Investigation into TSA non-dipping test strips
#46
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
Just a thought.
It might be worthwhile when we see these gentlemen doing their magic waving show - to follow them. I'm sure that sooner or later they'll discard the spent strips, or even the container into the trash. Might be worthwhile doing some trash bin diving.
I doubt they have the discipline to 'collect their brass'
It might be worthwhile when we see these gentlemen doing their magic waving show - to follow them. I'm sure that sooner or later they'll discard the spent strips, or even the container into the trash. Might be worthwhile doing some trash bin diving.
I doubt they have the discipline to 'collect their brass'
#47
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 219
Honestly, if they ask to test my drink, I'm telling them to 'follow me' while I walk back over to where I bought it and tell the clerk working there that I want my money back because the TSA questions the safety of their products. Loudly enough for EVERYONE in line to hear, and everyone at any nearby establishments. If enough people did this, then the businesses in the sterile areas will complain and maybe this BS will stop.
#48
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 219
And maybe we should be writing more letters to our Congressers and the oversight committees asking WHY the products being sold in the sterile areas are not subject to ANY testing before being allowed to be sold, leading the TSA to believe that passengers are in danger from chemical-laced products being purchased in the sterile area. They should be tested at the point of sale, not AFTER sale.
#49
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Ron,
I went back and looked at the briefing. The TSA logo was all over it. If the briefing was given at the DHS level, I would have given them a pass about detecting drugs, money, and -- I forgot the first time -- media (i.e.: books, CDs, DVDs). But, since this was clearly a TSA briefing given by a TSA briefer, I can only conclude that it is the TSA's policy to search for these non-prohibited items. Perhaps the TSA assumed that this presentation was given among friends, until it wound up on the internet.
I went back and looked at the briefing. The TSA logo was all over it. If the briefing was given at the DHS level, I would have given them a pass about detecting drugs, money, and -- I forgot the first time -- media (i.e.: books, CDs, DVDs). But, since this was clearly a TSA briefing given by a TSA briefer, I can only conclude that it is the TSA's policy to search for these non-prohibited items. Perhaps the TSA assumed that this presentation was given among friends, until it wound up on the internet.
DHS does have reason to be searching for large amounts of cash and/or illicit drugs. Im sure you can think up a few good ones since you seem to be so good at concluding things.
These types of external presentations in any federal agency require review & approval by several individuals in the leadership chain. This briefing is an official admission that the TSA uses these devices and other search techniques (play the pie chart in "slide show" format) to actively search for drugs, money, and media. I've sent a copy to Rep. Issa's staff.
#50
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
No, you have chosen to interpret the briefing that way. How many times has BB said we are not looking for drugs? Anyone? Did the briefing state specifically that we (the TSA) are testing for these items? Uhhh, nope.
DHS does have reason to be searching for large amounts of cash and/or illicit drugs. Im sure you can think up a few good ones since you seem to be so good at concluding things.
You believe he does not already have it? You do know that DHS has components who have an interest in these things, right? I find it interesting how far you are willing to misinterpret a simple video. Im sure Rep. Issa's staff find it interesting as well.
DHS does have reason to be searching for large amounts of cash and/or illicit drugs. Im sure you can think up a few good ones since you seem to be so good at concluding things.
You believe he does not already have it? You do know that DHS has components who have an interest in these things, right? I find it interesting how far you are willing to misinterpret a simple video. Im sure Rep. Issa's staff find it interesting as well.
#51
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Not to change the subject back to the thread topic, but Ron, just what is your reply to Bubbaloop about the vaporizing temp threshold of peroxide, vis a vis the strips held supposedly over the said vapors? I'm curious as to how you folks make peroxides vaporize at lower temperatures.
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,148
No, you have chosen to interpret the briefing that way. How many times has BB said we are not looking for drugs? Anyone? Did the briefing state specifically that we (the TSA) are testing for these items? Uhhh, nope.
DHS does have reason to be searching for large amounts of cash and/or illicit drugs. Im sure you can think up a few good ones since you seem to be so good at concluding things.
You believe he does not already have it? You do know that DHS has components who have an interest in these things, right? I find it interesting how far you are willing to misinterpret a simple video. Im sure Rep. Issa's staff find it interesting as well.
DHS does have reason to be searching for large amounts of cash and/or illicit drugs. Im sure you can think up a few good ones since you seem to be so good at concluding things.
