you away from explosive elements, either. One natural by-product of composting is methane, better known as "natural gas," as in the stuff that gets piped into a lot of people's homes to run their furnace, stove, etc. Compost piles have been known to spontaneously combust, because there is also a lot of heat generated in the composting process, sometimes igniting pockets of methane. Many moons ago, a compost pile of grass clippings in my back yard burned up this way, fortunately not burring anything else in the process.



It's no use sitting around worrying about what may or may not be explosive or could be turned into an explosive. You have explosive elements in your body at this very moment. Ever seen what happens to sodium when you put it in water? Potassium, another vital element in your health, is that explosive in air, but you would die without potassium in your diet, and it's coursing through your veins at this very moment.

There's nothing inherently "wrong" or "disturbing" about nitrates helping plants to grow. Sure, they need to be handled with a reasonable amount of care, but so does anything else. It's just chemistry. Nothing particularly magical about it, and it's neither good nor evil.

The other main ingredient is diesel fuel.

tracers in gun powder because they would change the ballistics. They had nothing to do with the opposition to tracers in fertilizer. The Farmers Union was opposed to that because of the onerous record keeping to farmers. That and fertilizer is widely available.

I'm not a member of the NRA, but it would make sense to wait until we know what the explosive was that was used in the Boston explosive device.

have contributed additional information. I at least have learned a lot from this thread.

My post was redundant.

Or the first I saw.

Like black powder, smokeless powder, etc.

There are other mechanisms to watch bulk purchases, etc, that don't do anything to the chemical composition of the propellant.

This was on TV news about two hours ago.

So in this case it might have helped.

Including Senator Tom Harkin (D) of Iowa. The recordkeeping requirements for tagged fertilizers would have been onerous. Farmers literally buy ammonium nitrate by the truckload.

The NRA opposed use of taggants in cannister smokeless powders used for reloading, because the foreign substances of different size, shape, and density than the powder itself could cause inconsistent and potentially dangerous results. Cannister powders are very carefully made and tested. The particles are physically very uniform.

Smokeless powder is not a good choice for a bomb. Besides being very expensive, it is engineered not to accelerate too quickly even when kept confined.

Black powder, the stuff the Chinese invented about 3,000 years ago, doesn't have that problem. It is much less expensive, and can be improvised easily from commonly available ingredients.

in all explosives without problems.

Residue from a bombing can be traced only to a rather large batch made over a period of time. Under the Swiss system it is not possible to connect explosive residue to a single retail purchase.

It's better than nothing for tracing, but it's not very precise.

I am 64, and no one I have ever met in my entire lifetime, has ever voiced a need to learn how to make explosives..

Is there a recessive mayhem-gene that some people have?

from a science book I read at age 10. Since i had a chemistry set, I made some. I made some firecrackers with it, following directions in another book, which described how to make fuses. Both books came from my local library. I showed them to my father, who was proud of my initiative.

They blowed up real good.

That was me.

Homemade explosives work well for removing boulders and stumps
And are CHEAP

but I've read that it's possible to make a nuclear bomb from information publicly available. Maybe that's an urban legend.

I've seen schematics for the Fat Man and Little Boy devices used in WWII. The hard part is obtaining the physical materials needed.

I'm gonna be 60 in a month. OMG! I just realized - EXACTLY a month! Nobody I know has ever expressed that wish, either, although no one can know what people are thinking. I certainly haven't imagined making my own. I'm a crafter but that's a little much. Never have been all that inclined toward the wonders of blowing stuff up.

40 years ago I was in my 30s, trying to establish a career, working to support my wife and children and it never dawned on me to spend every other moment learning how to make bombs that could kill and not be traced to me. Where did I go wrong?

I was experimenting with rockets and just liked things that went boom out in the middle of nowhere.
There's not much difference between some solid propellants and explosives.

Blame our politicians for bowing to the NRA's demands / pressure.

.. my take is if people would stop giving the NRA power by yielding (i.e. actually risk their political career over it), the NRA would no longer have power.

Of course it has to do with the weakness of the politicians and the fact that many rely on money from the NRA.

and of course goes beyond the NRA. I expect special interest groups like the NRA to advocate extreme views .. but our politicians should be held to a higher standard. I think the NRA are a vile bunch of selfish individuals, but hey, that's just one person's opinion and apparently not one shared much by our Congresscritters.

is necessary for any real change.

and it should be mandatory - no private financing allowed

Is the obstacle to that one. Prohibiting private financing would currently be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of (cough, cough) the First Amendment.

