^

Oh i am sure what you wrote here will stir those on this site, but you really should consider better what you have said. According to your logic, if someone knows they have broken no laws, brought nothing prohibited with them, yet alarm the WTMD, then its you should not even be screened by HHMD. Yet i have seen almost everyone, including you, support the use of HHMD.

And for whatever reason you seemingly willfully ignore the fact that ETD is part of the screening process, also previously supported by many if not mot here.

Basically your comment is that, why we should all know who the "good guys" are and to not do so, to screen them is to harass them.

Based on your logic knowing you have done nothing illegal shouldn't even go through the WTMD.

Etd shouldn't result in a sex organ exam, just based on its 100% failure rate. That is the issue. Your test sucks, is unreasonably defective in its results, and yet you want us to pay the consequences of your use of a bad tool. Either fix it or stop using it. I'm not being unreasonable. Just stop molesting people on such a lousy indicator.

I don't believe he ever said that and it certainly isn't correct. What they detect are trace (the "T") amounts of parts of chemicals that are used in explosives (roughly speaking). And gylcerin is certainly one of those (e.g., nitroglycerin).

I would suggest that "very small" is equivalent to "trace amounts"

It appears that the machines don't have an "and" function. Otherwise if it detected above threshold of a common chemical like glycerine, but no trace amounts of other components necessary to make an explosives it wouldn't alarm.

Besides, nitroglycerine is allowed through the checkpoint as medicine. ;)

Something doesn't add up, when it appears that the "wrong" hand lotion is more likely to alarm than GSR from a range session.

Large numbers of false positives are not good for security.

For example, if an ETD alarmed and no explosives are found on the person or in their carry-on, why isn't this person's checked luggage flagged? That would be layered security.

What seems to get lost in the background noise is that TSA does not really provide security but theater. This means that any TSA testing method only has to give a result, accuracy isn't really important.

I agree. Unfortunately, there is no valid reason why the TSA couldn't move away from theater and toward security.

taking the checked baggage off the plane to inspect it would be a non option due to the time hit. So they are clearly relying on normal checked baggage screening to catch that, or if in Hawaii, on divine intervention.

USP

You may suggest it, but respectfully, those terms/concepts mean different things to me. I agree with what RichardKenner post above in response to your other post.

So what does USP stand for?

trace
1    [treys] Show IPA noun, verb, traced, trac·ing.
noun
1. a surviving mark, sign, or evidence of the former existence, influence, or action of some agent or event; vestige: traces of an advanced civilization among the ruins.
2. a barely discernible indication or evidence of some quantity, quality, characteristic, expression, etc.: a trace of anger in his tone.
3.an extremely small amount of some chemical component: a trace of copper in its composition.

Unpredictable Screening Program.

I don't believe that either the chemistry is as simple or the manufacturers of ETD are as stupid as the above implies.

Aside from the reason given later, there's no way of verifying at the checkpoint whether the person even has any checked bags.