Talk:Bomb disposal

2004 - 2006 comments
The "EOD" part seems to be largely copied from some other place. Needs cleanup. --Iediteverything 11:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll start cleaning it up and tweaking it soon. Where does it come from, incidentally? ManicParroT 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the EOD section should be moved into its own page? --Brendan 21:20, 09 10 2004 (UTC)

That's an idea. I'll ask for some consensus on this from the other editors, since i'm not quite clear on how everything is interrelated.

ManicParroT 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuze Versus Fuse
For anyone looking for a discussion regarding the use of fuze in this article, one can be found here. — Zioroboco 15:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
Surfed in looking for another topic, and see this needs work. Believe I'll take a stab at it. - Shawn

Shawn Hughes srh@esper.com

PS - I will remind future editors of this page that certain topics related to this very public page do not need to be discussed in depth. Help protect Bomb Technicians!

Someone has anonymously made some changes. Some were incorrect, and I have rolled them back. EOD is *NOT* an all-encompassing term. Even in the UK.

-Shawn

Psycho Pigs UXB
I believe that this article should really be at Explosive Ordnance Disposal rather than its current location at 'Bomb Disposal'. A bomb is a very specific device - either a mortar round, or a device dropped from an aircraft - and the current title does not cover artillery shells, cannon ammunition, missiles, and particularly landmines. The article itself seems to lean too much towards being a specific history of EOD as it relates to the United States' military, rather than a general history of the field. As for the concerns above regarding the safety of bomb technicians, this article does not need to go into the specific details of defusing individual fuses, although there is scope for a discussion of generic fuse types (timed, motion-sensing, etc). In general however I do not believe that the integrity and completeness of Wikipedia's coverage - which always comes from non-classified sources, available elsewhere - should be impaired in order to protect the lives of any individual or group which might be affected by such coverage. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

= no way, dude = Shawn Hughes is NOT and NEVER was a Bomb Technician or an EOD Technician. He is a FRAUD and a TSO (Screener) with TSA. srh@esper.com email him and ask for a copy of any certifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.160.78 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I made a very cogent response here that somehow got deleted. In a nutshell:

1 - I am disappointed to hear someone who presents themselves as affiliated with UXO work stating that coverage here should not be impaired to protect members of the Bomb Disposal community. This opinion is uncharacteristic of one in this field. You ASSUME no sensitive data will be shared.

2 - No. munitions are specific examples. Bombs and Bomb Disposal are overarching topics. If you feel those items deserve more specific treatment, them please do so by creating seperate definitions for them and linking back here.

3 - same for EOD. You can do UXO work and NEVER be a EOD Tech.

4 - most countries pattern their operations after the US model. Therefore, it is deserving of the lions' share of attention. You have more info on the history of the New Zealand / Australian / whomever, feel free to add it.

In short, as it stands, it is a good definition. Adding the things you propose will only muddy the issues. Consider creating subdefinitions as a way of keeping this definition streamlined.

Also, as I have in the past, if I find things that are proliferative in nature here, I will remove them. AS you say, there are plenty of other sources for ne'er do wells to get kewl bomb stuff. There is no reason to duplicate efforts here.

Very respectfully.

-Shawn Hughes


 * Taking your final point, about things which are 'proliferative in nature'. If you actually are a real-life bomb disposal technician, it's probably unwise - and against whatever confidentiality agreement you signed - to be contributing to a highly visible, public encyclopaedia. Your IP address seems to be based in Atlanta. You have signed with a name, probably not your own name, but still. Any information you delete from the article page is retained in the page's history; therefore, if you actually are authoritative, your deletions will have the effect of highlighting harmful information. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quote: 'most countries pattern their operations after the US model'. Surely this is a typographical error? Did you mean 'most countries pattern their operations after the U.K. model'? This would more accurately reflect reality and be consistent with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

For instance...
"is the process by which hazardous devices are rendered safe."

Not all bombs utilize explosives. The proper term is Hazardous Device.

"comment about bombs and missiles"

A UXO Tech NEVER handles IEDs. A Police Bomb Technician RARELY handles a missile. A military EOD Technician doesn't do remediation work, nor does he handle off-base response unless on a VIPPSA or shipment accident. Your statement there is too narrow.
 * How do you figure a military EOD Tech doesn't handle off-base response? Any time a civilian agency requests military support (or any military ordnance is found off-base) a military EOD team will roll.  Some bases, especially CONUS Army EOD, handle more off-base responses than anything else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.198.241.67 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

=Interesting=
Mr. Pomeroy;

I find it interesting that you didn't do any homework besides seeing my IP before responding. Idid. I find that you are not affiliated with any sort of explosives work, at least legit, whatsoever.

To answer your assumptions, A NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) prevents me from discussing *certain* things. Writing the definition of Bomb Disposal isn't one of them. In fact, I make a great deal of money writing about that very topic.

