| Sign Up for Free Security eNewsletters |
Top News
Most Popular
- DHS spending more than $70M to expand explosives screening programs at airports
- How Britain's biggest ever surveillance operation thwarted a series of suicide bombings
Body bombs: Threats and detection of suicide bombers


Following recent news of
an attempted attack on Mohammed Bin Nayef
, the head of Saudi Arabia's counter terrorism operations, this past August, many in the intelligence community have raised concerns about the ability to prevent such attacks. To learn more about improvised explosive devices (IEDs) worn on or even "in" the human body, SecurityInfoWatch.com interviewed Robert P. Daly, the chief technology officer for Brijot Imaging Systems, to discuss such threat vectors and technologies available to identify these threats. His interview appears below.
SIW: News that a terrorist managed to explode himself in an apparent attempt to kill a Saudi prince brought to light the use of "body bombs", where the explosive device is concealed inside the human body. Is there technology available to reliably detect threats hidden inside the body, such as in the intestines and abdomen?
Daly: Detection of concealed explosives in an abdomen or rectal areas would be done by the aid of a radiological investigation. There are commercially available semi-transmissive x-ray machines on the market. However, they are slow, difficult to use and require very specialized training. I am unaware of any security checkpoint deployments. Alternatively, the detonation device consisting of a cell phone, which was most likely concealed externally, could have easily been detected by imaging technologies using passive millimeter wave like the Brijot system, active millimeter wave or backscatter technologies. Additionally, the would-be assassin had given himself up during Ramadan and was given audience to the Prince for repentance, who although closely guarded, was not subjected to any screening other than metal detectors at the airports he passed through. Since the detonator and explosive material were made of plastic/non-metallic materials the metal detectors would not detect them externally or internally.
SIW: What are the types of detection technologies that can be applied in such situations?
Daly: Similar to the checkpoint screening you encounter at the airport, you would need to incorporate operating procedures as to where the subject divests themselves of anything in their pockets or concealed on their body. With the use of passive or active imaging technologies you would see anything not properly divested. If the person did not comply and detection was made, then they would be subject to secondary screening to resolve the alarm. In this case hidden items such things as cell phone (potential detonating device) could then be placed in an X-ray baggage to determine if dangerous. The subject in question has been detained and not given access to the restricted area, until cleared, so internally hidden explosives although not detected directly would be thwarted.
SIW: The device was believed to have been made from PETN, a type of plastic explosive. Traditional detection systems deployed at airports are only scanning for metallic objects. Are we seeing a major hole in aviation security? Can current technologies detect PETN? Can they detect very small devices such as the detonators now being used on IEDs?
| Article Tools |

Technologies for bomb cavity detection
In addition to transmission X-rays, I have worked on 2 other technologies that could potentially be applied to counter the "bum bomber" (or other body parts): magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its close relative, quadrupole resonance (QR). Both use radio frequencies and have been investigated for various explosives detection applications, with some products for bags and prototypes for passengers and plastic landmines.
However, there are challenges with each. MRI (similar to MRI systems used in medical applications) requires a large magnet and a longer scan time while QR has interference issues, which, while not insurmountable, add to the cost and complexity of deployment. There are other subtleties to using each of these technologies, but they remain options if the threat is perceived to be large enough.