You believe he does not already have it? You do know that DHS has components who have an interest in these things, right? I find it interesting how far you are willing to misinterpret a simple video. Im sure Rep. Issa's staff find it interesting as well.
Perhaps you have not had much experience giving presentations as a representative of the TSA in front of an external audience. I have done this countless times, as have many others here on FT.
This is a TSA briefing given by a TSA official. It's not a CBP briefing. It's not an ICE briefing. It's not a USCG briefing. It's not a DHS briefing. How did I conclude this? The TSA logo is plastered all over the charts -- not the DHS logo; not the CBP logo; not the ICE logo, or not the USCG logo. I don't believe this is a terribly hard concept.
I wouldn't be giving this a second thought if any of these other organizations had presented this material. I wouldn't be giving this briefing a second thought if the pie chart did not include drugs, money, and media. Whoever prepared these charts, approved these charts for release, and presented these charts officially stated that the TSA conducts warrantless searches for every item on the pie chart. I don't think this is a terribly hard concept, either.
As for BB and the TSA blog, please provide us any independent verification why Americans should believe anything posted by anyone earning a TSA paycheck?
#53
Join Date: May 2003
Location: At This Point, Only G*d Knows!
Posts: 3,467
Honestly, if they ask to test my drink, I'm telling them to 'follow me' while I walk back over to where I bought it and tell the clerk working there that I want my money back because the TSA questions the safety of their products. Loudly enough for EVERYONE in line to hear, and everyone at any nearby establishments. If enough people did this, then the businesses in the sterile areas will complain and maybe this BS will stop.
I asked a friend of mine (who is a Chemical Engineer) would a be bad actor be able to drink an explosive liquid, digest it, and then pass it (via urination) later on in the flight and use as a weapon. While my friend did admit he is unsure of how the body's digestive processes effect any given substance, he finds it hard to believe that a dangerous substance would be useful (after being digested by the body) as a weapon.
So, is TSA testing sealed bottles of liquid (are they making PAX open sealed bottles) or just opened one? If they are just testing open ones that the PAX has consumed, what is the point (even if these strips are of some use, which I am very unsure of)?
Dan
Last edited by dan1431; Jul 15, 2012 at 6:48 am
#54
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,028
It's a bit like the shoes at the checkpoint, isn't it?
The x-ray operator can't get a clear view of my shoes unless they are in a bin or on the belt by themselves.
The same operator never seems to have a problem clearing the shoes in my carry-on bag.
I've wondered the same thing about the checkpoint drinks testing - is it limited to opened beverages? Do you have to open un-resealable beverages (canned drinks, for example)? Does it only apply to drinks I'm holding in my hand, or is it going to expand to all LGAs in my carry-on? Does it apply to other liquids and gels I might have at the gate? What if I buy (or have) lotion or perfume and take it out to use at the gate? Also subject to stripping?
The x-ray operator can't get a clear view of my shoes unless they are in a bin or on the belt by themselves.
The same operator never seems to have a problem clearing the shoes in my carry-on bag.
I've wondered the same thing about the checkpoint drinks testing - is it limited to opened beverages? Do you have to open un-resealable beverages (canned drinks, for example)? Does it only apply to drinks I'm holding in my hand, or is it going to expand to all LGAs in my carry-on? Does it apply to other liquids and gels I might have at the gate? What if I buy (or have) lotion or perfume and take it out to use at the gate? Also subject to stripping?
#55
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 733
...
I asked a friend of mine (who is a Chemical Engineer) would a be bad actor be able to drink an explosive liquid, digest it, and then pass it (via urination) later on in the flight and use as a weapon. While my friend did admit he is unsure of how the body's digestive processes effect any given substance, he finds it hard to believe that a dangerous substance would be useful (after being digested by the body) as a weapon.
I asked a friend of mine (who is a Chemical Engineer) would a be bad actor be able to drink an explosive liquid, digest it, and then pass it (via urination) later on in the flight and use as a weapon. While my friend did admit he is unsure of how the body's digestive processes effect any given substance, he finds it hard to believe that a dangerous substance would be useful (after being digested by the body) as a weapon.
IDK, perhaps the good Dr. Joe can tell us all about one in his next rousing editorial?
Also, because it bears repeating, in all of the anatomy books I've studied, I've yet to come across a piece of anatomy labeled "resistance" in either gender. But what do I know? I touch bodies all day for a living*.
