Most of the author’s recent research has been dedicated to devising
practical improvements for deminers. To this end, the author pioneered visor
production in Africa under a charitable Technology Transfer programme in 1997,
added body armour aprons to that work in 1998, and completed a programme to
prove and establish African production of improved protective equipment and
safer hand tools in June 2000. In order to remain genuinely independent, the
author takes no profit from the exploitation of his practical designs. The
following paper draws on information derived from my field research in demining
over the past six years, and from the incident data in the AVS Database of
Demining Incident Victims (DDIV). The DDIV resulted from work I carried out in
1998 and 1999 for the US DoD as part of their CECOM NVESD Humanitarian Demining
research initiative. It covers demining incidents that occurred in Angola,
Afghanistan, Mozambique, Kosovo, Cambodia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Laos, and
Zimbabwe.
The threat to deminers at work
Opinions of risk vary, but the detail in the DDIV
allows a relatively objective assessment by providing a record of the activities
and the mines that have constituted the greatest risk in the past. For example,
it has been said that there is a greater risk when demining in areas with
minimum metal AP blast mines than in areas where the mines are easier to detect.
This commonsense view is not confirmed by the evidence. In the vast majority of
demining “missed-mine” incidents, the mine was a PMN, PMN-2 or
PPM-2, all of which have a large metal content.
Very simply, in terms of mines causing deaths in demining, bounding (jumping)
fragmentation mines head the list, followed by AP blast mines, then larger
mines, IEDs and UXO. Bounding fragmentation mines are only a very small
proportion of the mines found in any theatre and cause a hugely disproportionate
number of fatalities at close range. Blast mines are by far the most common
mines found in any theatre (excluding Laos). Incidents with blast mines are
rarely fatal, and when they are, the incident unusually involved handling a
device, stepping on a device while squatting over it, or falling onto a device.
Incidents with AT mines are rare, but have invariably killed the deminer
initiating the mine.
Areas of the body at risk
In the DDIV, injuries are classed as either Severe or Minor. Injuries likely
to be life threatening, to require surgery or to result in permanent disability
are rated as Severe. All others are rated as Minor. This distinction is for
convenience and is not intended to reflect on the discomfort and/or hardship
associated with the injury.
For the whole database (covering all device types), the following injuries
occur:
Severe
Minor
Eye
60
37
Face
19
100
Head
17
16
Neck
5
23
Head & neck = 101 severe injuries
Severe
Minor
Amputation
Hand
34
84
8
Arm
25
66
13
Finger
-
-
26
Upper limb = 106 severe injuries
Severe
Minor
Amputation
Leg
40
94
63
Foot
17
10
9
Toes
-
-
1
Lower limb = 130 severe injuries
Severe
Minor
Body
13
36
Chest
18
37
Genital
11
5
Trunk = 42 severe injuries
The difference between the threat to the head and upper limbs is that between
101 and 106, which is not significant. The jump to 130 for the lower limb injury
may be significant, and illustrates that the Missed-mine risk is real and
generally results in a severe injury. The large drop to 40 for trunk/body injury
is also significant, illustrating clearly that the main torso is not at threat
to the same degree as the limbs and the head.
The single most frequent area of severely disabling injury is to the eyesight
of deminers, which can be lost when no other significant injury occurs.
Activity at time of risk
The most common activity at the time of an
incident is “excavation”. An "excavation incident" occurs while a
deminer is investigating a detector reading or digging in a suspect area with a
prodder, trowel, bayonet, pick, hoe or shovel. Severe injuries usually occur
when the tool is very short or breaks up in the blast. Where the tool is well
designed and the deminer’s face is protected, severe injuries do not
occur.
Excavation often has to take place in hard ground. Sometimes water is used to
soften the surface, but the quantities needed to make a real difference on most
soils are rarely available and the water often only serves to keep the dust
down. Since excavation must be done, the risk of detonating a particular
sensitive or tilted device is often considered to be unavoidable.
But if some excavation incidents are unavoidable, some excavation techniques
are particularly dangerous, such as using a pick or a shovel. These are not
“approved” tools but the fact that they were used indicates a
supervisory lapse. All deminers are, after all, supposedly supervised and
appropriate supervision could have prevented these incidents.
Some excavation tools increase the severity of injury when an incident
occurs. When a short AK bayonet is used to chip away at hard ground, the
user’s hand is so close to any detonation that he has a high risk of
severe injury. In some cases, the tool itself breaks up and the blade or shards
of the handle hit the deminer. When they hit him in the face, they can kill. The
deminer does not choose his tools. The organization that issues him with tooling
so inappropriate that it exacerbates injury in an unavoidable incident is at
fault.
The next most common activity is treading on a “Missed-mine”. A
missed-mine incident occurs when a victim initiates a device that he or other
members of the survey or demining group failed to locate during their normal
work and which consequently was in an area that the demining group considered
safe. Most professionals in the industry agree that a missed-mine indicates a
lapse in the system: either the deminers did not apply the system properly (so
were poorly supervised) or the clearance system itself was inadequate. The
professionals’ view is supported by the evidence in the DDIV which
indicates that most missed-mine incidents involved mines that were readily
detectable with the detectors used – if in good working order.
The next most common activity is “handling”. A "handling
incident" occurs when the victim was holding the device immediately prior to the
detonation whether this was for examination, disarming or another purpose. Many
groups reject render-safe procedures and destroy all finds in-situ. This is the
UN view, but not one held by all. A few groups routinely disarm, using a
“pulling” technique first to ensure that the device has not been
booby-trapped. One commercial group finding mines in very large numbers (300 a
day) uses a new technique to pick-up the mines remotely and place them together
for destruction in pits. This saves them a good deal of time and the cost of
multiple demolition charges.
The next most common incident is classed as “victim inattention”
– or “out-to-lunch”. A "victim inattention" incident occurs
when the victim behaves in a manner that is apparently thoughtless, such as
stepping outside the cleared area, or not looking where he was going. In some
cases, the victim was a supervisor and this may be taken to imply poor selection
or training. In some cases the supervisor should have noticed that the victim
was sick (in one case “drunk”) and prevented his working.
This paper is too short to provide detailed argument of some of the issues
under discussion. I suggest readers refer to the DDIV itself and make their own
informed judgment on any contentious issue. The DDIV is available on CD.
Contact avs@landmines.demon.co.uk
About Us
Our Research Products