.. and corporations are people, and stuff. /end sarcasm

in fact they have proven useful in the conviction of at least one bomber... the argument cost/ benefit.... not so sure whether its a congressional problem, or a case of regulatory capture... however explosives remain untagged

this is a lot like not letting the rest of law enforcement use finger prints or DNA

what I meant, and doesn't put in the correct word for me.

If so its sold at gun and sporting goods stores and Wally World for people who reload their brass shells. I don't think taggants are used in gun powder.

Smokeless is not black powder
Black powder makes a LOT of smoke

Is my educated guess
The videos look like a low velocity explosive

I am guessing you have not seen many true explosions
They are not like the TV and movies
And the smoke color depends more on what oxidizer is used than anything

Most people don't. I guess we'll find out for sure as the FBI learns more and releases information.

Why would anyone need more expertise than that.

Face it. You got PWN3D.

Because I never claimed to know shit about explosives. Amazingly, I haven't spent my life learning how to kill people.

Wow, there was smoke. What a revelation. Such a relief you've got the case solved. Who needs the FBI when guys who sit around watching TV have figured it all out.

The only claim made was that the type of explosion was consistent with black powder, mainly due to the large amount of smoke.

Because I don't have an intimate knowledge of mass murder techniques.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

My point related to your absurd claim that seeing something on TV means anything. Yours was gratuitous.

The various videos established that the explosion did have a lot of smoke. From that some conclusions can be drawn.

There is no difference between something being useful to a trained professional and watching something on TV or the internet making a person an expert. If that was all it took, anyone could be a doctor or a scientist.

And many of us here at DU do have experience in a wide variety of fields of knowledge. Several of us happen to know that black powder is very smokey. None of us have claimed any greater expertise.

If you saw a video of a lion chasing and killing a hyena, you would not need a PhD in zoology to conclude that you were not watching a video of a common domestic cat catching a mouse.

And from the videos I've seen the Boston explosions indeed made a lot of smoke.

The NRA did oppose taggants post OKC. Not much testing had been done on how taggants affected the burn rates of small quantities of gunpowder e.g. bullets. There was legitimate concern that taggants could cause failure to fire, or overpressure while firing. Both would be dangerous.
It fell out of the news so I do not know if there ever was follow up research done one way or the other.

Depending on the actual explosive used, some types do have taggants, it could help trace the source. It sounds totally homebrew so the exact composition of the explosive is important. If gunpowder is a main component the statement is likely true. If the explosive is made of other ingredients it maybe true, as taggants are not widespread due to opposition primarily led by the NRA, or it may not be true as taggants would not be in the components even if the legislation passed.

I hear about pressure cookers, nails, and such but not about what made the thing explode.

The the NRA just oppose taggants in gunpowder? Because that's not what the OK bombers used.

It appears from VPC reference and Businessweek that the NRA opposition was only to taggants in black powder. I am assuming it also includes smokeless powder, which is far more common than black powder.
They did not oppose taggants in commercial explosives or agricultural chemicals. Interestingly, Switzerland is the only country which requires taggants in all explosives and requires six month changes to help identify batches.

Businessweek Archives
An End To Anonymous Bombs?
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/1996-08-11/an-end-to-anonymous-bombs

I knew people would fill this in with more information.

as the explosive, packed into a pressure cooker, with nails and other metal included to cause maximum damage to human flesh.

So taggants in gunpowder would absolutely have helped in this case.

I expect we'll learn more.

For use in identification following the explosion (e.g., the situation in Boston) their recommendation was slightly different (I've left out the supportng explainations for the sake of brevity, but they can and should be read starting here):

RECOMMENDATION: Identification taggants in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Research should be conducted to develop and test taggants that would be technically suitable for inclusion in black and smokeless powders should future circumstances warrant their use.

RECOMMENDATION: If the type or number of bombing incidents involving black and smokeless powders increases in a way that leads policymakers to believe that current investigatory and prosecutorial capabilities must be supplemented, the committee recommends that use of taggants, additional record keeping, or a combination of both actions be considered, provided that the chosen taggant technology has satisfactorily met all of the appropriate technological criteria. Research on taggants, as recommended above, is therefore essential to develop options and demonstrate the technical viability of any taggant system that may be considered for implementation at a future date.

it is not like black powder bombings are anything but an extremely rare event. The government has better things to spend their money on.

