testing eye drops
Jul 11, 2012, 3:05 pm
#76
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
Impressive credentials? What credentials? He has provided nothing in that area. And honestly, you should read the whole thread.
The regret would be all yours. I enjoy a good discussion.
Check out this (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...st-strips.html) thread.
First lets get some credentials, then and only then I can attack them. You may believe what he says, that does not make it a fact. Again I refer you to the thread listed above, where bubba himself admits that there are test strips that do as I have said.
The regret would be all yours. I enjoy a good discussion.
Check out this (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...st-strips.html) thread.
First lets get some credentials, then and only then I can attack them. You may believe what he says, that does not make it a fact. Again I refer you to the thread listed above, where bubba himself admits that there are test strips that do as I have said.
And I have provided a detailed description of my experitize. Unfortunately, as a non-US citizen who was previously watchlisted (as indicated by chronic SSSS boarding passes, until SSSS all but disapeared), I am not comfortable giving you my name, which is the only further credential I could possibly provide.
Jul 11, 2012, 3:06 pm
#77
In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 361
Another example:
http://http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1351576-just-released-convict-boards-united-flight-no-bp-ticket-3.html#post18702312
Wrong again. Misunderstanding or LIE?
Of course Ron came back to admit his error and apologize. Oh, wait, he didn't.
Given past performance, nothing Ron says is to be believed without corroboration.
Jul 11, 2012, 3:27 pm
#78
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
Welcome to FT! As much as I like where you're going with this answer, I will give Ron credit for one thing: rules like, "Don't pack heat in your carry-on," should be pretty simple and self-explanatory, and the few who do so anyway absolutely fit into Category A.
That said, I pretty frequently see people get anything from a lecture to a chewing-out because they left their toothpaste in their bag, didn't think that the ID in their pocket would trigger the NOS, or, my favorite, didn't take their belt off before going through the WTMD/NOS. That last one's my favorite because taking your belt off is not a requirement, just a suggestion.
While I can get behind some of the TSA's rules, like, you know, no guns on planes, it's the inane little ones like the shoe carnival and the Freedom Baggie that I see accidentally broken so often that I would agree with your thoughts entirely that it's not stupid passengers, it's stupid rules.
That said, I pretty frequently see people get anything from a lecture to a chewing-out because they left their toothpaste in their bag, didn't think that the ID in their pocket would trigger the NOS, or, my favorite, didn't take their belt off before going through the WTMD/NOS. That last one's my favorite because taking your belt off is not a requirement, just a suggestion.
While I can get behind some of the TSA's rules, like, you know, no guns on planes, it's the inane little ones like the shoe carnival and the Freedom Baggie that I see accidentally broken so often that I would agree with your thoughts entirely that it's not stupid passengers, it's stupid rules.
Jul 11, 2012, 5:09 pm
#79
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,007
MMW+ATD systems have very few “false positive’s”. Since they are designed to detect anomalies and not specific items which can vary in size, composition, and shape, in an many ways as there are products on the planet, they cant be programed for anything else. It’s the personnel working with these units that can miss something important, not the unit. And since you don’t know what the “yellow box” means or what our procedures are in those cases, you are unqualified to venture an opinion on if they were doing their jobs correctly or not.
Jul 11, 2012, 6:53 pm
#80
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Interesting analogy, but its apples and oranges. The goal of terrorism is to effect change on a large scale. Its not one police officer they want to kill, its all of them, in the most spectacular way they can. Thereby putting fear into both the police and those they protect. As far as 9/11 is concerned, I’d call the fourth only a partial failure. It didn’t hit its intended target I agree, but many people still lost their lives and helped to damage the global economy, our national economy, and strike fear into our nation as a whole. A net “win” for the terrorists.
Jul 11, 2012, 9:56 pm
#82
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Here they are again, right in the very post I linked to:http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18894842-post54.html
Since I seem to miss "quite a bit" of your information, could you please point me exactly to the part in which a test strip (not an electronic "sniffer" like the one you showed here, which, by the way, also does not detect peroxides) waved above a solution is capable of detecting peroxides.
As for the rest, read the other thread started by bubba. You indeed have missed quite a bit, and I’m reasonably certain that your knowledge even given your profession, is not universally comprehensive. No one’s is.
There appears to be no evidence that those test strips can detect peroxides, among the documents that you linked to. Just this morning, in another thread in this forum, you repeated your claim that "they detect chemicals," two days after being asked to substantiate that.
Well, I don't believe it, thanks to your tactics.
Well, I don't believe it, thanks to your tactics.
My tactics have nothing to do with the facts. As a “scientist” you should know this. OTOH, opinions and blind intentional ignorance can have a significant effect on one’s perception the facts can’t they. You might want to explore that a bit. Scientists are supposed to be objective, and tactics have nothing to do with that objectivity.
