And, how does having milk (of any type) relate to needing a patdown? Maybe I'm missing the connection. I might see human breast milk implying a grope of the mother's breast to check out the source ;) .
|
Originally Posted by relangford
(Post 22929002)
And, how does having milk (of any type) relate to needing a patdown? Maybe I'm missing the connection. I might see human breast milk implying a grope of the mother's breast to check out the source ;) .
Surely a terrorist would not draw milk-box-attention to him/herself, though. I am honestly terrified to think that even someone like me can brainstorm and come up with a dozen ways to do something bad in an airport that would be more effective or more likely to get through. The idea of al-quaida trying to do evil via Hershey's milk would be funny if this whole security theater weren't so upsetting. --LG |
Detonators aren't what they are looking for with these pat-downs and those could be concealed in vaginal or oral or anal/rectal cavities without the pat-down detecting them. [Metal detectors would have far better chance of detecting such things.]
The pat-downs for these circumstances are there to touch the body -- perhaps including private parts -- to pick up enough of who knows what to test [the gloves used for the pat-downs] for traces of molecules of some sort that may indicate explosives.
Originally Posted by relangford
(Post 22929002)
And, how does having milk (of any type) relate to needing a patdown? Maybe I'm missing the connection. I might see human breast milk implying a grope of the mother's breast to check out the source ;) .
By the way, there are fathers who transport breast milk in bottles/containers when traveling with their children but without the mother -- it's something the TSA and its UK equivalents don't always get. At least the TSA isn't as bad as their ridiculous counterparts at LHR, the latter having, for such circumstances, more frequently demanded spoiling half the milk -- even breast milk -- being transported by the parent(s) (using artificial containers). |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 22929061)
Detonators aren't what they are looking for with these pat-downs and those could be concealed in vaginal or oral or anal/rectal cavities without the pat-down detecting them. [Metal detectors would have far better chance of detecting such things.]
The pat-downs for these circumstances are there to touch the body -- perhaps including private parts -- to pick up enough of who knows what to test [the gloves used for the pat-downs] for traces of molecules of some sort that may indicate explosives. The TSA is searching to interdict explosives and is paranoid about "liquid" explosives, so ordinary passengers who get L/G/A exemptions are seen as higher risk by the TSA and thus targeted for more explosives searches than the ordinary passenger without an L/G/A exemption being utilized. By the way, there are fathers who transport breast milk in bottles/containers when traveling with their children but without the mother -- it's something the TSA and its UK equivalents don't always get. At least the TSA isn't as bad as their ridiculous counterparts at LHR, the latter having, for such circumstances, more frequently demanded spoiling half the milk -- even breast milk -- being transported by the parent(s) (using artificial containers). That said, I didn't understand, in the previously-linked article about the woman who sued TSA and got 75K, what her objection was to the X-rays. (Does X-raying damage milk the same way it does slight damage to one's body?) Note - I still totally get, and support, that woman's right to sue because TSA violated their own policy and treated her horribly in the process. --LG |
Originally Posted by lg10
(Post 22925654)
Flying through ORD today, two things happened:
1. My young son had a sealed chocolate milk box with us. I declared it, and they said ok, but then you have to have a pat down. How is this anything other than punishment, particularly since in the "sterile" [sic] area, they were giving me the choice to or not (and lose DS's milk if not)...? 2. Bozo agent objected to my booties; was overruled by another agent. ORD TSA is routinely the worst. In BOS yesterday, two milk boxes for DS and they swabbed them, no groping. --LG |
Back on the original question: Of course the full groping is punitive. Maybe you won't intrude upon their checkpoint with your child's milk the next time, citizen.
|
One of the stupid things about this is that the milk would have been acceptable if it was divided into 3.4 oz containers. It's the same volume whether or not it is in the original box. The original box would fit inside a quart baggie. The TSA never answers why one large bottle is bad but several small bottles are ok.
|
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 22930907)
Unless I missed it, you didn't say if you submitted to the pat down. If you did, did the screener then test her gloves for explosives residues after rubbing you down (per GUWonder's post)? Were your hands tested for explosive residue?
