A funny thought occured to me recently. Next time I travel I'll have to check it out to see if I'm right (and if so, the reaction). As I remember it, from my last flight (less than a week ago) the baggies are restricted as follows: they are limited in size to about 10 or 15 cm a side and to containing no more than 1 L. You can also not have bottle any larger than 100 mL. The amount of liquid in the bottle doesn't matter, only the bottle size -- as I witnessed as the woman in front of me had to throw out 50 mL of contact cleaner because it was in a 250 mL bottle. Incidentally, it doesn't actually matter if the bag can seal as long as it is of the type that should be able to. This was my own personal experience as my resealable bag had a very well-used sticky strip that was no longer very sticky. In fact, the bottles kept falling out of the bag while I was in line. But no one in security cared about that.
Anyway, the funny thing I thought of was this: I don't recall seeing anywhere a statement to the effect that the liquid must actually be in the bottles. Only that you can only have 1L total and no larger than 100mL bottles. I'm seriously tempted to check this out next time and if I'm right I might do the following...bring into the line a bag with several 100mL bottles inside--> and carry a 500mL water bottle. When they stop me, insisting I leave the water bottle, instead, I empty it into the bag and seal the bag. Thus obeying the letter of the law, if not the intent.
Failing that, it might be interesting to bring a 500 mL bottle of frozen water through security, arguing that it's not liquid and so should be except from the restrictions (of course, all they have to do is delay me long enough and it would be liquid). Hmm, I could be taking a long time to go through security the next time--even longer than on my last trip (45 minutes needlessly repacking my carry-on before we even got to the x-ray).
Monday, October 15, 2007
Funny thought of the day
Imagine what we'd have to go through at airport security if they ever found someone trying to smuggle explosives aboard in their underwear!
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Marion Jones, regret over....being caught.
Yeah, this type of story never fails to make me madder than....well...almost as mad as I get when thinking about the RIAA lawsuits. Yet another track athlete, sprinter, has admitted using, and lying about using, steroids. Big freakin' surprise. It's not even surprising that she blames her coach or that the period she admits to using is...you guessed it...exactly AFTER her 5 medal win at the Olympics.
Oh no, your honor, I never used them before I won my 5 medals. That was all my own skill.
Sure. So, what happened, you got worse after using them?
But really, does anyone find this the least bit surprising anymore? I saw one quote on a talk-back page suggesting that for every 1 track athlete caught using steroids, 5 go undetected. At least in the 100m sprint I feel that statement is hopelessly naive. Personally, if there are any Olympic finalists of the 100m sprint that aren't using steroids I'd be incredibly surprised.
Take the men's 100m world records: almost for every sub-9.85 record that stands, there is another that has been disallowed because of steroid use ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Record_progression_100_m_men ). This stretches back to the days of the now infamous Ben Johnson. Furthermore, if you graph this data, you see a smooth trend (allowing for the outlier of 1956 that was probably delayed due to WWII) showing that the times were decreasing but were reaching an asymptote of about 9.9s (suggesting this to be the maximum possible for unaided humans)--from about 1968 through to the mid 80's the rate of decrease had almost flattened.
Enter improved synthetic chemistry and big money. Since the mid 80's the downward trend reasserted itself. In other fields, such a break in the trend is considered a 'paradigm shift'. It happens, for example, when studying the develop of computer technology every time a fundamentally new technology is developed. And what it suggests is that something fundamental happened to the sport in the 80's. My guess: steroids.
So, the only surprise in this recent bout of discoveries is that the athletes are American. What I mean is, those of us non-American have long believed the top US track athletes were using steroids, however, the surprise is that they were finally caught. Not that the US Olympic system wanted to catch them, the signs have been there for a long time. No, they were caught from the inside with the anonymous release of information on the production of designer steroids at a San Francisco lab a few years ago. The US sport organizations had no option. To save face, they had to sacrifice the scapegoats.
Your mission, should you accept, is to bring glory to your country by winning the Olympics any way you can. Should you be caught using illicit substances, we will disavow any knowledge of it.
Anyway, in a sport like the 100m, I truly believe no modern champion is drug free. It's no longer possible. Steroids give such an edge to competitors in certain events that one must use them to compete at the world-class level. And the chemists will always be ahead of the detection methods (hey, chemists/biochemists make the detection methods).
So you know what I'd like to see? A steroid Olympics. Let's see what the human body is truly capable of when boosted to the maximum. What's that, you say, it would send a negative and dangerous signal to the young, hopeful athletes. How so? It would be the most honest Olympics since they were held in ancient Greece (maybe even more so). And besides, the drug-warped bodies of retired champions would serve as a very obvious sign to new athletes of the consequences of the path they were taking. And if steroids are invented that don't cause bodily harm? Then I say, bring on the 8 second 100m sprint!
Oh no, your honor, I never used them before I won my 5 medals. That was all my own skill.
Sure. So, what happened, you got worse after using them?
But really, does anyone find this the least bit surprising anymore? I saw one quote on a talk-back page suggesting that for every 1 track athlete caught using steroids, 5 go undetected. At least in the 100m sprint I feel that statement is hopelessly naive. Personally, if there are any Olympic finalists of the 100m sprint that aren't using steroids I'd be incredibly surprised.
Take the men's 100m world records: almost for every sub-9.85 record that stands, there is another that has been disallowed because of steroid use ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Record_progression_100_m_men ). This stretches back to the days of the now infamous Ben Johnson. Furthermore, if you graph this data, you see a smooth trend (allowing for the outlier of 1956 that was probably delayed due to WWII) showing that the times were decreasing but were reaching an asymptote of about 9.9s (suggesting this to be the maximum possible for unaided humans)--from about 1968 through to the mid 80's the rate of decrease had almost flattened.
Enter improved synthetic chemistry and big money. Since the mid 80's the downward trend reasserted itself. In other fields, such a break in the trend is considered a 'paradigm shift'. It happens, for example, when studying the develop of computer technology every time a fundamentally new technology is developed. And what it suggests is that something fundamental happened to the sport in the 80's. My guess: steroids.
So, the only surprise in this recent bout of discoveries is that the athletes are American. What I mean is, those of us non-American have long believed the top US track athletes were using steroids, however, the surprise is that they were finally caught. Not that the US Olympic system wanted to catch them, the signs have been there for a long time. No, they were caught from the inside with the anonymous release of information on the production of designer steroids at a San Francisco lab a few years ago. The US sport organizations had no option. To save face, they had to sacrifice the scapegoats.
Your mission, should you accept, is to bring glory to your country by winning the Olympics any way you can. Should you be caught using illicit substances, we will disavow any knowledge of it.
Anyway, in a sport like the 100m, I truly believe no modern champion is drug free. It's no longer possible. Steroids give such an edge to competitors in certain events that one must use them to compete at the world-class level. And the chemists will always be ahead of the detection methods (hey, chemists/biochemists make the detection methods).
So you know what I'd like to see? A steroid Olympics. Let's see what the human body is truly capable of when boosted to the maximum. What's that, you say, it would send a negative and dangerous signal to the young, hopeful athletes. How so? It would be the most honest Olympics since they were held in ancient Greece (maybe even more so). And besides, the drug-warped bodies of retired champions would serve as a very obvious sign to new athletes of the consequences of the path they were taking. And if steroids are invented that don't cause bodily harm? Then I say, bring on the 8 second 100m sprint!
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Grapes, the terrorist's play toy
If you've read my last post, you realize I think a lot about the futility of our draconian measures to protect against terrorist attacks.
Here is another reason (and another reason to be thankful that most terrorists are not very well read).
Microwave ovens.
What? You say.
No, I haven't flipped my lid. I was reminded of this again when, last night, my wife almost blew up the microwave by putting an aluminum dish inside (she didn't grow up with microwaves so she can be forgiven). This also brings to mind the movie Grosse Point Blank where a hitman used a 7-11 microwave to activate an explosive, destroying the building.
Okay, simultaneously I'm not going that far, but maybe even further. In a leap of credibility I'm going to introduce you to...*drum roll please*...grapes.
I know what you're thinking. 'He's really flipped his lid this time.' But bare with me a moment. This is all real.
Grapes. The great scourge of the microwave. In a strange quirk of nature, a pair of grapes, closely spaced in an active microwave will ignite. This seems to be a fairly recent discovery and the reason is still not fully understood. I've read mumbo-jumbo about grapes channeling the microwave field lines, but I think the answer may be something to do with the activation of the tartaric acid they contain, and subsequent oxidation of their glucose (akin to the burning of donuts with sulfuric acid). Anyway, the why is not important for this discussion. The fact that they ignite in a microwave is.
Why?
Image what you could do, as a mischievous school kid, or a terrorist, with a completely natural igniter. Again, I'm trained in biochemistry, not chemistry so I haven't looked at the chemistry too much, but imagine combining the grapes with flammable/explosive household products (such as cleaning agents). Pop a bowl of explosive liquid in the microwave until the vapors saturate the small space, put in your pair of grapes, turn on the zapper and ....instant kablooie [please don't try this at home - if it works, I'd rather not be sued].
Now, I don't know if that particular combination would work but my point is, that with some research I'm sure something could be found, maybe even more natural than in my example above. Consider how easy it would be to wreak havoc as a terrorist with a completely natural explosive - microwaves are everywhere these days: convenience stores, lunch rooms, display models in stores, airplanes...
What's that in your luggage, sir?
This? Just my lunch, see? *munch* *munch*
I can already hear the tiny wheels churning in the minds of homeland security. George, we have to ban microwaves! Oh, and grapes, while we're at it.
EH Rydberg
Here is another reason (and another reason to be thankful that most terrorists are not very well read).
Microwave ovens.
What? You say.
No, I haven't flipped my lid. I was reminded of this again when, last night, my wife almost blew up the microwave by putting an aluminum dish inside (she didn't grow up with microwaves so she can be forgiven). This also brings to mind the movie Grosse Point Blank where a hitman used a 7-11 microwave to activate an explosive, destroying the building.
Okay, simultaneously I'm not going that far, but maybe even further. In a leap of credibility I'm going to introduce you to...*drum roll please*...grapes.
I know what you're thinking. 'He's really flipped his lid this time.' But bare with me a moment. This is all real.
Grapes. The great scourge of the microwave. In a strange quirk of nature, a pair of grapes, closely spaced in an active microwave will ignite. This seems to be a fairly recent discovery and the reason is still not fully understood. I've read mumbo-jumbo about grapes channeling the microwave field lines, but I think the answer may be something to do with the activation of the tartaric acid they contain, and subsequent oxidation of their glucose (akin to the burning of donuts with sulfuric acid). Anyway, the why is not important for this discussion. The fact that they ignite in a microwave is.
Why?
Image what you could do, as a mischievous school kid, or a terrorist, with a completely natural igniter. Again, I'm trained in biochemistry, not chemistry so I haven't looked at the chemistry too much, but imagine combining the grapes with flammable/explosive household products (such as cleaning agents). Pop a bowl of explosive liquid in the microwave until the vapors saturate the small space, put in your pair of grapes, turn on the zapper and ....instant kablooie [please don't try this at home - if it works, I'd rather not be sued].
Now, I don't know if that particular combination would work but my point is, that with some research I'm sure something could be found, maybe even more natural than in my example above. Consider how easy it would be to wreak havoc as a terrorist with a completely natural explosive - microwaves are everywhere these days: convenience stores, lunch rooms, display models in stores, airplanes...
What's that in your luggage, sir?
This? Just my lunch, see? *munch* *munch*
I can already hear the tiny wheels churning in the minds of homeland security. George, we have to ban microwaves! Oh, and grapes, while we're at it.
EH Rydberg
What's up with those little airline bags?
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
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
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
What will they do when...?
Well, I'm off for vacation in a few days, and that means a plane trip. Of course, that has me thinking about some of the craziness in airport security, things that can and cannot be brought with you. X-rays, metal detectors and poorly trained, apathetic baggage handlers who view their job as somewhat akin to a supermarket.
I've been especially thinking about the crazy ideas the governments come up with regarding bombs--and the fuss that the liquid bombs are causing. Because of the small possibility of a terrorist bringing a liquid bomb on the plane (something that never happened and, given the success rate of many of the terrorist bombs, probably wouldn't work anyway) every single person flying in the world now has to suffer the current craziness. They're trying to convince me that they can detect the residue from a bomb that I may have been near by swabbing my suitcase, but I would have to drink a bottle of anything I bring for them to be sure it isn't an explosive?! Yeah. Sure.
So, what really gets me is this. What happens when the governments finally realize that people themselves could be the bombs? What's to stop a terrorist from surgically implanting small powerful explosives under their skin? Perhaps triggerable by cell phone? Or even tubings that carry the binary liquids that only need to have a membrane broken to trigger the explosion?
Such a realization, I fear, would send shockwaves throughout the western world the likes of which we've never seen. Would governments insist that each person be thoroughly x-rayed? Frequent flyers would then be at a serious risk of radiation poisoning. Perhaps companies would then hire a special class of short-lived, high-rish business exec. Or maybe work would start on incorporating radiation resistant genes into humans so we could be thoroughly x-rayed each time we flew. Another possibility would be chips implanted beneath our skin. They would regularly scan for such unwanted substance (the government could combine the war on terror with the war on drugs!). Each person would be required to have these biometric markers to fly. Sort of a 1984 meets Minority Report.
The options are almost endless, and all equally frightening. Does anyone else feel that the terrorists have already won? I'm afraid alright. But not of them...
EH Rydberg
I've been especially thinking about the crazy ideas the governments come up with regarding bombs--and the fuss that the liquid bombs are causing. Because of the small possibility of a terrorist bringing a liquid bomb on the plane (something that never happened and, given the success rate of many of the terrorist bombs, probably wouldn't work anyway) every single person flying in the world now has to suffer the current craziness. They're trying to convince me that they can detect the residue from a bomb that I may have been near by swabbing my suitcase, but I would have to drink a bottle of anything I bring for them to be sure it isn't an explosive?! Yeah. Sure.
So, what really gets me is this. What happens when the governments finally realize that people themselves could be the bombs? What's to stop a terrorist from surgically implanting small powerful explosives under their skin? Perhaps triggerable by cell phone? Or even tubings that carry the binary liquids that only need to have a membrane broken to trigger the explosion?
Such a realization, I fear, would send shockwaves throughout the western world the likes of which we've never seen. Would governments insist that each person be thoroughly x-rayed? Frequent flyers would then be at a serious risk of radiation poisoning. Perhaps companies would then hire a special class of short-lived, high-rish business exec. Or maybe work would start on incorporating radiation resistant genes into humans so we could be thoroughly x-rayed each time we flew. Another possibility would be chips implanted beneath our skin. They would regularly scan for such unwanted substance (the government could combine the war on terror with the war on drugs!). Each person would be required to have these biometric markers to fly. Sort of a 1984 meets Minority Report.
The options are almost endless, and all equally frightening. Does anyone else feel that the terrorists have already won? I'm afraid alright. But not of them...
EH Rydberg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)