relangford

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 .

lg10

Precisely why I thought it was punitive. Though the suggestion was made that carrying such a suspicious item might be a sign of a bad guy who would have a detonator - one that doesn't show up on the scopes, but could be found by a goon in blue gloves, of course!

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

GUWonder

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).

lg10

Thanks for the explanations! OOOOHHH that makes me mad, someone spoiling a woman's hard-won "liquid gold" - I remember from my nursing days how each and every ounce was so precious because of how hard it was to get and how necessary it was for the baby. For my DS yesterday, at least I could buy more back in BOS the next day.

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

petaluma1

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?

FliesWay2Much

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.

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.

lg10

Yes for groping, yes for testing her gloves (I wondered why she was so careful about putting on the new gloves when usually I have to ask for it), no for testing my hands.

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.

lg10

LOL!


Yes, in fact in BOS I had put two in their own quart freedom-baggie before declaring them, as a matter of fact.

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?

GUWonder

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.

petaluma1

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.

chollie

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.

f0xx

Thanks for the laugh. ^

GUWonder

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.

GUWonder

DHS/TSA had hired some staff for science/R&D but I don't recall if this "genius" stupidity that year came from the UK side or the North American side. I first heard about this from EU sources but those EU sources weren't being sarcastic or even mocking any party; and then I heard some US officials say the same thing about why.

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/