I'm a HS physics and chemistry teacher and the TSA lab technique is... poor. I think it's been discussed on FT before, how they don't clean the machines or worry about cross-contamination and find lots of "false positives". But, I didn't alarm. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 22930968)
Back on the original question: Of course the full groping is punitive. Maybe you won't intrude upon their checkpoint with your child's milk the next time, citizen.
Originally Posted by spd476
One of the stupid things about this is that the milk would have been acceptable if it was divided into 3.4 oz containers. It's the same volume whether or not it is in the original box. The original box would fit inside a quart baggie. The TSA never answers why one large bottle is bad but several small bottles are ok.
Bad chemicals could easily be brought in small containers in a ziploc, so we must conclude that the TSA rule is more about the theater for people like me. More than that, shouldn't a bottle of water be ok if the passenger is drinking out of it right there (and aren't there screenings that should be able to test for plain water?) - and of course, if the scary liquids are confiscated for being dangerous/explosive, how does it make sense to drop them all into one big open trash barrel with hundreds of people around? |
Originally Posted by spd476
(Post 22931282)
One of the stupid things about this is that the milk would have been acceptable if it was divided into 3.4 oz containers. It's the same volume whether or not it is in the original box. The original box would fit inside a quart baggie. The TSA never answers why one large bottle is bad but several small bottles are ok.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 22931525)
The history of that has something to do with wanting to concentrate the L/G/A in a sealed bag in order for vapors to be supposedly concentrated enough for ETD vapor and swab testing to be "more reliable" and "efficient". I wish I were joking, but that is what the "security" policy-setting clowns thought up when deciding to gravitate away from the "ban" on "carry-on/cabin baggage" placed by some governments after the exposure and interdiction of the legendary plot about liquid-in-power-drink-bottles "bombs" supposedly targeting a short-list of airlines flying out of the UK.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 22931525)
The history of that has something to do with wanting to concentrate the L/G/A in a sealed bag in order for vapors to be supposedly concentrated enough for ETD vapor and swab testing to be "more reliable" and "efficient". I wish I were joking, but that is what the "security" policy-setting clowns thought up when deciding to gravitate away from the "ban" on "carry-on/cabin baggage" placed by some governments after the exposure and interdiction of the legendary plot about liquid-in-power-drink-bottles "bombs" supposedly targeting a short-list of airlines flying out of the UK.
spd476 does raise a point that has never made sense: it's OK to take roughly a quart of liquid, but it has to be in max 3.4 ounce containers. That never made any sense to me. I can't take a 12-ounce bottle of lotion, but I can take four 3-ounce bottles of the same lotion and that's safer or easier to screen. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 22930968)
Back on the original question: Of course the full groping is punitive. Maybe you won't intrude upon their checkpoint with your child's milk the next time, citizen.
|
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 22932161)
But they don't vapor test and swab stuff in the baggie - unless the x-ray machine is also a vapor sniffer. Maybe the screeners are able to sniff out what's in the baggies, just like the BODs can pick out bad guys in the crowd.
Purchase and use of vapor testing machines took place; and purchase and use of ETD sticks and ETD swabbing machines did take place. All were used, at least for some period of time, including to test baggies and or items in baggies; they were also sort of counting on screeners sniffing things more easily as a result of concentration in a sealed bag upon being opened. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 22932170)
Yeah, it would be interesting to know who the scientific genius was who decided that a resealable bag would contain vapors and make detecting prohibited substances easier. I wonder if TSOs are ever even trained to test the 'vapors' from the just-unsealed Kippie bag (instead of the individual containers).
spd476 does raise a point that has never made sense: it's OK to take roughly a quart of liquid, but it has to be in max 3.4 ounce containers. That never made any sense to me. I can't take a 12-ounce bottle of lotion, but I can take four 3-ounce bottles of the same lotion and that's safer or easier to screen. I wouldn't be surprised if this ridiculous limit about bottle size in bag came from a person or groups ignorant or dismissive about the acquisition/creation of empty, larger containers/bottles airside because their focus was to put on a bigger dog and pony show for the public since they didn't know what to do to prevent a mythical plot consisting of alleged "liquid bombs" being made airside. Let's keep in mind that these are the same kind of characters that technically banned passengers from having lap child infants and in-flight child restraining devices for at least a day or two that summer. Which non-desperate scientist with a brain would want to work for the following? http://www.tc.faa.gov/aar500/ |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:43 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.