* I am not a TSA clerk.
#56
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 555
Ron,
Perhaps you have not had much experience giving presentations as a representative of the TSA in front of an external audience. I have done this countless times, as have many others here on FT.
This is a TSA briefing given by a TSA official. It's not a CBP briefing. It's not an ICE briefing. It's not a USCG briefing. It's not a DHS briefing. How did I conclude this? The TSA logo is plastered all over the charts -- not the DHS logo; not the CBP logo; not the ICE logo, or not the USCG logo. I don't believe this is a terribly hard concept.
I wouldn't be giving this a second thought if any of these other organizations had presented this material. I wouldn't be giving this briefing a second thought if the pie chart did not include drugs, money, and media. Whoever prepared these charts, approved these charts for release, and presented these charts officially stated that the TSA conducts warrantless searches for every item on the pie chart. I don't think this is a terribly hard concept, either.
Perhaps you have not had much experience giving presentations as a representative of the TSA in front of an external audience. I have done this countless times, as have many others here on FT.
This is a TSA briefing given by a TSA official. It's not a CBP briefing. It's not an ICE briefing. It's not a USCG briefing. It's not a DHS briefing. How did I conclude this? The TSA logo is plastered all over the charts -- not the DHS logo; not the CBP logo; not the ICE logo, or not the USCG logo. I don't believe this is a terribly hard concept.
I wouldn't be giving this a second thought if any of these other organizations had presented this material. I wouldn't be giving this briefing a second thought if the pie chart did not include drugs, money, and media. Whoever prepared these charts, approved these charts for release, and presented these charts officially stated that the TSA conducts warrantless searches for every item on the pie chart. I don't think this is a terribly hard concept, either.
~~ Irish
#57
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
The only thing TSA employees have "earned" is their well-deserved reputation for idiocy, theft, and prevarication.
#58
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: AUS, TX
Programs: AAdvantge; AmEx Plat; SPG; Hilton HHonors
Posts: 55
I wondered the efficacy of these strips this morning, in fact, at AUS. I pulled out a travel size bottle of clear-care eye solution, left it in a separate bin, the whole works. It led to (after my self-chosen opt-out) a full recheck of both my roll-aboard and my backpack. They tested the peroxide (though now that I've read this thread) it was clearly going to fail the test. It did come up blue. Also, it was a sealed brand new one.
My biggest complaint is that it led to my searching/opt-out process taking in excess of 15 minutes from pat-down to repacking my bags. I did ask some questions though and one of the agents performing the inspection said that "at my old airport, we normally just throw these away and let the passenger go on"). Seems at Austin, that is not the procedure.
Oh, and because the strip was blue, I required two phone calls to a supervisor to allow me to enter the airport. Even though nothing else in my bags registered as peroxide. Lesson learned. I shoulda nicked the box to give y'all some more info x_x.
Another highlight: While repacking my bag, I watched where they took my 'positively tested liquid' to dispose of in a safe manner - the trashcan 10 yards away where they dispose of water bottles/food/stuff people can't bring through security. That made me giggle a little inside. If I didn't know better, I'd say they made a deal with Bausch and Lomb to force pax to re-buy expensive contact solution o_0.
My biggest complaint is that it led to my searching/opt-out process taking in excess of 15 minutes from pat-down to repacking my bags. I did ask some questions though and one of the agents performing the inspection said that "at my old airport, we normally just throw these away and let the passenger go on"). Seems at Austin, that is not the procedure.
Oh, and because the strip was blue, I required two phone calls to a supervisor to allow me to enter the airport. Even though nothing else in my bags registered as peroxide. Lesson learned. I shoulda nicked the box to give y'all some more info x_x.
Another highlight: While repacking my bag, I watched where they took my 'positively tested liquid' to dispose of in a safe manner - the trashcan 10 yards away where they dispose of water bottles/food/stuff people can't bring through security. That made me giggle a little inside. If I didn't know better, I'd say they made a deal with Bausch and Lomb to force pax to re-buy expensive contact solution o_0.
Last edited by elechrisity; Jul 15, 2012 at 10:28 am Reason: Added professional disposal method
#59
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Not to change the subject back to the thread topic, but Ron, just what is your reply to Bubbaloop about the vaporizing temp threshold of peroxide, vis a vis the strips held supposedly over the said vapors? I'm curious as to how you folks make peroxides vaporize at lower temperatures.