There may be another possibility. Maybe the rules aren't that clear. If a private company produced a product that every single minute of every day customers used incorrectly, do you think that would assume a: they are stupid, b: they are purposely using it wrong, or c: we need to rewrite the directions for use
Think about how many lawyers, product experts, and more lawyers review the instructions and warnings on any form of common household cleaner. How often do you think those instructions and warnings are revised? Yet people still misuse them. So far it sounds like “A” is the clear winner now doesn’t it. Just how plain, obvious, in your face, must the instructions be for people to follow them? No, rewriting them is just not the answer. Reading them, following them, knowing them, well that sounds like a better plan. But I like your thinking anyway.
I am more for people taking responsibility for their own actions. Stop blaming others for their mistakes, for their own lack of judgment, for their own intentional ignorance. People here blame the TSA for so very much, when in fact it is their own failures that cause the problems. The rules are there, in written form, on the internet, and even in the PA announcements, at every airport I have ever been to. Yet as I stand on the checkpoint and watch the traffic flowing I can see the people who have ignored all those chances to learn and play by the rules. This is not TSA’s responsibility. Its each individual passengers responsibility. It’s a very simple concept, one that just does not get through to the vast majority of the posters here. It’s a sad truth.
Jul 12, 2012, 3:04 am
#83
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
And since you question who I am and my credentials (as well as, incomprehensibly, what I state in other threads), how about I prove it: we mutually agree on a long-term, well-respected forum member (who is not a TSO, for obvious reasons), I inform that member my name, and that member confirms or denies my expertize to you?
Jul 12, 2012, 5:04 am
#84
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Yes, I am stating that there are no test strips available capable of detecting peroxide by waving in the air above a liquid flask. Please provide evidence to the contrary.
And since you question who I am and my credentials (as well as, incomprehensibly, what I state in other threads), how about I prove it: we mutually agree on a long-term, well-respected forum member (who is not a TSO, for obvious reasons), I inform that member my name, and that member confirms or denies my expertize to you?
And since you question who I am and my credentials (as well as, incomprehensibly, what I state in other threads), how about I prove it: we mutually agree on a long-term, well-respected forum member (who is not a TSO, for obvious reasons), I inform that member my name, and that member confirms or denies my expertize to you?
Does room temperature H2O2 have a relatively low volatility so it gives off almost no free molecules as vapor?
If it does give off molecules as vapors, are the vapors heavier than air and thus would stay in the container or fall to the ground?
Jul 12, 2012, 6:47 am
#85
In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 361
Isn't accusing someone of a non-existant TOS violation a TOS violation?
Jul 12, 2012, 7:10 am
#86
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
My tactics have nothing to do with the facts. As a “scientist” you should know this. OTOH, opinions and blind intentional ignorance can have a significant effect on one’s perception the facts can’t they. You might want to explore that a bit. Scientists are supposed to be objective, and tactics have nothing to do with that objectivity.
Think about how many lawyers, product experts, and more lawyers review the instructions and warnings on any form of common household cleaner. How often do you think those instructions and warnings are revised? Yet people still misuse them. So far it sounds like “A” is the clear winner now doesn’t it. Just how plain, obvious, in your face, must the instructions be for people to follow them? No, rewriting them is just not the answer. Reading them, following them, knowing them, well that sounds like a better plan. But I like your thinking anyway.
.
Think about how many lawyers, product experts, and more lawyers review the instructions and warnings on any form of common household cleaner. How often do you think those instructions and warnings are revised? Yet people still misuse them. So far it sounds like “A” is the clear winner now doesn’t it. Just how plain, obvious, in your face, must the instructions be for people to follow them? No, rewriting them is just not the answer. Reading them, following them, knowing them, well that sounds like a better plan. But I like your thinking anyway.
.
http://www.consumertraveler.com/toda...out-tsa-rules/
Does the TSA have objective data that travelers are more stupid than ever?
Jul 12, 2012, 7:20 am
#87
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 1,018
Impressive credentials? What credentials? He has provided nothing in that area.
Are you suggesting, one Flyertalk member cannot buttress the credibility of another? Or, are you using some kind of silly "divide and conquer" tactic?
I'll soon be obliged to conclude that neither of us has "missed" anything at all.
My tactics have nothing to do with the facts. As a “scientist” you should know this. OTOH, opinions and blind intentional ignorance can have a significant effect on one’s perception the facts can’t they. You might want to explore that a bit. Scientists are supposed to be objective, and tactics have nothing to do with that objectivity.
