Passenger with broken wrist denied boarding due to "explosive residue"
 

Passenger with broken wrist blocked at Lambert after cast allege - KMOV.com

Once again we note that the TSA has no ability detect real bombs.

Proves that TSA ETD machines are no more reliable than Whole Body Imagers. WBI alerts on nothing resulting in crotch gropes, ETD alerts on many non threat compounds.

I found this sentence in the article somewhat informative:

How often have we heard of screeners requiring passengers to remove boots from injured ankles and then walk through either the WTMD or MMW?

I really hope there is some sort of legal claim regarding treatment of a (temporarily) disabled passenger here. ADA amendments and court rulings have been more favorable for temporary disabilities recently IIRC.

I hope so also. From the frequency of these reports over the years, it is evident that TSA has no ability whatsoever to screen these types of passengers. TSA basically either has to waive their screening or deny this entire class of passengers the right to move about the country.

Does anyone have a better option for screening the cast once it alarms? Unwrapping it is a bad idea, but if it alarms the (notoriously over-inclusive ETD machine), what can the screeners do to rule out the presence of explosives? I don't like the conclusion of this story better than anyone who has posted in this thread, but I'm not sure I have a better solution that wouldn't allow a cast made of explosives to fly.

Maybe look for other chemical signatures for use with the ETD that are not found in common hand lotions and 100's of other common, perfectly harmless household products.

Philosophically I believe the outcome of any government-run airport security screening in the USA should be either letting the passenger fly or referring them for immediate arrest and charges. Any other outcome is a 5th-amendment deprivation of liberty or property IMO (i.e., I don't believe TSA should be able to confiscate/ban items that are not actual WEI unlike the current policy that lets them confiscate ban non-WEI such as water because they are too incompetent to tell the difference*).

The burden of proof must be on TSA to prove that the item is a threat not on the passenger to prove that their person/property is not a threat. ETD alarm is clearly not probable cause for an arrest given the false positive rate. Banning a passenger based on an ETD alarm and nothing else sounds like a traffic cop charging a person with DUI based on smelling alcohol in a parked car with no breath test, blood test, impaired driving, or other evidence of DUI.

I agree this creates a real-life dilemma as posted by Ari, but TSA put itself in this position and is responsible for finding a resolution. Off the top of my head, options would be having an actual explosives expert visually examine the cast (maybe over video conference), screen the passenger for "paraphernalia" (i.e., detonator), or [gasp] taking the risk that a middle-aged American female plant-biology professor flying from a technical conference back to her university is actually suffering from a broken arm and not a suicidal terrorist mastermind. Say what you will about profiling based on various controversial and non-controversial criteria, but the totality of the circumstances should be considered before banning an American citizen from traveling.

(*I would allow a temporary exception of no longer than 90-days if a "new" threat was discovered, but no more. No 12-year water ban. No long-term laptop ban.)

Can anyone speak to the quantitative abilities of these screening devices? Can they detect "magnitudes" of anything? Or is it just detected / not detected? Can they differentiate between a trace detection, or a pure explosive material? (I'm probably answering my own question here.)

Recently having two surgical procedures, I was amazed at the number of times the nursing staff washed their hands or used an anti-bacterial product before touching me. I could imagine the wrap she had on the cast being "soaked" in glycerin or some other chemical that tested as "explosive."

I think having Trace in the name is a giveaway although they certainly aren't very good at the Explosive part of the task.

Current standards require medical workers to use anti-bacterial products before touching a patient and after even if they will be donning gloves.

I think it's detected/not detected. Interesting to note that the TSA's ETD machines alarm on all sorts of things, but their explosive sniffing dogs don't. The dogs seem to be looking for "complete" explosives while the ETD machines look for components of explosives.

Agreed but this seemed to be more than I have observed in the past. Maybe because of the prevelance of the flu.