It would be even nicer if TSA would stop confiscating personal property that is safe enough to either go to the homeless or send to a landfill but cannot be taken on a plane. Maybe they should put the volunteer idea to work at checkpoints and let passengers keep what they paid for.

Not an answer, just an excuse. Somebody got caught with their pants down when they made a decision to hand the confiscated items out to the home'esss and now the TSA is covering up by bringing in the threat of a potential lawsuit. Much easier to do that than to admit that the stuff is not a threat to anyone.

It is not an excuse, though you might view it as such, it is is a fact in the United States' lawsuit prone society. Under the current rules a lawsuit is not only feasable but likely if one gets hurt from those products, and the case is very easily won.

Changing the rules for carry-ons and the current lawsuit chances are two unrelated items.


Ciao,
FH

As lawyers on here have stated, it's very difficult to sue the federal government. I think the term used was sovereign immunity but one of them could better answer that.

True, but not impossible, and in fact happens often.

Ciao,
FH

You could always bring a personal lawsuit against Hawley and Chertoff. I'm sure they signed off on it.

I don't think the argument "If its unsafe for the plane, it is unsafe for anywhere else" is compelling.

First, there are all sorts of things that are believed not to be appropriate for a carry-on bag, yet are considered reasonable outside the sterile area (e.g. a box-cutter).

Additionally, and perhaps more to the point, the liquids rule is supposed to keep terrorists from attempting to get hazardous materials on the plane (admittedly this presumes a level of effectiveness that doesn't appear to be exist). If the terrorists believe that there is no way to get their dangerous liquid on the plane, there is no reason that they would bring it to the checkpoint to get confiscated.

Obviously they might be using the TSA as unwitting dupes to get their radioactive/biohazard shampoo to homeless people, but there would seem to be much more direct ways of introducing dangerous substances to consumers (e.g. just return tampered product to a store).

Finally, both sides of the binary explosive debate befuddle me.

On one hand we have the TSA that behaves like a prepubescent saying "Oh there is a threat, but its a secret and we wont tell you. . .nyah, nyah" and can't produce anything that exhibits critical thinking or intellectual honesty.

In the other corner, we have the TSA attackers who point out that it would be impractical to rely on TATP or similar and ignores other more reasonable threats such as nitroglycerin.

Incidentally the 3-1-1 nonsense does nothing that I can see to inhibit mixing up a batch of nitroglycerin. So we are left with the worst of both worlds: A costly and annoying security process and no mitigation to a real threat.

Quote which would be detected by puffers or ETD swabs but WON'T be detected by x-rays.

I believe the precursors to nitro would also be detected by puffers and ETD swabs.

And even then, I believe it still has to be mixed in very controlled condtions ... ones likely not to be found on board a plane or in an airport.

The precursors are a nitric/sulfuric acid mix and glycerin. I believe that the puffers would detect some fumes off of the concentrated acid but we all realize that the puffers are seldom used. The glycerin is unlikely to be detected as so many products (e.g. soaps) would cause false positives.

My understanding is that producing it does not require very controlled conditions - other than temperature (and the big issue here is to keep the product cool enough so it doesn't go off prematurely - which is likely only to concern a terrorist insofar as if it occurs before enough product has been produced to guaranty the destruction of the aircraft - an further, it doesn't strike me as a major engineering feat to construct an ice bath for cooling).

And if even this is considered too unlikely, how about a terrorist that wears clothes made of nitrocellulose onto the flight?

My point is that there are real threats, but the TSA is failing to protect us from them while inflicting their own damage upon the traveling public.

Which is a gross failing on TSA's part. The technology is there, it just needs to be used.

Even so, it still causes them to go crazy. Ask iluv2fly about the fun he had when he tested positive for glycerin. It at least triggers further bag checks and swabbing.

Even so, where are you going to get enough ice on a plane or in an airport to make enough of the stuff WITHOUT causing unwanted attention? You might be able to get away with a coke cup or two full of ice, but I don't think it's going to be nearly enough.

Probably about as likely. And how can we detect this without using puffers?

I agree with this. :)