Jul 12, 2012, 11:42 am
#89
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 360
Some things undergo a phase change from a liquid into a gas phase. Gasoline is one of these. Liquid gasoline can phase change into gasoline vapor (a particularly unscientific term) and what you end up with is gaseous gasoline. It is still a detectable long chain hydrocarbon - just in a gaseous state. Other things decompose into constituent molecules. One of these is hydrogen peroxide, or H2O2, which is a peroxide by virtue of having an oxygen-oxygen single bond. It is very unstable and rapidly decomposes into its components. When you uncap a bottle containing hydrogen peroxide, a chemical process of H2O2-->O2+H2O immediately begins. The H2O (that's water, Ron) retains its liquid phase and the O2 is offgassed. So to believe Ron, you must believe that there is some magic strip, known only to TSOs, than can detect oxygen in an oxygen rich atmosphere. Talk about false positives!
Now, to be complete,there is such a thing as hydrogen peroxide vapor, the manufacture of which requires special equipment, and which suffers from the unfortunate acronym of HPV. So that it wouldn't be mistaken for the virus that causes human ovarian cancer, its manufacturer, GEA Lyophil, trademarked it as VHP. In forensics, we use it sometimes as a "sterile" agent for disinfecting purposes. Since it has been classified as "Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health" in humans by the USCDC, it is not very readily available to the public. And it is not available at all in 100ml containers.
Since false positives have been mentioned, it is also important to note that every breath you exhale contains hydrogen peroxide. So while Ron is waving around his magic strip, everyone, including Ron, must stop breathing.
Last edited by 4nsicdoc; Jul 12, 2012 at 11:54 am Reason: politeness
Jul 12, 2012, 12:28 pm
#90
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
Think about how many lawyers, product experts, and more lawyers review the instructions and warnings on any form of common household cleaner. How often do you think those instructions and warnings are revised? Yet people still misuse them. So far it sounds like “A” is the clear winner now doesn’t it. Just how plain, obvious, in your face, must the instructions be for people to follow them? No, rewriting them is just not the answer. Reading them, following them, knowing them, well that sounds like a better plan. But I like your thinking anyway.
That said, most American families run their dishwasher ever couple of days (I'd guess). That's, give or take, 182 exposures to dish soap a year. The average American family will all jump on an airplane once or twice a year, at most, as a leisure traveler. Now, let's look at the instructions that the leisure travelers are expected by the TSA to memorize and follow (my commentary based on experience in parentheses):
1. Pack liquids, gels and aerosols into a one-quart, clear, resealable plastic baggie.
2. Any containers over 3.4 oz. will be confiscated. (Even if it's a 4 oz. tube of toothpaste that's 3/4ths empty.)
3. Have any medically-necessary liquids out and ready to open for further inspection. (Depending on the airport, your TSO might also fancy themselves a doctor, so be prepared to either explain what the medication is and why you need it or argue with a supervisor.)
4. Take off your coat, even if it's just a windbreaker.
5. Take off your belt.
6. Take off your shoes.
7. Take your laptop out of the bag to be screened separately. (Depending on the airport, you might get yelled at for leaving your 10" netbook in the bag. You might get yelled at for taking it out. You might be angrily asked by a TSO what part of "take your laptop out" you didn't understand--as they wave the iPad they just took out of your otherwise-empty laptop bag in front of your face.)
8. Have your boarding pass and ID ready for every member of your party that requires one. (Either approach the TDC together or approach it one-by-one, depends on airport. You're liable to get barked at either way.)
9. Step into that machine you've never seen before and assume the position. (Even the people standing next to it don't know how it works beyond shouting over and over that it's not radiation.)
10. Wait on the mat for a clear. (But since most TSOs don't bother to mention that part, you're just going to get yelled at for stepping off the mat to get your belongings before the green screen comes up.)
And those are just the written/unwritten rules of the checkpoint I can think of--I haven't even touched on inside the terminal and gate checks. There are two huge problems I see there. One, the TSA expects people to memorize a laundry list of inane rules when, realistically, they might only see an airport twice a year--once on the way out, and once on the way home.
Two is simple consistency. Many airports will tell you that you don't have to take a non-metallic belt off to go through a WTMD. Many will tell you that you can keep your belt on regardless of screening type. Others will have someone standing there to shout at you for leaving your belt on even though the guy at the last airport said it was ok to do so.
The "what qualifies as a laptop" rule frequently drives me up a wall, as I often travel with a laptop, a netbook and a tablet. I always take the laptop out, but I am most certainly not going to leave $3,000+ worth of computer equipment in bins for the first interested party to walk away with while I'm being held up by a false positive on the ATD. I'll leave the netbook and iPad in my locked laptop bag, and deal with the Spanish Inquisition over why my bag is locked ("Because CNN is full of stories of people like you walking off with things like the contents of that bag.") and why I left computer equipment in there in the first place.
I'd almost agree with you here, almost, Ron, except that there's a fundamental flaw in your logic, and it occurs when you assume that the directions at an airport checkpoint, which most people encounter a handful of times a year, are as simple as the directions for using dish soap, which most people encounter every 48 hours or so.