|
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 7734727)
I have been to training where two liquids are combined that are in themselves not considered explosive till they are combined.
|
Originally Posted by birdstrike
(Post 7737270)
...if you mix Hawline and Chertite something bad happens?
|
Way to miss the point. My toiletries should go to me, the person who paid for them, not to the individual or organization of a government authority's choosing. If my items are so dangerous that they must be confiscated, they should be logged as evidence and then destroyed safely as hazardous waste at such time they are no longer needed as evidence. If you want to donate to charity, please do so with funds and property from your own pocket. I will choose to donate to the charities of my own choosing, and I will almost certainly donate something useful to the homeless (cash) rather than something useless (SK-II skin care products).
Originally Posted by etch5895
(Post 7734496)
All in all, though, its better to go to someone who can use it (the homeless) instead of just trashing it.
I agree that this does not make the liquid ban right, but at least they are doing something usefulwith the confiscated things. |
Originally Posted by peachfront
(Post 7737340)
If my items are so dangerous that they must be confiscated, they should be logged as evidence and then destroyed safely as hazardous waste at such time they are no longer needed as evidence. If you want to donate to charity, please do so with funds and property from your own pocket. I will choose to donate to the charities of my own choosing, and I will almost certainly donate something useful to the homeless (cash) rather than something useless (SK-II skin care products).
Oh, I forgot - due process went out the window on 9/11. |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 7736605)
Since we dont know and we are not allowed to know
|
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 7736605)
Okay once again its the people on this board that insist that TSA is telling people that they cant take liquids on a plane because they may be explosive therefore they should be treated as hazmat. If they were treated as hazmat, as you well know, the cost to dispose of them would be astronomical. The purpose of the no liquid over 3.4 oz is to prevent any possible binary explosives from getting on. It is a deterrent to someone thinking about it. Remember in hazmat training that if you know that it is, or you discover that it is, then it is YOUR responsibility to properly dispose of it. Since we dont know and we are not allowed to know then it is treated as a plain liquid. ORM/D wont make it either.
The simplest solution to the TSA giving what they confiscate to anyone is to uncap the container before disposing of it. |
I guess that Texas is more environmentally conscious than Colorado ;) :
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 7631930)
Before this thread goes too far with some of the inaccuracies, TSA is held to the same standards as any other federal agency in terms of HAZMAT disposal, health guidelines, etc.
Every night, we have a couple TSOs who are specifically trained in HAZMAT who collect all the HAZMAT at screening checkpoints and checked baggage screening locations. They make sure that these items are properly disposed in appropriate containers that are marked in accordance with federal standards (the various classes of HAZMAT) and are stored in an area that has already been inspected and approved as appropriate for temporary storage of HAZMAT. Then every so often (I don't know the exact frequency since I am not HAZMAT-certified), this HAZMAT is transported off of airport property to a designated location for the permanent disposal of HAZMAT. |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 7736554)
No we went out an blew up airplanes!
|
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
(Post 7739833)
No, you didn't. You watched video(s) of old tests executed with solid explosives.
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 6405369)
I just had a class on liquid binaries and we blew the seats, deck, bulkhead and overhead compartments out of a mock plane with them. The sad thing is that by looking at the bottle, you would swear that it had water in it.
|
Don't objects that the TSA confiscates (clippers with nail files, etc.) get sold on eBay? I saw a large article on this somewhere and then a 60 Minutes about it as well.
|
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 7739968)
Actually he has said otherwise, but we haven't been provided with the specifics:
Sorry to play the skeptic here, but even if it looks like that's what they're doing, in reality what you have is: 1) the actual explosions are caused by pre-hidden solid explosive charges, or 2) the liquid explosives were created in controlled lab conditions which are virtually impossible to replicate on board an aircraft I wouldn't put it past DHS management to pull the wool over the eyes of their own employees. |
Originally Posted by bocastephen
(Post 7740371)
Actually, we have no way of knowing (nor do the DHS attendees) exactly what was being used for the 'demos' - are the trainers mixing chemicals in front of the class and then using those very same containers to detonate in the controlled tests?
|
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 7740702)
I have always had a difficult time in trying to reconcile this "demo" with what I have read concerning the feasibility of creating a liquid binary explosive.
If DHS really wants everyone to believe this risk is valid, I challenge them to do a public demonstration for the newsmedia, where they take two or more liquids/gels, without identifying what they are (duh), mix and prep them outside controlled conditions (like in a sample lav), without showing the actual mixing process (duh), then immediately use that very sample to cause an explosion without the aid of any detonators or other devices which would be prohibited items - right in front of the media. Want us to believe it? Then prove it! |
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 7739968)
Actually he has said otherwise, but we haven't been provided with the specifics:
|
Originally Posted by eyecue
Since we dont know and we are not allowed to know
Originally Posted by essxjay
(Post 7738243)
I'm just curious whether the epistemic consequences of this statement gobsmacks anyone else? :(
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:43 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.