|
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 7749652)
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.
cheers howie |
Originally Posted by stockmanjr
(Post 7749720)
While I agree these is no reason to be confiscating these items there have been several people on this thread who have said that if they are going to keep the rules in place the TSA should disposal of the confiscated items in a hazmat manner. That would be a major waste of taxpayer dollars and make this more of a charade than it already is.
cheers howie |
Originally Posted by stockmanjr
(Post 7749720)
While I agree these is no reason to be confiscating these items there have been several people on this thread who have said that if they are going to keep the rules in place the TSA should disposal of the confiscated items in a hazmat manner. That would be a major waste of taxpayer dollars and make this more of a charade than it already is.
|
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 7749128)
Both of which are not innocuous and would be detected by the ETD. Wish to try again?
|
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 7754233)
I never said that you could take two harmless liquids and combine them into a substance on the plane that would make a bomb. On the contrary, I said that those liquids that I am thinking about are class 3 and 8 hazmat. Your statement based on what you thought I said is wrong.
|
Originally Posted by birdstrike
(Post 7749850)
I don't think it would actually come to that. Sometimes it is useful to pit one government entity against another to encourage the truth to come out.
cheers howie |
Originally Posted by doctall41
(Post 7733654)
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where they sold the "muffintops" since that's where all the flavor was
|
Originally Posted by stockmanjr
(Post 7757386)
Problem is if some security crazed person in the goverment thought of using hazmat disposal for these items it could very well happen.
cheers howie |
Update
Salt Lake City Tribune: Charities lose items 'donated' at SLC airport
Federal transportation bureaucrats decided donating the sealed items - even though nary a tainted product nor other security problem ever was reported - was too risky. Liability and all. The edict has volunteers who help the homeless and the needy across Utah's capital scratching their heads. "It's like that thing where two kids were fighting for the toy so now nobody gets it," laments Alan Kaizumi, a member of the rescue mission's recovery program. "They just throw it straight in the Dumpster now." What's more, the program was proving so popular that other airports outside Salt Lake City International were expressing interest. Then, this spring, the Transportation Security Administration pulled the goodwill plug - in the name of Homeland Security. "Nobody knows what they are . . . even though they were sealed," says Nico Melendez, spokesman for TSA's national office. "You are talking about thousands of items collected each day. If we could continue it, we certainly would. But all it would take is just one item that could be a harm to somebody that would be a huge liability to this organization and the taxpayers." . . Lord, give me strength ... . . . |
Originally Posted by essxjay
(Post 8783847)
Salt Lake City Tribune: Charities lose items 'donated' at SLC airport
. . . Lord, give me strength ... . . . Still, I'd rather seen it thrown out than given to charities. Not that I have anything against charities, but I think this is TSA's way of acknowledging that if it's safe enough to give away then it's safe enough to get on the plane. Of course, they can't have that because people might catch on (some did like me and I wrote my Congresscritters about it) and expose what a farce the liquid ban is. Still, though, if it's safe enough to go into the garbage without hazmat or the garbage can going up in flames, it's probably safe enough to go on the plane too. |
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 8783962)
...I think this is TSA's way of acknowledging that if it's safe enough to give away then it's safe enough to get on the plane. Of course, they can't have that because people might catch on (some did like me and I wrote my Congresscritters about it) and expose what a farce the liquid ban is.
Still, though, if it's safe enough to go into the garbage without hazmat or the garbage can going up in flames, it's probably safe enough to go on the plane too. BTW, we've not heard from eyecue how the hazmat collection in DEN is going. Has anyone seen any hazmat barrels at checkpoints there? Read the comments posted below the link - very interesting. As we have begun to see recently, the public is turning against the TSA in waves, perhaps a tsunami-size wave will wash this agency away soon. The SLC Tribune gives readers of comments either a thumbs up or thumbs down icon to click to signal approval/disapproval of a comment. So far, the only comment that is pro-TSA has received a thumbs down; other anti-TSA comments have received thumbs up, sometimes more than one. |
Nobody knows what they are . . . even though they were sealed," says Nico Melendez, spokesman for TSA's national office. "You are talking about thousands of items collected each day. If we could continue it, we certainly would. But all it would take is just one item that could be a harm to somebody that would be a huge liability to this organization and the taxpayers." Ciao, FH |
Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian
(Post 8784627)
One trial with a punitive award of $10,000,000USD in taxpayer monies will make people even angrier. It would be nice if they could get some volunteers to check the items or come up with some process to ensure their safety.
Question: Do Good Samaritan laws not apply to the TSA? (And if not, why not?) |
Originally Posted by essxjay
(Post 8784728)
What would be even nicer is a little tort reform. :-:
Question: Do Good Samaritan laws not apply to the TSA? (And if not, why not?) The American "Public" would have a hissy fit if the TSA were sued, and a first year law grad would use the arguments above to win: "If it is not safe for a plane, why is it safe for homeless people?". I can see the headlines now... Not sure about the Good Samaritan laws for the TSA. A quick lex-nex search shows nothing coming up re: challenges. Being that the goods would travel through several hands before being redistributed, it might be a tough case? Interesting question though. Ciao, FH |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 7754233)
I never said that you could take two harmless liquids and combine them into a substance on the plane that would make a bomb. On the contrary, I said that those liquids that I am thinking about are class 3 and 8 hazmat. Your statement based on what you thought I said is wrong.
Either they are suspected as being hazmat or they aren't. Or do they magically turn back into water and lotion once they are confiscated? What a crock of crap. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:58 pm. |
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.