Your assumptions about what a Bomb Technician can and cannot do only underscores the reason you should not be *helping* with this topic. Your lack of knowledge in this arena speaks volumes.

I am aware of the revision-saving mechanism here. Having some knowledge of risk and threat assessment, I don't believe that anyone coming here is going to avail themselves of that route. And, those of that level of persistency will undoubtedly find their data elsewhere.

This place is for reference work by people in school and those with no ill will. Adding the data you suggest on fuzing and munitions only serves to invite those with less-than-honorable intent.

Finally, to help you understand who I am, google for my name. Or, go to www.getcited.org. My last book (on WMD) is sold at Amazon.com, among other places. I have a column with 45k readers concerning bomb issues at policeone.com. And yes, dear Ashley, I do sign everything with my real name, because I never say anything in cyberspace that I wouldn't in person.

I have enjoyed this discussion, and I hope you bring something away from it.

Cheers, as you say! -Shawn (near Oak Ridge, TN, USA) Hughes

Editing Ideas
Two comments:

1) EOD should be defined at the time it is first used, not later on.

2) The article talks about "the crab" being distinctive. I am guessing this is referring to the logo that has its own section later on (near the bottom of the article). How about creating a link from the mention of the crab to the logo section? Or, if the crab doesn't refer to the logo, how about a little more description or a picture? Other than the logo, I have no idea what the crab means. - Andrew Bond

valid points
Andy,

good suggestions. I am not sure about how to link the crab (word) with the crab (later section). Can you wikify this for me?

As for the explaining EOD when it is first mentioned, I see your point. There are actually several branches, which is why they are all discussed later in detail. Maybe also hotlink the words to their later descriptions?

-Shawn

= Minor changes/formatting =

I fixed the odd grammar error and changed the formatting, creating two more sections: 'History' and 'Fields of operations.' I didn't feel that "EOD", "PSBT" and "UXO" belonged under the 'Post-war efforts' section. Anyone have a problem with this?

TaintedMustard 08:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe I'm ok with it. Rolled back a change to PSBT. There isn't a PSBD. /Shawn

Good! And I don't think that was me. I didn't touch any of the actual content. TaintedMustard 01:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization
I'm sorry, but the words EOD, Bomb Technician, and Technician should ALWAYS be capitalized. They, like Patrolman and Detective, are titles of honour.... /Shawn

I did go overboard when you made reference to "EOD Technicians", as that's an official title like "Detective", but "Technician" and "Bomb Technician" do not seem to be titles used universally throughout the world - they're generic names of professions. In fact, you implied this yourself in this sentence:

"Bomb Technicians in the US military are called EOD Technicians."

The generic name of their profession is "bomb technician." The rank or title they're given is "EOD Technician." Think of it this way: you can refer to a member of any armed forces of any rank as a "soldier", but refer to one of a specific rank as a "Private" or a "General." You wouldn't say "all Soldiers of the Farrinland military are called Privates" - you'd say "all soldiers of the Farrinland military are called Privates" - they have one official title ("Private"), and then they have a generic professional title ("soldier").

I'm not trying to nitpick and I won't even change the article, because I'm not really sure if the two titles are used officially (keyword) throughout the world when referring to "technicians that deal with bomb disposal."

TaintedMustard 01:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully Disagree
Tainted,

I [b]am[/b] a Bomb Techncian. You err in that you are looking at it from the generic to the specific. I suggest that you look at it from increasing levels of sub-specialization.

For instance, I would capitalize the word Doctor. Doctor is a title of honor. I would also capitalize Neurosurgeon, Cardiovascular Surgeon, and the like, because, while more specific, they are still titles.

I did say that in the US, Military Bomb Technicians are called EOD Techncians. NOT ALL BOMB TECHS ARE EOD TECHS! There seems to be great confusion on this. In the UK, Military Bomb Techs are ATO's; Ammunition Technical Officers. I would also capitalize their titles.

I also capitalize Soldier, Sailor, and Marine. In a cold, high-school or college sense, you may choose to not capitalize these, also calling them generic.

Being that I am also a paid writer, I would suggest contacting those same groups. THEY capitalize those words. Some of the larger style guides also agree with this.

I appreciate that you say that you aren't nitpicking. I'll admit readily that I am. Small things are important to me, like holding doors open, saluting our flag, and capitalizing Bomb Tech.

Sincerely,

-Shawn


 * Just a small comment... what you prefer to write is not actually the point. Wikipedia's preferred style overrides yours. For example, I'm British and so under normal circumstances would always use the spelling "colour". Yet Wikipedia style is such that articles on US-related topics generally use US spelling, so that if I edited an article on, say, Herbert Hoover, I would write "color". The point is that Wikipedia articles should be presented from as neutral a point of view as possible; the point of this encyclopedia is not to show pride in your job, entirely justified though that pride might be. 81.158.205.229 02:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops - I apologise for writing the above anonymously. I didn't realise at the time that I'd signed out. Loganberry 22:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Stylebook?
Logan, thanks for the comments. My inference isn't just from personal pride, I also follow several standards in my writing.