The NRA did block taggant proposals in the mid-90's, but they relented after the OKC bombing under one caveat. The government had to first allow a nonpartisan third party agency to research taggants to determine that they were safe, effective, and that they would actually help to solve crimes.

The National Academy of Sciences researched the issue and did a full study with full access to all law enforcement data. They found that taggable explosive materials were only found in a small portion of bombing events, that no taggant system existed that could be reliably used for explosive gunpowders, and that the system would be very expensive and incur a huge cost that would be passed to farmers and landscapers (and to consumers, via higher food prices).

Given the costs involved and the lack of major law enforcement benefit from the program, the NAS committee bluntly recommended that taggants not be mandated. They gave that recommendation to Congress, which then dropped the issue.

FWIW, I used to be a big supporter of taggants, and supported the proposals when they first came out. Once it became clear that it imposed a large cost with little benefit, I (like Congress and most people who had argued for it) gave up on the idea. The idea has been brought up again a few times since then, but the supporters always get pointed back to the National Academy of Sciences research, and the proposals don't go anywhere.

I have no additional knowledge of this. I just happened to see it on Facebook. Someone else posted an excerpt from the panel that said if bombings become more common, the National Academy of Sciences could change their recommendation.

The NRA opposed the bill as a whole, but it was actually the farming industry that fought the propsals to a standstill. The NRA was worried about taggants in gunpowder, but the farmers were being asked to carry the cost of tracing every pound of tagged fertilizer sold, from the factory to the field. There was also a small pushback from the environmental community because fertilizer taggants are designed NOT to degrade (for obvious reasons), and much of it would eventually make it into our waterways via ag runoff. There had been NO research done to determine the effects of taggant buildup in our lakes, streams, and oceans (not to mention farmland) after years or decades of use.

The NAS findings on black powder taggants, which was the NRA's concern, mostly demonstrated that they were ineffective. Because gunpowder is designed to burn cleanly and completely, they molecular taggants were ineffective and were nearly always incinerated during the firing process. Their finding, at that time, was simply that there was no possible way to tag gunpowder using the technology at that time. It would be nice if that bit of research could be conducted again...things may have changed a bit.

It's quite possible there would be more effective methods today. Hopefully the President will ask for this to be looked into.

...you are now totally safe at any public venue from being pelted with dozen of boxes of Sudafed.

Endless paperwork for Sudafed but not guns or explosives. Makes sense.

I must have missed the presser.

That was sarcasm of course. But seriously, forensic experts will be able to piece together how the bombs were made and what they were made from. It's just a lot of work, and based on what information has been released it's likely that no commercial explosives or fertilizer were used. Or smokeless gunpowder.

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

packed inside pressure cookers, stuffed with nails and other metal objects to maxiumize injuries.

Whether the FBI will be able to trace the explosives or not remains to be seen.

Black powder makes lots of smoke.

Black powder is a mixture of potassium nitrate, carbon, and sulfur. Smokeless powder consists of nitrocellulose and binding agents. They are quite different in their behavior.

Whether the FBI will be able to trace the explosives or not remains to be seen.

It probably won't make any difference - Nobody has ever proposed adding taggants to any substance at such granularity that single retail packages would be traceable; only batches. That could be useful for ruling out groups of suspects, but it isn't essential for finding the perpetrator of a crime like this.

They'll figure out the make and model of the pressure cookers, the duffel bags or backpacks, etc. Imagery will be analyzed, witnesses interviewed. They will find the perpetrators. It's only a matter of time.

ETA black powder of good enough quality for a bomb is very easy to make from non-traceable materials.

on tonights's TV news (as did at least one other on this thread), but perhaps the newscasters aren't as well informed as you are. Probably it was the NewsHour, but tonight I also watched NBC Nightly.

Come to think of it, though, the videos of the explosions I saw did involve a good deal of smoke. So black powder seems to be a definite possibility.

"Nobody has ever proposed adding taggants to any substance of such granuality that single retail packages would be traceable..."

Maybe it's time we did?

on the Chris Hayes show. He didn't say black. The information about what the precise explosive agent was either isn't yet know or not released. People seem to speculating right now.

