What about these:

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/bls.shtm

http://www.icxt.com/products/detecti...fido-paxpoint/

http://www.smithsdetection.com/eng/1384.php

The TSA has no way of knowing what's really in all those 3 oz. containers. All they see is *too big*. :rolleyes: You could theoretically put plastic explosive in a small face cream jar, and if there were enough jars, bring down a plane. It's not security - it's just a Kip Hawley Is An Idiot Bag.

You don't need to put the quotation marks around 'toothpaste' because that's what it was. If the TSO had believed anything else, he would have called out the haz-mat or ordinance team to get rid of it instead of tossing it in the trash.

And since you called out another poster on grammar in a different thread, don't forget the apostrophe after parents (as in "parents' bag.")

Have a nice day, haveaniceday.

It's hard for me to describe on a text message board just how ridiculous the toothpaste seizure from this little kid looked as it happened.

Maybe the TSA will post the video on its website, like they did when the Secret Service woman spilled (or dumped) her kid's cup. Never in a million years will we see this video.

The poster I 'called out' on their grammar was calling out some one else for thier qouted grammer. I thought it funny that they would comment when theirs was so not perfect.

I really just wanted to know if you were asking if TSO's would just look the other way when searching a childs bag. Like you are saying 'it's in a child's bag so it must be harmless'.:)

At the risk of wasting bandwidth by repeating things, this was the question in the OP, posed to any TSA employee who wanted to field it: "Do you ever just look the other way when you find something like that, or would you get in big trouble from Kipland?"

"Something like that" refers to the child's toothpaste.

And it's "child's bag," not childs bag.

Yes, its only to bring a small toothpaste is 3.4oz can go through security checkpoint. If you bring toothpaste but, pleased have your chance put toothpaste into checked bags next time. Because it is liquid restrictions due to security measure. Hope you will understands from TSA regulations about liquid restrictions at airport. Thanks. :)

Not at all - it's to highlight the idiocy of screening toothpaste by size of the tube instead of using readily available technology that actually detects explosive material.

Actually it seems that the point of the post is that a child's bag is harmless.:)

While that is the point you seem determined to extract, it is not the key one.

Personally I have had a screener allow me to get by with a larger than 100ml container of sunscreen with a remark to the effect that I shouldn't do it again.

Even one of the SPOT trained screeners wouldn't mistake me for a child with progeria. :p

I (or my organization) has seen these and tested them for the DoD and I know we didnt think all of them were suitable for military applications. I cannot speak for what the DHS did to test them but I would be willing to bet that if these items actually worked as the vendor specs said they did you would already see them in use.

FWIW detecting even a small number of TICs at trace levels is much more difficult science wise than most people might think.

I'm with you on this one. There's no winning in this situation, esp when you're "marked" so to speak, as any TSAers are on here.

Only when the TSAers in question persist in the "potential explosive" charade.

The Kipster can get away with that with the general public, but it doesn't go over so well here. ^

So, asking the other side: How many FTers have been allowed through with oversized liquids/gels? I have been -explicitly- allowed through once. One other time a larger than allowed bottle made it through screening without comment.

Many FTers have had larger bottles make it though screening. The question is whether this happens through screeners excercising judgment, or screeners not doing their job.

Ummm if you don't test those sort of things for a living or anything, then why are you suggesting nothing like this exists?

Well guess what - it does exist, and it's in use at academic and industrial labs all over the place. A simple scan of an object, without taking a sample or swab, will determine the chemical makeup of the contents. It's not the machines listed by TMSPA, either. I've posted the link to the company and their brochure twice in the past couple years.

The cost is not expensive, around 200-250K per unit, and they can be added to a CT/MRI scanner to check liquids/gels and baggage all inline.

Spending the money to check for a nonsense threat while there are so many other open holes in the system seems stupid, but regardless, the devices to take care of this threat are available.

I think TSA will eventually go away liquid restrictions. I think I would likely to being allowance bring larger bottles water but, bottles water is not an the threat at all. It's absolutely is no sense why TSA is taking them away from you. You must to be purchase at sterile area instead of security checkpoint. Because TSA has been still banned bring largers bottles water after cleared security checkpoint. I think Kippie need to being changed the rules in near the future.