Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - What happens to liquids after they are confiscated

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2012/07/11/what-happens-to-liquids-surrendered-at-airport-security/

In short, liquids seized at larger airports are more dangerous than liquids seized at smaller airports.

TSA spokesman Nico Melendez told me “If someone is caught taking something that doesn’t belong to them, they’d be terminated, and I think their career and their weekly paycheck is more important to them than any inanimate object that they could just go down to the store and buy.” Plus, he says, as a practical matter, “a bottle of champagne is a little hard to hide when you’re working a security checkpoint.”

Chuckle, chuckle.

In short, liquids seized at larger airports are more dangerous than liquids seized at smaller airports.

Depending, of course, on how thirsty the TSA clerks are.

Simple. The dangerous bottles of water are put in a trashcan next to all of the other dangerous bottles of water.

Simple. The dangerous bottles of water are put in a trashcan next to all of the other dangerous bottles of water.

Interesting isn't it? The dangerous explosives are piled in the trash right at the checkpoint where, at any moment, they could spontaneously combust and maim or kill the hundreds of waiting pax. Not to mention a few TS "O"s.

But later in a remote back room with no pax and only a few employees, the shampoo and water are packed into safe and secure hazmat barrels and sealed.

Reminds me of something about runaway horses and locking the barn door...

At LAX, liquids are [...] transferred to large, blue hazmat barrels with metal seals [...] At smaller airports [...] these liquids might just be tossed in the trash and collected like other refuse.

Probably the TSO really did establish that water and shampoo in over 100ml containers pose much more danger to the public at LAX than at SNA. I'd just love to see the research papers on that - but they're probably classified.

At one airport, I wish I cold remember which one, unopened bottles were donated to charity.

It's not safe enough to take on the plane, but it's safe enough to give to the needy.

This baffled me so much at the time that I commented - the response I got was this strange look of puzzlement and the comment, "I hadn't thought of that."

Is it security, or just crazy?

I wonder if TSA is unencumbered by rational thinking. ;)

Interesting isn't it? The dangerous explosives are piled in the trash right at the checkpoint where, at any moment, they could spontaneously combust and maim or kill the hundreds of waiting pax. Not to mention a few TS "O"s.

But later in a remote back room with no pax and only a few employees, the shampoo and water are packed into safe and secure hazmat barrels and sealed.

Reminds me of something about runaway horses and locking the barn door...

Personally I would love for them to call the bomb squad. "Come quick, there is a bottle of Fiji water!" The fact that the don't call the bomb squad shows that they know it isn't a bomb so why is it that we aren't allowed to take it on the plane?

At one airport, I wish I cold remember which one, unopened bottles were donated to charity.

In such a foolish city pax can carry a "special" 12 ounce shampoo bottle for the checkpoint to confiscate. Until the local news reports on the strange epidemic of people at the local charity with green hair due to recycled food color from an unknown source. :rolleyes:

I guess government employees are exempt from the legal liability lawsuits.
Lawyer: "How do you dispose of hazmat?"
TSO: "We pour it on homeless people." :td:

One more than one occasion, I have seen a Screener retrieve, what from a distance appear to be high-end, items from the surrender bin and place them carefully behind the podium or partition, depending on the configuration of the checkpoint.

Fragrance bottles are pretty easy to spot.