Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Food but not liquids?

I'm no security expert but why can we bring food onboard but not liquids? Surely one could just as easily make explosives out of food?

Because it isn´t really about keeping us safe.

I'm no security expert but why can we bring food onboard but not liquids? Surely one could just as easily make explosives out of food?

It's about the liquid bomb plot. The "threat" is hydrogen peroxide. Food won't contain hydrogen peroxide. Never mind that you can't convert hydrogen peroxide to TATP on an airplane.

It's about the liquid bomb plot. The "threat" is hydrogen peroxide. Food won't contain hydrogen peroxide. Never mind that you can't convert hydrogen peroxide to TATP on an airplane.

Actually, you can put just about any liquid chemical onto a solid structure, using porous solids as a type of scaffolding. Also, you can easily generate hydrogen peroxide from solids such as percarbonate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_percarbonate). There are plenty of peroxides (not hydrogen) that are solid at room temperature (calcium peroxide is an example). And many compounds that are not peroxides but that can generate a good explosion (such as metalic sodium) are solids.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about the liquid state of matter. The liquid madness makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. It is about control, theatrics, and the need to maintain jobs created for make-believe threats.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about the liquid state of matter.

Is bringing your own blood OK? I mean, inside your body like it normally is.

Actually, you can put just about any liquid chemical onto a solid structure, using porous solids as a type of scaffolding. Also, you can easily generate hydrogen peroxide from solids such as percarbonate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_percarbonate). There are plenty of peroxides (not hydrogen) that are solid at room temperature (calcium peroxide is an example). And many compounds that are not peroxides but that can generate a good explosion (such as metalic sodium) are solids.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about the liquid state of matter. The liquid madness makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. It is about control, theatrics, and the need to maintain jobs created for make-believe threats.

What's to stop someone using a travel-size Listerine bottle in a quart-size bag from boarding a 3.4 ounce bottle of peroxide?

What's to stop someone using a travel-size Listerine bottle in a quart-size bag from boarding a 3.4 ounce bottle of peroxide?

You're not the first person to make this point. While there is nothing in theory about filling a bunch of 100 mL / 3.4 fl oz containers in your 1 L / 1 qt bag with whatever liquids you desire, the TSA has mentioned multiple times that it would take a lot more fluid in aggregate to be a problem. It is because of this logic that one can fill 10x 100 mL bottles for a total of 1 L of liquid but can't bring two 500 mL water bottles through the checkpoint. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, Kip Hawley has said that the technology is in place to test liquids everywhere, but the TSA doesn't have the desire to do the extra work necessary to test the liquids in addition to the revenue protection model that has been in place for the last six years for the post-security vendors. I'm assuming the test for liquids would be an ETD swab, similar to how medical and formula liquids are tested now.

Is bringing your own blood OK? I mean, inside your body like it normally is.

Don't clue the TSA in that we are all carrying blood. They will set up "donation stations" because 5 quarts is much larger than 100 ml, so it must be a security threat.

Actually, you can put just about any liquid chemical onto a solid structure, using porous solids as a type of scaffolding. Also, you can easily generate hydrogen peroxide from solids such as percarbonate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_percarbonate). There are plenty of peroxides (not hydrogen) that are solid at room temperature (calcium peroxide is an example). And many compounds that are not peroxides but that can generate a good explosion (such as metalic sodium) are solids.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about the liquid state of matter. The liquid madness makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. It is about control, theatrics, and the need to maintain jobs created for make-believe threats.

Note the quotes around "threat"? I know the whole thing is a joke.

What's to stop someone using a travel-size Listerine bottle in a quart-size bag from boarding a 3.4 ounce bottle of peroxide?

or ten "friends" taking a flight together each having that...

What's to stop someone using a travel-size Listerine bottle in a quart-size bag from boarding a 3.4 ounce bottle of peroxide?

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/24fc3124ab/homeland-security-refresher-on-liquids-and-gels-snl

Note the quotes around "threat"? I know the whole thing is a joke.

Sorry Loren. This is just a point that makes my blood boil (and therefore no longer liquid...).

Sorry Loren. This is just a point that makes my blood boil (and therefore no longer liquid...).

With subsequent rapid volume expansion, making you a bomb on legs! I guess we all ARE threats.

Actually, you can put just about any liquid chemical onto a solid structure, using porous solids as a type of scaffolding. Also, you can easily generate hydrogen peroxide from solids such as percarbonate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_percarbonate). There are plenty of peroxides (not hydrogen) that are solid at room temperature (calcium peroxide is an example). And many compounds that are not peroxides but that can generate a good explosion (such as metalic sodium) are solids.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about the liquid state of matter. The liquid madness makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. It is about control, theatrics, and the need to maintain jobs created for make-believe threats.
In other words, to answer the OP, it's because the TSA knows nothing, NOTHING (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058812/quotes?qt0214308), about chemistry. And they assume no one else does, either.
Furthermore, Kip Hawley has said that the technology is in place to test liquids everywhere, but the TSA doesn't have the desire to do the extra work necessary to test the liquids in addition to the revenue protection model that has been in place for the last six years for the post-security vendors. I'm assuming the test for liquids would be an ETD swab, similar to how medical and formula liquids are tested now.
Step into this time machine, over here:

IdiotBoy Hawley: "Liquid limits to be eliminated soon (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/07/conversation_wi_4.html), no, wait, uhh 2009 (http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/10/path-forward-on-liquids.html), actually, I'm outta here."