I looked, but can't find which stylebook Wiki uses. Before you go uncapitalizing my work, can you quote a definitive source that positively forbids me to capitalize titles?

/Shawn Hughes srh@esper.com


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style 68.9.205.10 03:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

stylebook - thanks!
Whoever you were....

I find this to be the Law of Wiki:

[quote]American English and British English differ in their inclination to use capitals. British English uses capitals more widely than American English does. This may apply to titles for people. If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context.[/quote]

In my culture, we capitalize Bomb Technician. Always.

Thanks for clearing that up! :)

-Shawn

= Is this a USA bomb disposal page? = Hi guys! As I read the article, I think it is very good, with the only problem of it being very much USA-specific. I am not saying that it is wrong for it to contain refeneces to USA bomb disposal, I am only saying that there is simply too much of it. Most probaby this is so because the only people who contributed were from the USA (and I am much gretful to these people). So anyone who wants to clean up the article to remove the huge amount of references to USA and add other content instead(!!) to the artice would be much appreciated by me.

--Msoos 5 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

Uh...
I see what you're saying, but I think it would most benefit from ADDING more information from other countries. Removing US references is tantamount to censorship. Just because you have an issue with the United States doesn't mean we should white out all of their contributions to society.....

Shawn srh@esper.com

Quote : 'Just because you have an issue with the United States'  Huh? Where did that come from? Msoos simply pointed out that the article is heavily weighted with reference to one country. Given that that country has less experience of 'bomb disposal' than many other countries the bias becomes even more pronounced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My two cents..
Greeting,

Mr Shawn has a vaild concern when he states that certian terms, techniques and methodologies should not be openly discussed. Its like airing your ops breifing on the public radio.

May i steal some of your time to write a brief history of EODD developments in Pakistan;

MILITARY: The military has operated units since the late 60's: If we discount the Special Service Group both (naval and army) the others are:

AT0: Ammunition Technical Officer "Deal with UXO's and ordnance" (Note: Several Sections of the Pakistan army are still heavily reliant on old British traditions, as can be seen by their khaki uniform.

EOD TECHNICIAN: Military EXPLOSIVES ORDNANCE DISPOSAL, till about late 1998 these poor guys were the only operating unit in Pakistan, providing support and response to both the Military and Civil Defence; comprising mainly of Engineers stationed in Rawalpindi, Lahore and parts of Sindh. Equipment was from the old "Allens" Catalouge... Way to old...

The suits were uncomfortable and non-cooling "unlike the ones today", imagine trying to work with one of those in tempratures exceeding 47*c

CIVIL:

Police: The Police termed "Bomb Disposal Unit" was truly developed in 1999 in Islamabad with the help of retired Army personnel, with limited resources "Detectors, Prods, cabel detectors and non magnetic pliers this poorly equipped unit began its work, to be honest their role was more confined to providig perimiter security rather then actual disposal or neturalization of a device.

The Program among other's recieved a great boost from the U.S. Anti Terrorisim Assistance Program; Via the U.S. Department of State the Government of the United States assisted Pakistan in its own war against terror by providing state of the art training, equipment and support to police EOD/ BD units.

The first unit to recieve this assistance was "Islamabad Police Bomb Disposal Squad"; the B.D squad now has 7 BATF and FBI certified BOMB TECHNICIANS, POST BOMB BLAST INVESTIGATORS AND CRIME SCENE MANAGEMENT AND INVESTAGATIONS OFFICERS.

Hope it was useful.

THAT'S PERFECT!
Hey,

why don't we add a segment called other countries? The Pak data would be an excellent addition! Ideally, I'd like to see someone knowledgeable from every country adding a section.

-Shawn srh@esper.com

WOW
Whoever did the last revision, a tip of the helmet to you. Excellent work! /Shawn

I believe it was me -- I wrote my Master's Thesis on the origins of U.S. EOD, giving proper credit to the Royal Engineers for training and supporting our Army and Navy ordnance.

Jeffrey M. Leatherwood

Jeff,

Are you saying that the original draft left out that US EOD came from UK beginnings? Also, don't you think its' a teeny bit self-aggrandizing to list one of your own works in the reference section? I drew from my book, and from a couple of articles, but didn't cite them.

I am a little disappointed in the latest revision. The paragraph on low intensity conflicts is rife with issues. What is a lab bomb? An electro-jammer? That and the fact the writer posits that IED's seem to be a 21st century issue. I'd like to hear a discussion on this, or else I am going to heavily revise this section....

shawn hughes srh@esper.com

Mr. Hughes,

Firstly, I listed my historical research alongside two works I felt gave an accurate view of both U.S. and U.K. operations. If it seems self-aggrandizing, it's because I devoted my entire Master's program to bomb disposal history, and wanted others to read my work. It is available through Western Carolina University's Hunter Library, or through the NATEODA (National EOD Association) archives. I felt the Wiki article needed more coverage of Col. Thomas J. Kane, whose role in founding EOD has gone largely unnoticed -- that my work deals with Kane specifically is a matter of fact. Bomb disposal veterans and active members -- including a high-ranking CSM -- have read my thesis. I don't think it's too selfish to credit your own work, as long as you are honest about it. Finally, I felt that the British contribution to early EOD far outweighed the U.S. role, given we never experienced anything like the London Blitz. It's just a matter of viewpoint.