As for the rest of it, well, what can I say that hasn't been said on these threads a thousand times already? I see your broad brush attack as just another example of your "hates government, loves guns, knee-jerk spouting of NRA right wing talking points in response to any proposal to address increasingly horrific atrocities" people. "Bigger government is always the answer to every perceived crisis." What a lovely characterization. Isn't that an almost word for word quote from Newt Gingrich?

Nothing we do will ever prevent all crimes, which, BTW, wasn't the subject. What this OP is talking about, and what I was responding to, was a proposal to make identifying perpetrators more easy.

But please, tell me how putting taggants in black powder restricts your precious "freedom."

Is there ANY indication that the lack of taggants in black powder have had ANY effect on the investigation into the Boston Marathon bombing?

Some people on this forum seem to have no imagination. Whenever something bad happens, government must "DO SOMETHING." Government doing something ALWAYS involves more restrictions, or implementing some kind of controls that require MORE people working for government and therefore higher taxes.

THAT'S what it's all about, thucythucy.

Putting taggants in black powder would, evidently, not restrict your freedom by a single iota. So the whole "freedom" issue you raise in response to this is bogus.

As for indications such taggants might have helped, the proposal seems logical enough to me. If identifying taggants had been in the black powder used to make these bombs, the FBI would at the very least be able to track down the batch of powder used, thus, possibly, narrowing down the point and time of purchase. In an investigation of this sort, I would think any possible lead or clue might help. Timothy McVeigh was caught because the rental truck he used had an identifying number embedded on its axle. Big government! Our freedoms to drive unidentifiable vehicles impinged! Think of the expense!

"Some people on this forum seem to have no imagination."

Okay, so wow me. Come up with some brilliantly imaginative idea for identifying and apprehending the perpetrators of this atrocity that doesn't involve government, and "big government" at that.

"Government doing something ALWAYS involves more restrictions."

Bullshit. Right wing libertarian bullshit. Again, how does putting taggants in black powder restrict you in any way, shape or form? And higher taxes? Really? Putting taggants in black powder means "higher taxes?" Pray tell, what is the cost imposed on our society--in taxes and otherwise--by the deaths and maiming of so many people? You think level I ER care comes free? You think the life long rehab. that some of the survivors will no doubt need from here on comes from the tooth fairy?

What "it's all about" is three people dead, and more than a hundred injured, some of them maimed for life. What it's all about is a society in which every congregation of people, including sporting events and primary schools, is now a target for horrific violence.

What the OP is suggesting is that one method that might possibly have aided in the investigation of the latest atrocity has been consistently blocked by lobbyists serving anything BUT the public interest. You seem to be supporting their position, using the usual "government is always the enemy" rhetoric straight out of a Newt Gingrich/Cato Institute handout, despite the fact that this proposal would do nothing whatsoever to impinge on your personal freedom.

What's THAT about?

As for preventing such atrocities--as raised in your previous post--the quick apprehension of the perpetrator(s) of this crime would at the very least prevent them from planting another bomb.

If taggants in black powder would help in that effort, I can see no coherent reason to be in opposition.

...to increase. And it wouldn't PREVENT any crimes.

I thought I made myself clear in my previous reply. Many of the knee-jerk responses I'm seeing here are authoritarian.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2687321

Having the cost of your precious black powder increased, and only because we want to make it easier to track down thugs who kill children and blow the legs off of innocent bystanders, and keep them from killing and maiming again! Oh, the humanity!

And I thought I made MYSELF clear in MY previous reply, but I guess not. The cost of treating the people maimed by this atrocity will be borne by all of us, whether it be through increased health insurance premiums, or--heaven forfend!--taxes at the state and federal level. As will the cost of tracking down the assailants without the help of identifying taggards. Nothing is free, you know. Your "tax break" comes at the expense of everyone else's insurance premiums and taxes, not to mention safety and pain.

And the OP--as I stated before--said nothing about PREVENTING crimes. It's about making it easier for authorities to track down criminals once the crimes are committed. Please try to keep up.

"Authoritarian" my ass. I suppose the FBI keeping a fingerprint file is "authoritarian?" Not to mention forcing the poor, oppressed car manufacturers to put an identifying number on every vehicle they produce. Oh my Lord! Think of the oppression! Think of the increase in costs to innocent car buyers! Better to let a thousand Timothy McVeighs go free than to inconvenience, even marginally, one "slackmaster" defender of freedom!