TSA Spokes-idiot Sterling Payne in Sept 2009 (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-09-08-liquids-ban_N.htm): "Liquid limits for at least another year."

Blogdad Bob in Oct 2009 (http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/tsa-to-receive-355-million-for-airport.html): "We haven't really figured out how to screen medically necessary liquids much less shampoo and water. Don't hold your breath."

Tagesschau.de (http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/handgepaeck102.html): "Liquid limits to be eliminated in 2012."

RadioGirl's prediction: It will always be "2 or 3 years from now".

RadioGirl's prediction: It will always be "2 or 3 years from now".

I think your prediction is going to be accurate. As I recall the ban was supposed to go away in 2009 or 2010 within the EU but was extended another three years. It seems to always be on the cusp of going away, but when the deadline approaches, it's extended. Compare it to the PATRIOT Act in the US. There's always some debate when provisions come up against the sunset clauses, but they have thus far always been renewed.

However, in the event the liquid restrictions are lifted in the US, what do you want to bet that many other countries will follow suit, even if they lack the equipment to test the liquids? That is to say, the mentality will be, "Well, the US says liquids are ok now, so we'll allow them again." The takeaway is that liquids were not dangerous before August 2006 and after that future date, but they were only dangerous during that interval.

However, in the event the liquid restrictions are lifted in the US, what do you want to bet that many other countries will follow suit, even if they lack the equipment to test the liquids? That is to say, the mentality will be, "Well, the US says liquids are ok now, so we'll allow them again." The takeaway is that liquids were not dangerous before August 2006 and after that future date, but they were only dangerous during that interval.
Well, living in a country where there are no liquid restrictions on domestic flights and where restrictions on outgoing* int'l flights are rather grudgingly administered, I think you're right. Too many countries are playing along because the US bullies them into it, not because they really believe there's a threat.

(*The oddity for Australian travel is that airports like HKG and AUH don't allow liquids purchased airside on int'l flights to Australia. Other countries seem to be more rigorous in enforcing these nonsense rules - on behalf of Australia - than Australia itself is.)

(*The oddity for Australian travel is that airports like HKG and AUH don't allow liquids purchased airside on int'l flights to Australia. Other countries seem to be more rigorous in enforcing these nonsense rules - on behalf of Australia - than Australia itself is.)

I never understood this because, and I don't think that it is an official rule. In fact, the repeated message in some terminals is "items purchased beyond the checkpoint may be carried aboard the aircraft." I know HKG has some cursory gate checks for US bound flights, regardless of carrier, but I've never seen across-the-board gate checks in SYD for US-bound flights for the four times I have flown SYD-LAX in the last two years. I know they have the setup at gates 9 and 10 and pull some people aside, but I don't think they will take liquids purchased airside. Perhaps US flagged carriers get closer scrutiny.

I never understood this because, and I don't think that it is an official rule. In fact, the repeated message in some terminals is "items purchased beyond the checkpoint may be carried aboard the aircraft." I know HKG has some cursory gate checks for US bound flights, regardless of carrier, but I've never seen across-the-board gate checks in SYD for US-bound flights for the four times I have flown SYD-LAX in the last two years. I know they have the setup at gates 9 and 10 and pull some people aside, but I don't think they will take liquids purchased airside. Perhaps US flagged carriers get closer scrutiny.
My last US-bound flight from SYD was mid-2008 and, like you, I don't remember any extra security, just the regular checkpoint used for all int'l flights.

The liquid check at SYD int'l main checkpoint is not too bad (given that the liquid restrictions are irrational in themselves); I've seen people allowed through with clear plastic toiletry bags (rather than a ziplock) and with a single liquid item (mascara, I think) without a bag. That is, a bit of common sense in a nonsensical process. And liquids bought after the checkpoint can be carried on board; I usually buy a few bottles of water for the first long leg towards Europe.

In contrast, HKG and AUH have liquids for sale beyond the checkpoint and a sign at the SYD-bound boarding gate that "because of US and Australian regulations" no liquids (> 100 ml) are allowed on board. While the search was pretty cursory (open bag, peer inside), they were confiscating (or sheeple were surrendering :rolleyes:) a lot of water bottles. On SIN-SYD, security is at the gate so the effect is the same. OTOH, on NRT-SYD, I don't think there were extra checks at the gate.

I don't know whether there's really an Australian regulation that says you can't take liquids purchased airside on an inbound Australian flight (but you can for outbound flights?), or whether TPTB are misinterpreting something.