On the score of IEDs, I concur with your statement concerning their long-standing existence in warfare. During my research, I learned how the Japanese would improvise landmines out of American UXBs. These would be buried on beachheads, where landing craft would strike metal to metal, detonating the mine. The Nazis were past masters, too! And what about Vietnam?

J_Leatherwood@yahoo.com

What happened?
Why are there two EOD sections? The second is basically USNEOD. What's with the change?

-Shawn

Changes
People are making anonymous changes. I think there needs to be a little discussion before a great deal of revising occurs.

-Shawn

Suggested change on PSBT section
The page looks much better than it did when I first read it last year. One little thing that I noticed in the PSBT: This school helps them to become experts in the detection, diagnosis and disposal of hazardous devices. It's a five week course. It teaches you the basics of being a Tech. It doesn't really even start to make you an expert. I would recommend changing the line to: This school teaches the basics of detection, diagnosis and disposal of hazardous devices. --Eodtek 21:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

experts...
Hi Mike!

I agree with your idea. My phraseology was that the school helped them to BECOME (on the path) experts, not that it necessarily confered that status. Actually, the use of the word expert was a sort of tongue-in-cheek reference towards a discussion elsewhere on whether Techs should refer to themselves as experts at all.

If I change it to "on the path to becoming", would this sound more clear?

Hey Guys

EOD Techs do not consider themselves experts, they're "knowledgeable individuals".

Tyler

Hey Tyler -

I know where what you're saying is coming from. Again, the entry was a poke at the semantics of expert vs knowledgeable. If you testify in a US court on the topic, you will be introduced as an expert witness. High Order1 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

We are the World...
Well, we have been labelled monostatistic. Yes, I made that word up. I've suggested we have sections on other countries' efforts in the arena, but we really haven't gotten anything of merit. Any ideas? -Shawn

My opionion
(moved from the above)

My opinion is that this article is mature and big enough for being split up. If the separation of bomb disposal/EOD is unsuitable I say that a new article should be created on Bomb disposal in the USA. The current focus on one nation, and I acknowledge the high level of influence, is a POV which could violate NPOV. We should try to keep the article to common denominators of what is universially (i.e. internationally) accurate. I have looked for international definitions outside of STANAG and most seem to relate to demining. However, this document has been partially adopted by the UN. It does not mention bomb disposal, but with a clear emphasis on humanitarian demining it defines EOD as:
 * The detection, identification, evaluation, render safe, recovery and disposal of UXO. EOD may be undertaken: 
 * (a) as a routine part of mine clearance operations, upon discovery of the UXO. 
 * (b) to dispose of UXO discovered outside mined areas, (this may be a single UXO, or a larger number inside a specific area). 
 * (c) to dispose of explosive ordnance which has become hazardous by damage or attempted destruction.

Clearly, this is in contrast with Shawn's definition! The fact that there are more than definition means that we have to accomodate for them all.

--Drdan 13:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Please sign your comments

Systemic bias template
Shawn, I think that it is better for us to have the discussion here. The fact that no other country operations have been added does not make the current version correct. All that is required is to rename the heading to "Field operations in the USA". That in combination with a move of the headings: 'The meaning of the United States EOD badge' and 'Initial success or total failure' to an article for Bomb disposal in the USA would be the easiest way to make the article correct.

--Drdan 17:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm....
Hi Drdan.

I find it interesting that when I began shaping this entry, there was very little content or interest here. Now that it has taken flight, there are a lot of vagabond editors wanting to make severe changes to the timbre of the article.

This entry does not violate NPOV. Noone in here is saying one place is better or worse than another.

You are suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


 * I* say this entry stands as is. If others would like to create factual entries here about EOD operations in other countries, they are of course welcome to. I will not allow your anti US and UK sentiments to color this otherwise factual and well-written entry.

The UN has ZERO to do with EOD operations. There are no international standards. Deminers are NOT EOD. Read the definitions in the entry. This is why this article should be left to subject matter experts, and not guessing or googlePHDs. Go back and reread my comment entitled "for instance". I don't see how the UN definition and my explanation are in conflict.

I have no interest in having a discussion on the One World page. I went there to let others hear my point of view.

I respectfully disagree as to your comments about this entry not being correct because it doesn't address Uruguayan EOD. You and others are going to have to deal with the fact that the US and UK started, shaped, and are the leaders in many things. Things are how they are no matter how you attempt to interpret them. There is no waiting list for the Chilean EOD School. Because they send their Technicians here.

