EPA feels differently. I used to do a lot of Hazmat. New and used stuff. If 20 oz bottles can go in the office trash, then I am buying stock in a company that makes 20 oz bottles. Every company that now collects 50 gallon drums of used chemicals and pays a lot for Hazmat disposal would buy 20 oz bottles, collect in them, and "Look, we can just throw these in the waste can!"

Earlier you also said that 3 oz bottles are so small they can be thrown in the trash. Take a 3 oz bottle of mercury to the EPA and ask "Can I just throw this in the trash?" See what they say.

And a trained chemist cannot make TATP in the lav in 20 minutes. Period. The bragging British punks basis of the Water Ban is a lie. See sig below for the full story.

I didn't see the any of those descriptive words in his post.

You said before that you're not allowed to open, touch or smell contents of anything. How do you know the contents in any container?

There are two points of view here. One is that when TSA says HAZMAT TSA is referring to things that are commonly known as that substance and that substance is clearly identifiable as such due to the container it is in. The other is and what I gather from the posts on here is that some of you believe everything that is liquid and is not allowed in checkpoint should be considered hazmat and that is not the case. It is true the TSA may not know what is in the bottle and we are not allowed to verify it but the fact of the matter is that if it was hazmat, it wouldnt be over the limit that has to be treated as such, regardless of what the other poster said. I get his point, if you have 60 one liter containers of class 8 then you have to treat it as a hazmat, but a roller barrel of shampoos, toothpaste, water, pop, beer, wine, rubbing alcohol, mouthwash, in their totality doesnt constitute hazmat. Add to the fact that you should not want it to because the cost of disposal would be out of sight and it would be passed on to the traveler.

I can't tell who you are and sorry to say an e-mail would not help. I can send you an e-mail from Secretary Hawleys account (as seen from the headers).

Perhaps your labeling public posts on a UBB is simply humor that I'm missing.

again, it all boils down to the APPEARANCE of safety and security.

I bet even the TSA goons don't believe in it, if they're smart enough to understand it.

Sorry, I conflated two thoughts.

1) Tule - It is primarily a California plant, If you don't live in California the origin mught not be clear. It was just an FYI.

2) Crystalline (and as you see, I misspelled it myself, above) - Just struck me as a notable error from one just returned from a technical class on explosives.

Your point is simply that liquid explosives exist. No one is arguing that.

I agree with you about the basis of the total quantity of liquids pertaining to hazmat classification and handling. I agree with you about the mercury statement. There are some things in ANY amount that are considered hazmat. TSA doesnt see those things very often at all and when it does get found then it is dealt with as a hazmat. This doesnt justify the position that all the things that are liquids should be treated as hazmat. One thing holds true to hazmat detection and handling and that is "ignorance is bliss." IF someone brings in a container of a hazardous substance and it is not clearly known by TSA that it is such, we are absolved of any liability for its handling. Now if you were to bring in 5 gallons of gasoline in a container that said it was gasoline, TSA would call the airline that you are flying and they would have to deal with it. Its a combination of things that lead to the discovery of the substance that makes it a hazmat incident. TSA isnt allowed to taste, smell, touch, sample or open opaque containers. If it is not marked then it is "just an unknown liquid."

I agree with you about the TATP statement that you make. IT cannot be done in the bathroom. I acknowledged that. However there are some that can and that is more that enough reason to do what TSA does.

And there are a lot of scientists and military experts that would disagree with that.

Very Lewis Carroll-like, ain't it?

[Moronic TSA Policy]Liquids are so dangerous that we must ban them from the airplane cabin unless they are 100 mL or less and all fit in a one quart baggie. But treat them as hazardous once we confiscate them from passengers? Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows there's only about a one in a trillion chance they're really hazardous.[/Moronic TSA Policy]

Absolute nonsense. All I see are 44,000 playing cards masquerading as actual security professionals.

Lets take a simple one then race car fuel and fertilizer. Still thinking about that broad, unsupported statement that you just made?

ANFO is not composed of two separate, innocuous compounds that become explosive when combined.

Both of which are not innocuous and would be detected by the ETD. Wish to try again?

So I'm assuming that everyone on this thread is for wasting more tax dollars and being even stupider by disposing these items in a hazmat manner? I'm sure hazmat disposal companies would love to be able to rip off the airports to dispose of items that are harmless!
cheers
howie

So TSA, through its inability to identify the contents of relatively small containers of liquid, is seizing personal property from United States citizens on the pretext the containers could contain hazardous material? Then, TSA discards the (possibly) hazardous material by distributing the material to whomever they choose? Forgive me if I cannot find the logic in this - either it is or it isn't contraband, subject to disposition as such. You can't have it both ways, though TSA apparently has so far.

I wish someone would undertake a research project and estimate how much has been taken from flyers over the past year and attach a monetary value. We could probably buy a small foreign country with the money that has gone in the trash.

No, we're for ending this charade by showing how ludicrous it is that if it isn't hazmat then there is absolutely no reason to be taking these items.