Security Scanners & LAGS - What do they actually detect?

[Archphoto]

After yet another flight and security delay, I had a discussion with my colleague in the QP regarding the LAG security stipulation, and how limiting the amount of said LAG is more secure than having, for example, a 150ml bottle of perfume going through.

We both mused over the reasons behind this "security" measure and whether or not it is "secure" process in itself. Do the scanners actually detect explosives in liquid form, in a similar vein to the Quarantine scanners which can detect foodstuffs? (I have had my small bottles of shampoo and conditioner looked at rather thoroughly on a few previous occasions, and been questioned as to what the carry-on liquid containers actually contained. They took my reply at face value and waved me through.:shock

The allowance of the small amount may make us feel more secure (?), but surely 100ml of some type of liquid explosive is more than enough to do some serious damage, if the scanners don't detect it as such.

After all, nobody actually tests the liquids we take through; is that really shampoo??

 

[medhead]

That's why the volume is limited. The volume restrictions are supposed to mean that even if you did have liquid explosive you will not have enough to do serious damage to an aircraft. Based on analysis of the energy potential of the liquid explosives and all that. Well that's the theory anyhow.