Leave your classist mark on the entry. I make no apologies for being US-centric. If you think there is enough data to make Bomb Disposal pages for multiple countries, go ahead. You're wrong. But, don't confuse demining or Public Safety Bomb Disposal with EOD work. It isn't the same, and you are making an error because you do not recognize the correct definitions for the tasks. I promise you, the people who actually do the work will and call you on it.

-Shawn

Changes
Shawn, I do not feel that you are being constructive in this discussion or that you are respectful in your disagreement. I have worked with EOD operations for the UN (together with your countrymen) for several years in Africa and Eastern Europe. After having read your comments I question your international experience. Demining is not EOD (in the US system) but on the international scene, particularly in mine/IED infested missions, EOD outfits are often called upon to do emergency demining.

Let us focus on solutions as to avoid having the polemics going out of control. My suggestion is simple and it will not shake your baby: That solves all the issues! Anyone who wants to can then create similar structures for other countries. A good example of an article with a similar structure is firefighter. We are focusing on describing the tasks involved and not the organisational structure. --Drdan 16:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) We change the heading Fields of operations to say American organisation
 * 2) We move The meaning of the United States EOD badge and "Initial success or total failure" up under the new heading and link to the existing main page on that subject Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge

Fascinating
I'm sorry you don't feel I'm being constructive or respectful.

That's what is great about an opinion, you have yours and I have mine.

EOD units are called upon to do many things in an emergency. This article isn't entitled "What we do in an emergency". You are welcome to stub that out elsewhere based on your peripheral experience.

Demining is NOT EOD. There are barefoot people demining globally every day. When they hit something, they blow it in place, or a former EOD Tech comes around to decide what to do with it. This is something with your vast international experience, I shouldn't have to explain.

So, yes, let us focus on solutions.

Save one paragraph, there is very little in this entry that is NOT US/UK related. I say, we leave the entry as is. At the bottom, we make a new header entitled "EOD Operations in Other Countries." This satifies the globality you are so bent on seeking, while preserving the work I and many others have worked laboriously to create.

Meanwhile, as I have stated repeatedly above, I welcome sections by knowledgeable people on other countries' operations. Use your contacts and have some others come.

On your second point, are you suggesting truncating the section on the EOD Badge in favor of the seperate entry? I went there and looked at it. I believe it is little more than a stub at this point. And, how come you are not over there making them change the entry to "EOD Badges of the World" as it is to you obviously as myopic as this entry?

At any rate, I don't believe a 90% article should be altered to help the other 10% feel better about themselves. I think we should add on other countries as they become available. High Order1 18:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

firefighting page
I went to the firefighting page.

What you seem to be suggesting is a massive rewrite of the topic. There are multiple problems with this, not the least of which is that different countries have different skill sets. It would be very difficult to decide what the core skills would be.

I stand by my original idea of leaving the entry as stands, and adding additional countries as they become available. Which is, by the way, a moot point because there really isn't any other data available at the moment.

What is your actual agenda for wanting such upheaval in this entry??

High Order1 19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Deal?
OK. Let us leave it the way it is for the moment. So long as it has the banner, which you said you were OK with, the end result is half-way what I am after. As for your questions/statements:

Demining is NOT EOD


 * I agreed with you before, and I still do.

Re:Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge


 * The badge concept is a US tradition. To keep with the firefighter metaphor, NYFD is per definition American. If they have a badge, it too can only be American. Firefighting is however not exclusively America. In addition, I find the article about the badge good although it can be expanded. We (or probably those with US service) should expand it.  We should definitely link to it.

Save one paragraph, there is very little in this entry that is NOT US/UK related


 * But as I mentioned above, there are three headings that 'only' talk about the US.

Just to make myself clear. I am not wanting to include how EOD is conducted in e.g. India (there is a guy that keep trying to add crap about that to the article, both you and I have reverted his changes). What I would like to do is to add more info about 'generic' tools and methods. I am not able to add specifics about tools and procedures from my training. Nor can you of yours. That is part of the reason why it would be nice to keep it generic - though edits are still traceable. No matter what, certain items, like the good old disruptor is not a secret nor are pulley-kits. Shaped charges as a concept is something we should link to as well. The list is long.

Now when we have decided not to do any major changes there are a couple of minor issues on the page that you can clear up for me.
 * First para: 'Public Safety Bomb Disposal, PSBT' - Should be Technician or the acronym is wrong?
 * UXO
 * Do you really call the profession 'UXO'? In my mind, dealing with UXO (an item) is part of the skillset of the EOD-tech.  If a civilian does it, it still is an 'EOD activity'.  See how this civilian company phrase it.  My point: UXO is an item, the person who deals with it is called something else.
 * We should link to the UXO page.

With this I will leave you alone for a while. I will check back in in a couple of weeks.

