The Science Behind the Liquid Restriction
 

New Link to Evolution...
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/05/scie...ind-3-1-1.html
Doesn't look like anything new here.

In one spot they say H202 plus Tang = boom. In another a mysterious "organic material" plus H202 plus tang = boom.

Seriously? Are we talking consumer H2O2 that's diluted or high concentration stuff not readily available off the shelf?

I smell a Mythbusters test waiting to happen.

Hasn't Mythbusters settled this argument yet? Those guys can make anything blow up. :D

edit: I didn't see the post above this one before posting. :)

Actually, I'm fairly sure it's the highly concentrated stuff that is needed, but you'd never know it from the "reporting".

To me, it's simple. Scare the sheeple so they will be good little people.

Hey, leave the Mythbusters out of this! There's only two possible scenarios: (a) they film a sequence where they bust the myth, then mysteriously disappear forever along with the video evidence. :( Or (b) the TSA bribes/threatens/coerces them to "confirm" the myth and then puts the video "evidence" on its website with great fanfare. :mad:

12344435

You're missing nothing. We've been saying similar things since August 10, 2006.

Junk science makes for really bad (and illogical) policy. Junk science in the hands of liars like Chertoff leads to (deleted - don't want to run afoul of the TOS).

Don't forget about all the airports that allow you to "donate" oversized toiletries for the homeless or some other cause...because it's ok to blow them up if shampoo and conditioner mix in the shower :rolleyes:

I need to start filling out comment cards when i see that again. I think CID had one and i'm going there next week.

The TSA has long been relying upon GW-type fear and ignorance in order to continue application of this 'safety' policy. In reality, the earliest reports after the original 'scare' back in 2006 said all that needed to be said - it was a gross overreaction to a limited threat at the time, and everything since has just added to the compounded stupidity.

What makes matters worse is that almost 2 years into this carry-on restriction, there are still thousands of passengers who every day at every airport in the country pack 'prohibited' items and then throw time-sucking fits at the checkpoints when they aren't allowed to bring their gallons of 'do you know how expensive this was!?' creams and gels through the checkpoint. :confused:

Lieslieslies - all the TSA and DHS are capable of. Screw them both. :td:

Slightly OT-PHX in T3 on the AA concourse has them, in their very own holders & everything, but they are outside of the checkpoint as you exit the concourse to go back down to the main terminal & baggage claim. Not where anyone who is having problems during the screening process would ever see them.

Lovely.

From Anonymous on Evolution...
 

I highly suggest all visit evolution to read the comment including the above line. It is comment number 6, 7 or so.

Don't forget the little boy!:D

i am very impressed by the EXPERT replies
 

Obviously there are lots of chemical engineers and other experts regulary replying in this forum....:rolleyes:

But I imagine at least some of you took at least one class in high school chemistry - it is NOT difficult to make highly explosive compounds from otherwise benign and "innocent looking" ingredients.

Several people carrying aboard the necessary ingredients separately and then combining them could could easily have enough material to create a catastrophic event.

One person with the requisite materials in the limits established while able to create a very unwelcome event probably could not create a catastrophic event unless very very lucky in the placement and resultant collateral damage.

Why is this so difficult for people to accept?

Apparently you stopped at high school chemistry or haven't taken (or taught ;) ) any chemical engineering courses.

You cannot make reasonable explosives by tossing two or more liquids together, unless those liquids are already explosives. However, carrying pre-made nitroglycerin or TATP usually causes premature reaction.

Time (slow mixing) and temperature control are essential to making liquid explosives. I realize your high school chemistry teacher may have omitted this lesson, but there are plenty of other resources available, in addition to the fine compilation on this website.

Got any specific chemical or chemical engineering questions? Feel free to post them here. Don't be shy, use big words. We're here to expose, not obscure, the "liquids threat" for exactly what it is.

okay, explain why I couldnt use hydrazine and amonium nitrate carried in mini liquor bottles and mixed in a Starbucks "frappacino" bottle? obviously because of the smell I couldnt do it in my seat unless the pax around me were already dead - but 5-10 minutes in a lavatory with some breathing aparatus would allow more than enough to cause a catastrophic event.

get one pax to cause a diversionary incident in F while another one or two works in a Y aft lavatory?

come on, its not simple - but it aint really rocket science (in spite of the hydrazine).