We appreciate Bob being "picky" in examining our article on applying a public-health approach to demining. The lives at stake in demining are worth the extra care. As it happens, we generally agree with his views.
First, let’s do get our terminology straight. Thanks, Bob, for the lesson in British diction. We had hoped that placing the modifier mechanical before detonator would make our intentions clear. That it did not, we apologize to our readers. More substantive issues await us.
As Bob rightly points out, our ideas are not new. The public-health/cost-benefit approach predates the birth of everyone reading these words and using detonation devices to map mine fields is likewise not fresh. Plenty of deminers apply both of these techniques. Our purpose in writing the article was to memorialize the principles involved, and thereby educate and even convince people who have not joined the choir, of whom there are many.
Wolf, Daniel and Barmazel, Steven
"Response to Bob Keeley’s Letter to the Journal of Mine Action,"
Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction: Vol. 5
, Article 30.
Available at: http://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal/vol5/iss3/30