BTW, I have a new user alias (former Drdan)  rxnd  (  t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 21:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dan.

How come you changed your alias?

You know, the US EOD badge is cribbed from the UK one, right? And, many countries now use variations of that badge. I'm not sure that I can agree with your firefighting metaphor. I think it would be a welcomed addition, btw to have the distinctive insignias from other countries here.

The PSBD / PSBT thing, it's a work in progress over here. The overwhelming majority of references to it use the acronym PSBT for the Technician, but discuss it in the generic sense that it is Public Safety Bomb Disposal.

The UXO thing - I am following US Corps of Engineering terminology on that. There are actually levels, UXO I/II/III Tech, SUXO... I agree with you that in the old days, an unexploded object was a UXO, and many still refer to it as that. But, due to CoE and IMAS STANAG work, there is a whole bunch of new definitions, like UER (unexploded remnants) ERW, ad nauseum. The primary difference I see, and the gap is growing, is that a UXO Tech is limited to 'the grid'. An EOD Tech goes anywhere and does anything. And, since you can now never be an EOD Tech, put yourself through a UXO level I school, and go anywhere in the world and do UXO work, I see a significant difference in the capacities. Civilians can't do EOD work. PSBT's can't do EOD work.

I realize that this may seem persnickety, but you will find that very few can be EOD, and they are very close-guarding of this title.

About equipment........ the reason I don't participate in entries such as pipe bomb, IED, and the like, is that I think they discuss things in too great a detail. Even though you can glean certain details of tools and methodology from searching the Internet, these things are closely guarded. And, for good reason. I absolutely do NOT think even a generic treatment of these topics are appropriate for inclusion. I find it a fascinating topic myself, but you have to weigh what the public would like to know versus what will educate a potential adversary and put my fellow brother and sister Techs at risk. In fact, if you have access, you'll find an article I wrote on exactly this topic for the magazine of the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators.

I hope you'll reconsider your interest in proliferating our technology.

As a side discussion, I note your strength is in DP/M. Have you considered starting a wiki entry for Disaster Management?

Cheers,

-Shawn

What Else Do Techs Do?
I made some edits. Civilian Bomb Techs also play a role in VIPPSA's. I won't go into it in an open forum, but it's not totally the domain of the Military EOD Tech.

-Shawn

question
there is a link to a e-commerce site on this page. Is that a use violation?

-Shawn

It would be easier if you'd say which one you object to, or just be bold and remove it. Tom Harrison Talk 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It was (is) the money clip that links to where you can buy one. I don't want to remove it. I support Technicians. I just was unclear on if this was ok, is all.....

-Shawn

changes 9/21/06
In my absence, I note a lot of changes have occurred. Some positive, some no more than vandalism. I have replaced the UXO and PSBT sections, because they are valid and a part of this topic. I re-expanded EOD from Navy EOD to EOD. I recapitalized all instances of Bomb Technician.

And, I will continue to do so.

If you have fresh content, feel free to add. If you are pedantic, obessive/compulsive, or otherwise want to randomly alter a topic because it catches your eye, I will revert it. Over and over.

This is an important entry, and the only one I choose to regularly follow.

Cheers!

-Shawn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by High Order1 (talk • contribs).


 * Thank you for your contributions. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise; you and anyone else is welcome to edit here subject to our policies. These include, among other things, Ownership of articles, Civility, and the Three-revert rule. There are probably other venues available that have different rules. Tom Harrison Talk 18:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

More from the rest of the world?
I'm worried that this page has fallen prey to systemic bias. I'm not attacking the article written so far - rather, I'd love to see more info about bomb disposal regimes and institutions in the rest of the world, apart from the US and UK. What do the Russians do when they have a potential bomb threat? The Chinese? If people can contribute anything on this, it would be awesome. As it is, I get the feeling you could rename this American bomb disposal and it wouldn't be too off topic.

I'd also like to support Ashley Pomeroy's point about not censoring ourselves. As it is, I don't get a detailed idea of just HOW bomb disposal experts defuse bombs. Do they hit them with hammers? Burn them? Take them apart with a toolkit? I mean, I could go through the history and see what juicy details Shawn deleted. Or they could just be in the main article, which is better and simpler. Maybe even a page on Techniques of bomb disposal?

The fact is, Wikipedia isn't here to 'help' bomb disposal experts or terrorists. Wikipedia is here to provide a comprehensive, NPOV source of dictionary relevant information for anyone and everyone. If we can get into the technical details of electronic surveillance and forensics (both of which would give the bad guys plenty of info to think about) we can get into the nitty gritty of bomb disposal. ManicParroT 00:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

= EOD v.s. IEDD v.s. CMD v.s. Bomb Disposal = To add my thoughts and experiences to this.

EOD Explosive Ordanance disposal - blowing up old air dropped munitions, battlefield munitions or mines IEDD Improvised Explosive Device Disposal - Non commerical devices made by terrorists, criminals, cranks etc Bomb Disposal - What the popular and uninstructed world call EOD or IEDD.

