I agree it would be picked up by the ETD ... IF the container carrying it gets swabbed. But that is the whole point. How much is it going to slow things down if they have to swab every liquid container? For a leisure trip, I would typically have a carry-on that would haveat least:

1) 8 or 12 oz bottle of contact lens solution;
2) Bottle of dandruff shampoo (hotels don't provide);
3) At least one bottle of water;
4) bottle of sunscreen if we are heading to warm weather vacation;
5) possibly bottle of sport drink or soda.

No sunscreen or sport drink probably if on a business trip, but swabbing 3 or 4 bottles per passenger is going to take some time.

On the stability issue, the papers I have read on nitroglycerin state that it needs a pretty big "start" to explode. The example they give is that if you have a small pool of nitroglycerin on a surface, and you hit it with a hammer, the nitro under the hammer will explode, but in all likelihood, the rest of the nitroglycerin in the continguous pool will not explode.

Hence my point about encouraging pax to check larger bottles, and sending them from x-ray to a separate ETD queue if they have any over 4 oz. in their carry-ons to examine. I would prefer to wait a few more minutes at security for the times I really need to travel with more than 4oz of something than to have to check it.

How can you even try to call them effective when you and your suntan lotion just took a trip together? They KNEW they had something come up on the x-ray, but never FOUND it and let you go anyway. If this was truly a "security" operation, your luggage wouldn't be allowed anywhere until they figured out exactly what they had seen on x-ray to begin with. The fact they let you through indicates they know as well as we do that the entire thing is a charade wasting money and time == yours and mine

and BTW, on the topic of the safe traveler program - there is no way I'd the government license to stick their nose further into my personal affairs -- and to pay for it besides? I don't think so!!

On the trusted traveler program, didn't we have people pretty much condemning exempting holders of clearances from SSSS and full secondaries? They get way more background investigation than the trusted traveler program, too (not that it's free, either)

It's ok as long as everyone has an equal chance to pay and tell the government their life story in exchange for a little less hassle.