The only "knee jerk" responses I've seen on this OP are from NRA/lobbyist apologists. "Big government" "authoritarian" etc. etc. The only way to stop a bad man with explosives is a good man with explosives! Untraceable black powder for everyone! It's in the Constitution, people!

Really, how bizarre.

An eight year old child is killed? A man who was doing nothing more than watching a great Boston sports tradition (and I lived in Boston and love that city) has to be carried off after both his legs are blown off, and you're NOT upset? Three dead, more than a hundred injured, some of them maimed and disabled probably for the rest of their lives, and this doesn't bother you?

Instead, you're concerned that the price of black gunpowder might be raised in an effort to make it easier to track down the thug or thugs who did this? THAT's what's got you riled?

Really, I think your priorities are quite skewed.

Charcoal, sulfur, saltpeter, ground to a fine powder, mixed in proper portions and you have black powder. Recipe was discovered hundreds of years ago - NOT cutting edge chemistry.

would have had to make the powder at home.

One more step for these murderous thugs to have to go through. How inconvenient for them.

And that's what we're all about, right? Making life easier for people who plan such attacks?

Jesus, you NRA apologists are amazing.

Yes, a savvy bomb maker would have to manufacture his own black powder. One more step they would have to take to produce such a bomb. You have a problem with this?

The more steps we put in a bomb maker's way, the better the odds that someone somewhere might learn their plans, or might otherwise inform the authorities.

The only argument I've seen against this is that it compromises the "freedom" to buy cheap black gunpowder (which, in fact, it probably wouldn't). Which you've pointed out would make no difference to you anyway, since you can easily produce all the black gunpowder you want in your basement.

Why not just sell time-bombs on the open market then, if all our laws are "ineffective"? Making time bombs illegal obviously didn't stop this bomber, so what's the point?

Honestly, you gun enthusiasts are amazing. There is, evidently, not a single step you're willing to take for the common good. Evidently, even universal background checks is a step too far.

The problem with taggants is they make the powder thermally unstable, the reason this isn't used anywhere is technically the two substances don't mix. I don't see why they wouldn't want to use it if they could, the science still needs to catch up.

this can be done without compromising the effectiveness of the powder.

You've offered a solid technical reason for not using taggants, which I appreciate. As opposed to those here arguing that their use would compromise their "freedom" and represents "big government" tyranny and all the rest of that Cato Institute BS.

If there are technical problems for not going with this idea, then let's see if these can't be solved. If they CAN be solved, then the use of taggants would provide one more useful tool for investigators. Not a cure-all, not a guarantee that such atrocities won't happen again, but one more useful tool. Personally I have confidence in American ingenuity, and think some solution can be scraped together, but perhaps not.

In any case, thank you Mitchell for making a rational counter argument, one that doesn't rely on BS about "freedom" and "higher taxes" and the like.

Best wishes.

There is NO SUCH THING
American media sucks dingleberries
They do not research a damn thing

the way right here on DU.

Support = complicity.

just like research into gun violence, the NRA shuts it down. Time to shut down the NRA.

safety developments for guns, anything that might jeopardize one penny of profit for the gun lobby. They actively work against the safety and security of Americans. They do need to be brought down, and we do that by making sure politicians who vote with them are punished.

When you give a government power to suppress groups that you don't like, don't be surprised if one day that government suppresses groups that you do like, and then suppresses you.

We exercise our First Amendment rights. He meant shut them down politically and you know it. He said nothing about state intervention. The NRA subverts democracy at every turn and perpetrates pure evil. The fact we have trouble getting simple background checks passed when over 90% of the population supports them demonstrates as much. The NRA is determined to ensure criminals have ready access to guns. That is the only reason to oppose background checks. We make the NRA and their cronies pay politically for fomenting murder in order to generate profits. 3300 Americans have died from guns since Newtown. It's time people stop carrying the water for a right-wing organizations with absolute contempt for human life.

and vote the assholes that support murder for profit out of office. Make it clear that voting with the NRA ends their careers.

I make no claim to be a mind reader. I simply took him at his word. Since he has not replied yet, I continue to take him at his word.

And there was no reason for you to invent that charge.