Caradoc

Given how they treat their gloves, I wouldn't bet on that water remaining "distilled" or "uncontaminated" past opening.

FliesWay2Much

If I didn't have a day job, I would try to crash the party at a DHS or industry-sponsored trade show. I would pose as a school principal who wanted to test student drinks or perhaps a concert promoter who wanted to do the same. I would lead them down the discussion path of seeing the TSA using them at airports and asking the vendors how, or if, they worked.

TSORon

One word. Vapor. Unless of course you are claiming that hydrogen peroxide does not produce vapors, in which case I have to ask what methods you use as a “professional”.

They don’t detect “explosives”, they detect chemicals. That detection means that a more in-depth investigation is needed. That’s all.

Like the ETD systems we use, they can be programed to detect just about any chemical. The US Coast Guard uses the same ETD technology to detect drug traces on interdicted vessels. They are looking for drugs and have their units programed to do so, the TSA is not looking for drugs and our units are not programed for it.

ND Sol

Ron, any comments on this thread?

GaryD

You again claim that "they [TSA strips] detect chemicals," but you never answer BubbaLoop's question, from June 9:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18894842-post54.html:

Why ever not?

mulieri

Hydrogen peroxide is naturally unstable. At high enough concentrations, it would produce a lot of toxic vapor that would be extremely harmful to the person carrying it in an "open" container. If placed in a common "sealed" container, like a water bottle. The bottle would explode due to the vapor pressure on the bottle wall.

In either event, the person attempting to carry the sufficiently strong hydrogen peroxide would suffer consequences long before getting to the airport. Likewise, if the solution were dilute enough to carry, it could still be harmful as it could still be a power oxidizing agent, but would not be able to cause an explosion that would take down a commercial aircraft. Perhaps L. Ron Hubbard wrote a story about hydrogen peroxide taking down an airplane.



Also, the ETD does not, I repeat, does not detect chemicals. It only detects chemical signatures (functional groups). It can not differentiat between the chemical signature that might be, for example, in certain hand lotions versus the same chemical signature of an explosive. This is why there are so many false positives.


Clearly, Ron is not an expert on this subject.

BubbaLoop

Shure you can vaporize H2O2 - there are machines that do that specifically to sterilize environments. But a normal solution of H2O2 does not release any detectible level of vapors. The boiling point of H2O2 is 150 C, quite a lot higher than water. Add to that the fact that strips have low sensitivity and you have a chemical impossibility.

But thanks for confirming that the strips are indeed intended to detect hydrogen peroxide. That confirms to me that this is really security theater. As I stated before, there is no test strip that can detect peroxides by being waved above a flask of a peroxide solution. And I have pretty good knowledge in this particular field.

Coffee is a soup of chemicals. So is tea. The air is full of chemicals, such as nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide. Obviously, these strips are supposed to respond to a particular group of chemicals, which you now confirmed to be peroxides.

I´m waiting on that too.

Pesky Monkey

As is the rest of the world.

eastport

No doubt the strips are sensitive to the decomposition products of hydrogen peroxide... that would explain the need for distilled water.

InkUnderNails

H2O2, hydrogen and oxygen. Both are found in their free state in air. That's it unless it reacts with something and then it becomes rather obvious.

2 H2O2 → 2 H2O + O2

eastport

Perhaps I was being a little too subtle...

RadioGirl

For those of us who found chemistry our least favorite science but got an A anyway, maybe not.

For an organization full of people who are uncertain as to whether 3 is, or is not, the same as 3.4 and who reckon that ounces (fluid) are pretty much the same as ounces (avoirdupois), yeah, it was too subtle.

reamworks

How do they handle the guest's beverage when they do this test? Do they touch the "lip" of the bottle with their hands at all? I wouldn't want to put my mouth back on that after the TSA touched it! Think of all the diseases--from hepatitis to herpes--that you could get from a TSA agent.

InkUnderNails

Perhaps I was a bit dense.

WillCAD

But Ron, they don't detect drugs, they detect chemicals.

Besides, this discussion is not about "units" or anything "programmable". This discussion is about dipsticks (and no, that is not, in this context, a disparaging euphemism for TSOs).

I am no chemistry expert, but from everything I've read, coupled with my conversations with a degreed chemist with whom I work, there is no paper test strip that can detect the signatures of the compnonent chemicals in explosives, which does not require physical contact with the tested material.

In plainer language, Ron, there ain't no such thing as a "vapor test strip" that can detect explosives or their consituent chemicals by waving it in the air above a liquid. It doesn't exist, and any claim to the contrary likely originated from the south end of a northbound Bovine.

Having seen some of the pure, unadulterated stupidity that TSA has put forth in recent years as "policy", I can imagine that someone, somewhere, bought some chemical test strips and said, "Hey, now we can test stuff in the steril area for explosives!" But either they A) misunderstood the instructions and actually thought that the strips could work without physical contact, or B) they know the strips don't work without physical contact, but are deliberately ignoring that fact in order to avoid potential troubles arising from TSOs actually dipping the strips into drinks.