Archphoto
Established Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Posts
- 1,394
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??
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??