Now I have been trained in both EOD and IEDD and worked extensively in both fields (mostly high threat IEDD though), my thoughts are the article should have a more non American bias to it, remember America has only had to put up with terrorism for a couple of years compared to Israel, Germany, Spain, India and the UK, and therefore is very inexperienced compared to other countries.Snozzer 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we can take it for granted that the people who choose to follow this page know something about the subject. There is no need for any bias; we should be able to include information about US, UK, and any other eod operations, as far as there are reliable sources for the material and people want to include it. Tom Harrison Talk 19:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The article presents EOD and IEDD as though they are two equal parts of "military bomb disposal." In my experience, EOD is an umbrella term which includes IEDD and Conventional Munitions Disposal (CMD). This distinction exists within the Canadian Military. In the UK military, the same distinction can be found but with the addition of Biological and Chemical Munitions Disposal (BCMD). I have not investigated published US references on the topic, but when speaking with US operators they seemed to understand the same distinctions as I intended them to understand. I would propose that within the article, EOD should be defined as the umbrella term within which both CMD and IEDD reside. --MCG (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

IEDD merge/redirect
Suggest that Improvised Explosive Device Disposal redirect here - that article consists of only a single sentence and a 'see also'. - RJASE1 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree – redirect it to this page. --Deon Steyn 06:49, 5 March 2007

Split It Up
EOD, Police Bomb Squad, UXO, and IEDD or Hazardous Device Disposal should all be their own page. The bottom line is that one page cannot accurately describe each individual job. Plus, if you simplify one page and call it Bomb Disposal, no one will ever agree that "Bomb Disposal" is the proper title.

One other thing, I'm an American and all of us in EOD know that our program was styled after the British UXB soldiers from WWII. So enough babble about who's country does more work or who is more experienced. I would say it is pretty clear that the US EOD folks are gaining plenty of experience over in the desert.

-Zach

Separate Article for EOD!
I think that EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) should be a separate article from "Bomb Squad". They do perform similar tasks, but they are different. I believe that they deserve a separate section.

What does everyone think?

Ddawg07

Should this be split along civilian bomb disposal v.s. military EOD?
Does it make sense to group both military EOD with civilian bomb disposal and humanitarian munitions disposal? --MCG (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

= Disappointing =

I've tried to stay out of here.

When I came to this entry, there was very little. I have tried to cultivate this into something worthy.

Instead, I see people who know nothing, and can contribute nothing but inaccuracies altering the tone of the document.

"If we can get into the technical details of electronic surveillance and forensics (both of which would give the bad guys plenty of info to think about) we can get into the nitty gritty of bomb disposal. "

I went to the ELSUR page. There's nothing technical there. I don't feel like I could read that page and then conduct any kind of surveillance. In fact, it's patently obvious that the article in reference was created by those who've no direct knowledge of the subject, and have watched way, way, WAY too many movies.

Let me make this clear for you, Parrot. Nobody died from a Technical Surveillance operation. Many people are killed each year from bombs and bombings. Adding details of how Bomb Technicians operate do NOTHING but put Technicians in danger. Period.

Snozzer - "EOD Explosive Ordanance disposal".... before you go casting stones, you should look at your own house. It's ORDNANCE, not ordanance. Can you spell wanker? How about Rupert?

Thank you for transforming the article into a Britrocentric one. Now, lets' hear everyone complain that it is too British. Or, would the lack of complaints reveal wiki's anti-American sentiment?

"remember America has only had to put up with terrorism for a couple of years"

The level of smugness is incredible. This is why you all have such trouble getting UXO work on CoE contracts. Cheers!

Tom - I have tried to keep this on track for a few years now. I am tired of arguing. They win. Wiki has had enough negative publicity to last a lifetime as of late. I promise you articles like these, allowed to go in the direction some would have it, will do nothing but bring more trouble to the community.

I can't be an official part of anything that will wind up hurting Technicians, and that's the direction I see this going. Consider me no longer contributing to this topic.

-Shawn High Order1


 * Thank you "TheNose | Talk" 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

=A new section on Detection= Davy p 17:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a better heading would be Search, Part of the 4 C's.... "Snorkel | Talk" 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the main focus of 'bomb disposal' is getting rid of the things. There is nevertheless a whole area that is relevant but which presently doesn't immediately seem to be addressed in the disposal pages: that of detection. Perhaps this aspect needs a new Wiki page in its own right (I can't immediately see one searching for [bomb detection] or needs existing pages to be made more prominent in links within this section The greater proportion of real-world incidents, sadly, seems to be from landmines and cluster bomblets; so mention of, or links to pages describing, how these are located before they do unwarranted damage would not be inappropriate.

