Clearing Explosives, 1915

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Reported in Scientific American, this Week in World War I: November 13, 1915

The first two months of World War I saw intense, desperate fighting between French and German armies in Alsace-Lorraine. After the battle of Grand Couronée ended in September 1914, the fighting in the northeast corner of France eventually moved on to the pivotal town of Verdun. The French Department of Meurthe-et-Moselle, to the south of Verdun, never became a quiet sector, but the front lines there stabilized, and for the rest of the war, changed little. The farmers moved back to reclaim fields that were now sown with unexploded shells left over from ferocious artillery bombardments: between a quarter and a third of all the shells fired in World War I were duds.

In 1915 the French authorities turned to technology that had initially been developed to solve the result of violence that took place in 1881. An assassin had shot U.S. President James A. Garfield shortly after he took office in 1881. The bullet remained lodged in Garfield’s torso, and Alexander Graham Bell had constructed a simple metal detector to try and find it (and unfortunately, failed). That same technology was now employed in France:


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


When the erstwhile battlefields of Europe are reclaimed for the peaceful purposes of agriculture, there is an ever-present risk of death or serious injury to both the farmers and their horses as the result of plowshares coming in contact with buried shells that have failed to explode when fired. The instrument that has been devised by the French for the detection of buried shells is an adaptation of the Hughes induction balance. The original instrument was made by Professor C. Gutton at the request of the prefect of the Department of Meurthe-et-Moselle, and with it the constructor was able to detect the presence of a small caliber shell at a depth of about 40 centimeters (nearly 16 inches).
A more modern metal detector from 1946, after anti-personnel mines had become a major battlefield weapon in World War II.
Image: Scientific American, March 1946

Those same fields are still littered with live ordnance: hundreds of tons of shells, bombs and grenades are still cleared by farmers every year—the “iron harvest”—from former battlefields in France and Belgium.

-

Our full archive of the war, called Scientific American Chronicles: World War I, has many articles from 1914–1918 the technology of the First World War. It is available for purchase at www.scientificamerican.com/products/world-war-i/

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe