Okay, this is something I've been meaning to get off my chest for some time. Finally, I figured I'd put it here.
Just what is up with those little airline baggies? I mean, what are they really for? Has anyone thought about it?
We're told, we can carry one sealable bag in our carry-on luggage. In this bag we can put any liquids we have that are 200 mL or less. There is no limit on the number of 200 mL bottles, so long as they fit in the bag.
Doesn't this seem...well, dangerous, to anyone else? I mean, technicaly I can stuff the bag full of 200 mL bottles--and I've seen bags that will easily hold liters. Not only that, but they force you to put them in a nice, closed bag to hold all the contents together. Are you seeing where I'm going with this? Let me explain.
If you put a half-dozen 200mL bottles in your carry-on, but not in the bag, and then they leak--what happens? They drip all over your bag, soak into the material and any clothes you have and otherwise get diluted and absorbed.
Now, if you have a half-dozen of the same bottles all stored together in a nicely closed, plastic bag, what happens if they leak? All the liquid is runs into the bag where it protects your stuff by being held, safely mixing with all the other liquids that have leaked.
Now, say those liquids are components of an explosive....well, now you see where I'm going. Instead of the leaked liquids being diluted and absorbed by the material, they are contained in a small area and thoroughly mixed with each other. The result would be a much greater explosion than if there was no bag because the explosives are concentrated and well mixed. So, in effect, the airlines are insisting we use something that would actually make the terrorists more effective.
'Surely one would need more explosive than that?' I hear you say. Well, to be honest, I don't know enough about explosives to answer you definitively, but this is where lateral thinking comes in. One doesn't have to blow-up the entire plane to cause serious damage. I'm pretty sure it doesn't take too much to blow a hole in the side of the plane, depressurizing it. Probably even household explosives could do that. Nitrogen tri-iodide, for example, can be easily made in the home. It's inert when in a saturated paste (as if suspended in water-say, stored in a 200mL bottle), but very unstable when dried. There's a good chance that a kilogram of it (the amount you could easily smuggle on board in a series of small 200mL bottles), placed in the right location could do some serious damage.
So what? you say. It could be smuggled on without the baggies also. Precisely! As I see it, those little baggies do nothing to protect from any real danger and only increase the dangers they are supposed to protect against while simultaneously inconveniencing travelers.
Oh, and in case you are under the delusion that airport security is infalible, I've seen reporters break the system in some airports (Rome for example) where they recently were able to smuggle knives, flammables, and litres of liquid onto international flights. All they did was book a short, national flight that connected with an international flight. They stowed all the forbidden material (1.5L bottle of water, scissors and knives with 6-inch blades and numerous other things) in a carry on-sized suitcase which they checked for the first flight. Upon arriving, they picked up their bag from the carousel and exited a 'no access' short-cut to the departure wing. A short time later, they were flying high with a suitcase full of 'dangerous' material, which they demonstrated in the airplane bathroom before showing the stewards.
True, this may not be possible in every, or even most airports in the world. But the fact that it is possible in even one major international airport in the west does give one pause to think. Just how safe do the new safety measure really make us and, if someone wants to kill you badly enough, they will find a way, regardless of whether your government has inconvenienced the entire rest of the world to try and stop them.
If you worry about such things, then be thankful not for the Orwellian-style security measures imposed by our governments, but rather for the fact that the vast majority of terrorists are stupid and very few terrorist attacks (such as those recently in the UK) have been successful. Because, if the terrorists were more intelligent, we'd probably be dead already, regardless of what GW or any other world leader would have you believe.
EH Rydberg
No comments:
Post a Comment