Neal's Workshop - Post details: TSA: Toiletries in Small Quantities Not a Threat

TSA: Toiletries in Small Quantities Not a Threat

Posted on 09-25-2006 at 02:45:57 pm by Justin, 335 words, 757 views

The Transportation Security Administration has partially re-allowed, after nearly a month-and-a-half ban, travelers to carry-on certain liquids and/or gel products. Per the Forbes article:

"We now know enough to say that a total ban is no longer needed from a security point of view," said Kip Hawley, head of the Transportation Security Administration, at a news conference at Reagan National Airport.

He said that most liquids and gels that air travelers purchase in secure areas of airports will now be allowed on planes. He called the new procedures a "common sense" approach that would maintain a high level of security at airports but ease conditions for passengers.

Passengers are allowed to carry-on certain toiletries as long as they are three ounces or less and can all "comfortably" fit into a 1-quart, clear plastic bag. TSA released the following poster to aid would-be travelers with the new rules:

Those toiletries do look comfortable enough in that bag, but aren't liquids and gells still potentailly dangerous? Apparently, not as a bomb: it's improbable that terrorists could successfully create and explode a liquid bomb aboard an aircraft. Despite such improbability, by limiting passnegers to a plastic baggy with minimal quantities of the bare essentials, TSA is playing it safe.

Or are they? Perhaps TSA's Kip Hawley should rent Tim Burton's Batman. If you'll recall from this film and as noted at Wikipedia, the Joker had certain evil plans involving toiletries:

Napier, in the meantime, is not dead but horribly disfigured, with white skin, green hair, and a permanent grin. Already erratic, the trauma has apparently driven him completely insane. Calling himself "The Joker", he kills Grissom and usurps his criminal empire. His first scheme is to spread terror in the city by creating hygiene products that are dangerous when mixed. Following the death of a news anchor on-air, the city becomes paralyzed with fear.

Clearly, toiletries in any quantity can be deadly when mixed. Perhaps this partial lift on toiletries isn't such a good idea after all.

Categories: Regulation, Freedom, Government • 6 comments

Permalink

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Idaho_Spud [Visitor]

Liquid explosives are exceedingly powerful. I've seen less volume of liquid explosive than the amounts pictured damage burst the welds on a steel silo when we were trying to remove some material that was hung up on the slope side.

When the pressure wave hit the roof of the silo (the explosive dude said it would be OK to remain on top), it hammered my feet and felt like I'd juped off the roof of my house.

I can't imagine what it would have been like inside the silo, let alone in a flimsy aluminum aircraft at 35k feet.
That was just a couple of ounces of stuff he mixed up on site.

Permalink 09-25-2006 @ 20:18

Comment from: Aaron [Member]

What stuff was this, exactly? You were standing on the steel object that was being exploded; of course the pressure wave would travel almost undisturbed up it, and probably be focused at the top.

Frankly I'm not convinced that would have done much more in a plane than cause a bunch of ringing ears, like a big firecracker.

You'd need to do more than even blow out a few windows to bring a plane down (the fast way). As I understand it, quantities of feasible binary explosives that would blow apart a fuselage would be difficult to transport and mix without going off prematurely (and to greatly reduced effect).

Of course, this whole debate is inane: the terrorists were caught before they even got near an airport, thanks to intelligence that worked the way it should.

Permalink 09-25-2006 @ 23:51

Comment from: Nathan [Visitor]

· http://www.tiedtheleader.com

big surprise on this one. Geez, I never saw this kind of back peddle coming.

Permalink 09-26-2006 @ 01:10

Comment from: js290 [Visitor]

Intelligence that worked thanks to the War on Terror. Gots to love that Bear Patrol.

Permalink 09-26-2006 @ 01:43

Comment from: Idaho_Spud [Visitor]

Aaron - I’m unsure what the liquids were - I just know that it didn't take very much of it, that it burst the welds on ¼” steel, and blew a tremendous amount of dust out the access door. As you say, the pressure wave probably was focused. What would preclude the same focusing effect from occurring in an aircraft made of thin riveted aluminum?

If you think an aircraft could survive such an internal pressure wave while already under tensile stress from being at altitude, you might be mistaken. (Yes, I saw that Mythbusters episode - and a charge placed around a window is not the same as having a very large volume of gas generated suddenly inside an aircraft)

I’m also not so sure if the debate (if that’s what it is) is inane or not. *Britain's* police uncovered the alleged plot. Our own keystone cops can't figure things out when they have a terrorist in custody before the fact (Moussaoui), even with an FBI agent jumping up and down waving the red flag.

Permalink 09-26-2006 @ 09:07

Comment from: Aaron [Member]

Spud:

What I was getting at is basically that a charge placed directly on a fuselage (which a silo nicely approximates) is nothing like having an explosion originate from the air volume within. The propagation of the pressure wave is thousands of times weaker through air. It falls off inverse-cubed with the distance from the explosion, so that by the time it hits the fuselage it is much weaker than if it were fixed directly to it. That is my qualitative physics argument; of course to really settle this, someone will need to do some math =)

As for the policing... yes all I was saying is that *someone's* intelligence figured it out. That's the way its supposed to work. Britain's cops were clearly doing their jobs. In fact, I've heard the US interfered by moving up the date of the bust, possibly preventing the UK from finding all the plotters (which is the real reason a ban on liquids was called for).

Permalink 09-26-2006 @ 13:23