If H2O2 boils at 141 degrees Celsius, which is only slightly above the boiling point of water, and the rest of the solution is either distilled or sterile water, then it sure seems to me that since water vapor can be detected at room temperature that H2O2 can also. Make sense? The same page also shows that its vapor density is 1.17 (whatever that means). Basically if one can smell the H2O2 then one can detect it using its vapors. Open your local bottle of 1% solution of H2O2 and tell us if you can smell anything. I know I can, therefore there is a vapor emitted.
And while you are at it, Ron, do you have any comments on this thread?
This is a TSA briefing given by a TSA official. It's not a CBP briefing. It's not an ICE briefing. It's not a USCG briefing. It's not a DHS briefing. How did I conclude this? The TSA logo is plastered all over the charts -- not the DHS logo; not the CBP logo; not the ICE logo, or not the USCG logo. I don't believe this is a terribly hard concept.
I wouldn't be giving this a second thought if any of these other organizations had presented this material. I wouldn't be giving this briefing a second thought if the pie chart did not include drugs, money, and media. Whoever prepared these charts, approved these charts for release, and presented these charts officially stated that the TSA conducts warrantless searches for every item on the pie chart. I don't think this is a terribly hard concept, either.
I wondered the efficacy of these strips this morning, in fact, at AUS. I pulled out a travel size bottle of clear-care eye solution, left it in a separate bin, the whole works. It led to (after my self-chosen opt-out) a full recheck of both my roll-aboard and my backpack. They tested the peroxide (though now that I've read this thread) it was clearly going to fail the test. It did come up blue. Also, it was a sealed brand new one.
My biggest complaint is that it led to my searching/opt-out process taking in excess of 15 minutes from pat-down to repacking my bags. I did ask some questions though and one of the agents performing the inspection said that "at my old airport, we normally just throw these away and let the passenger go on"). Seems at Austin, that is not the procedure.
Sounds to me that AUS is following the procedure better than that TSOs previous airport.
Oh, and because the strip was blue, I required two phone calls to a supervisor to allow me to enter the airport. Even though nothing else in my bags registered as peroxide. Lesson learned. I shoulda nicked the box to give y'all some more info x_x.
Another highlight: While repacking my bag, I watched where they took my 'positively tested liquid' to dispose of in a safe manner - the trashcan 10 yards away where they dispose of water bottles/food/stuff people can't bring through security. That made me giggle a little inside. If I didn't know better, I'd say they made a deal with Bausch and Lomb to force pax to re-buy expensive contact solution o_0.
Another highlight: While repacking my bag, I watched where they took my 'positively tested liquid' to dispose of in a safe manner - the trashcan 10 yards away where they dispose of water bottles/food/stuff people can't bring through security. That made me giggle a little inside. If I didn't know better, I'd say they made a deal with Bausch and Lomb to force pax to re-buy expensive contact solution o_0.
#60
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Again, I am not a scientist. But there is some information that a short google search can find that you might find useful. Start HERE.
If H2O2 boils at 141 degrees Celsius, which is only slightly above the boiling point of water, and the rest of the solution is either distilled or sterile water, then it sure seems to me that since water vapor can be detected at room temperature that H2O2 can also. Make sense? The same page also shows that its vapor density is 1.17 (whatever that means). Basically if one can smell the H2O2 then one can detect it using its vapors. Open your local bottle of 1% solution of H2O2 and tell us if you can smell anything. I know I can, therefore there is a vapor emitted.
If H2O2 boils at 141 degrees Celsius, which is only slightly above the boiling point of water, and the rest of the solution is either distilled or sterile water, then it sure seems to me that since water vapor can be detected at room temperature that H2O2 can also. Make sense? The same page also shows that its vapor density is 1.17 (whatever that means). Basically if one can smell the H2O2 then one can detect it using its vapors. Open your local bottle of 1% solution of H2O2 and tell us if you can smell anything. I know I can, therefore there is a vapor emitted.
2. The human nose can detect in the part per billion to part per trillion range. A test strip couldn't.
3. 141 degrees C is not "only slightly above the boiling point of water" It is 41% above the boiling point of water.
4. The vapor density is (to quote wikipedia) "Vapour density is the density of a vapour in relation to that of hydrogen. It may be defined as mass of a certain volume of a substance divided by mass of same volume of hydrogen." So it is pretty darn close to not there.
5. You should have stopped when you said that you aren't a scientist.