Originally Posted by
Batmanuel
Explosive residue is sticky. If the kid was traveling with or was handling explosives, it would have been everywhere. Testing the bag and traveling companion would have resulted in even more alarms and more scrutiny.
Walking on fertilizer or working in a gunpowder-heavy industry might get you a false alarm for nitrates, and using certain colognes or hand lotions might get you another for nitroglycerin. Should the solution be eliminating all those tests altogether? Just because someone with ashy elbows wants to pre-lube before security instead of after?
Kind of ironic to complain about them "ignoring the threat", (a 9 y/o kid), as that's a direct result of other complaints. Everyone was up in arms about TSA screening grannies and children. Now they have alternatives, and people are still complaining.
It really doesn't matter what TSA does, so long as the rules only apply to everyone else.
The ETD test is proven unreliable due to excessive false alarms.
(I term the alarm false when no contraband is found) When a test alarms on common products such as body lotions then the test proves nothing.
So what things might a young boy encounter that would possibly alarm ETD?
Most young boys of that age aren't big users of hand/body lotions or even colognes. He may have walked across grass that had recent fertilizer added but he almost certainly doesn't work in an ammo factory. Perhaps model paints and solvents, like Testors, that's plausible?
Yet the screeners still moved their focus from the person who did alarm to a person who did not alarm. I don't see how that meets the "Risk Based Screening" objective. If the kid was a mule then wouldn't the mother take extra precaution to not contaminate herself?
The final question, what percentage of 9 year old boys, with flights originating in the U.S., are found to be carrying weapons of any sort?
Real "Risk Based Screening" would have an answer for that question!