For example: Bees have been used to detect landmines. A hive is placed at the edge of an area potentially laced with mines, previously unfamiliar to the bees so that they search in all directions. The bees forage over a radius of something like a mile or two (1 to 3 km) and traces of explosives that they carry back to the hive with the pollen they collect can be detected with sensitive equipment. If no traces of explosive are detected, it is presumed safe to move on and transfer the hive further into the uncharted area.

Similarly, rats are now being trained to detect explosive devices. On my own part I don't particularly like the idea that some of the rats will inadvertently set off one of the devices they have been trained to detect. Neither do I like the idea that any creature should be trained by computer, as apparently they are, for this task. But I can't easily deny that it's better that a rat should be sacrificed than a child.

Hmm... maybe this isn't the place for moralising, but I do think that a section or sections on detection should be added/referenced/linked; more prominently than at present, if I have failed to spot it/them in the present page. A case might also be made for a disambiguation page which leads 'bomb disposal' optionally to the SALT talks on mutual reduction of stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Ah me... someone did ask for review ... please let me know if review talk should be added elsewhere. Davy p 19:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To dispose of a bomb, you must first find the damm thing. Whether it is proactive detection (sniffers etc), chance find by public, intelligence etc, you must first identify you have a bomb (or at least a credible threat), then into the 4 C's before you start any RSP's

The 4 C's

 * Confim
 * Clear
 * Cordon
 * Control
 * "Snorkel | Talk" 12:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

= Picture =




 * I doubt it would add anything to the article at all. It shows nothing of importance, in fact it is quite misleading as it shows 2 EOD operators, so breaches the 1 man rule anyhow.  They are probably just stood around talking. Gimpmask 12:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

= EOD Equipment =

It might just be me, but I think that this section is fairly useless. It throws out about 1% of the EOD tools and equipment used by Techs the world over with no real explanations, and as such just looks like it was thrown together as an afterthought. I suggest either removing it entirely, or sufficiently expanding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.198.241.63 (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I merged in Pigstick and redirected it here, and removed wirecutters, etc. Tom Harrison Talk 22:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the SOG EOD MultiTool can be added. Its made especially for bomb disposal units —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.186.90 (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

robots
besides disposal, aren't there robots capable of making bombs? This is useful eg for exploding mines and hazardous old bombs that are still dangerous, yet do not explode when driven on. Making a bomb, quickly on the spot to disable the device is then an option, but mixing the volatile compounds yourself could still be dangerous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.179.95 (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Vehicles
The EOD equipment section lacks any mention of specialised vehicles used in this role. It would be informative to add a little information about them, as well as a link to the Emergency vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_vehicle article. --Dreddmoto (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

= Wires =

In movies and TV shows, bomb defusers trying to defuse time bombs are often faced with two wires, not knowing which to cut to avoid the bomb going off. Is this an accurate part of bomb disposal? Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Danger UXB series
Someone has uploaded some of the 1979 Danger UXB TV series to YouTube here: if anyone is curious as to how the British learnt to defuze German bombs. Although it's a drama the technical details are reasonably accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And if anyone wants to see what defuzing a completely unknown type of enemy sea mine (in this case, a German magnetic one) is like, there's a re-enactment of the process (using the actual mine recovered) in the "The Deadly Waves" episode of the 1977 The Secret War series on YouTube here: . The man who did it was Lt Cdr John Ouvry from HMS Vernon, and he describes the process himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A 1974 BBC UK documentary; "The Bomb Disposal Men" here: - the reporter is Jack Pizzey.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bomb disposal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150717160839/http://www.army.mod.uk/rlc/regiments/8731.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/rlc/regiments/8731.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110608002417/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5011A2EB-8ADD-4E1D-87EA-E7C40D61B2DA/0/20071218_jdp2_02_U_DCDCIMAPPS.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5011A2EB-8ADD-4E1D-87EA-E7C40D61B2DA/0/20071218_jdp2_02_U_DCDCIMAPPS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bomb disposal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626061856/http://www.eod.navy.mil:80/ to http://www.eod.navy.mil
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714112107/http://www.mondial-defence.com/2011/Products/Pigstick.html to http://www.mondial-defence.com/2011/Products/Pigstick.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

999
Why does this article not state that you can call 999 to get the bomb disposal unit? Sausagea1000 (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably because as far as I'm aware that only applies to the UK.


 * And you would ask for the 'Police', as it is usually they who, in turn, would contact the Royal Logistic Corps in cases of suspected bombs or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.184 (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bomb disposal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717065350/http://www.saabgroup.com/sm-eod to http://www.saabgroup.com/sm-eod

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bomb squad
Brus 2601:201:8200:E260:9826:375F:6B1C:3427 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Police role in Bomb diposal
This article does not discuss the police role in Bomb disposal. In peacetime situations, the local police are the normal agency who are notified of, or detect, explosives that need Bomb disposal action. This can range from IEDs built for criminal reasons to suspected unexploded ordinance that has been kept as souvenirs or explosives used for civilian purposes that have been accidentally damaged or misused. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)