It’s perfectly safe and legal to take on an aircraft. The nitro is very dilute within the matrix of the pill that detonation is impossible. Light it on fire, hit with a hammer, it won’t explode. But, as you note it’s exactly the same molecule as the explosive in dynamite so it will sometimes set off volatile residue detectors.
My point is still valid, then. If they do detect it, it’s a false positive that is still okay to take on an airplane. If they don’t detect it, then they’re taking something onto an airplane that doesn’t need to be detected. I still say that a Substance X does not exist, that is, a substance so similar to an explosive, while not an explosive, that still sets of explosives detection systems, and can be used to test the veracity of said systems. I’d try to cite it, but it’s hard to prove a negative.
What about someone who has been handling fireworks, ammunition, fuel, etc. and may have these residues on their clothes? Surely there’s no “acceptable limit” of gunpowder trace on one’s luggage; you could treat items with residues which should alert the system yet technically would not be explosive devices.
I know of several people I’ve worked with who have been pulled aside for additional screening for this very reason. The residue was found on their shoes in all cases, from just walking around on the range (none of them were EOD, who are generally the only ones who handle the material).
Your example still involves taking an actual energetic material through security, regardless if it has the capability to undergo deflagration or detonation. If somebody got caught with it, they’d still have some explaining to do, per my example above. I don’t think, “Gotcha ya! I was just testing your system,” would fly as an excuse.
:dubious:
So…medical nitroglycerine doesn’t fit that description, how exactly?
I thought we were talking about this:
Trace amounts of explosive are not explosive, yet they should set off explosive detection systems, and can be used to test the veracity of said systems. You can split hairs all you want as to whether there is a non-energetic molecule that can be used as a test sample, but for all practical purposes, trace amounts of explosive are the “Substance X” that can test the system’s effectiveness without actually bringing aboard something that can explode.
I’m struggling to make my point clear on the subject, I guess.
If you want to call just a little bit of Y, “not Y”, be my guest.
Ok, remember where this all started? Fake bomb. Right, so you make a fake bomb using a substance which is perfectly safe and legal to take on a plane but which should certainly trigger an explosives detection system. Never mind that it’s a false positive; that’s the whole point: the system should be sensitive enough to detect something like this while not allowing any false negatives. That’s what screening is supposed to do. So, if our intrepid reporter manages to get a fake bomb with all the wiring, batteries and other components and with a quantity of medical nitro in place of the actual explosive past the checkpoint, I’d consider that a failure of the system, wouldn’t you?
Sure. But you said medical nitroglycerin was pinging the systems?
I’m just pointing out that a nanogram of bomb doesn’t constitute a bomb, and therefore the system is testable… are you seriously disagreeing with that?
I don’t understand your objection here. If medical nitro triggers certain bomb detection apparatus but is not itself explosive, then it’s reasonable to consider it as a useful and safe material with which to test installations of such apparatus. Thus, if one were to contrive such an ersatz bomb as I’ve previously described and get it past a particular detection installation, this would constitute a failure of that installation, no? That is, it’s not unreasonable to postulate that if a real bomb had been carried through, instead of a fake, it would likely have been allowed past.
For the first time since we both started hanging out here, I fully agree with you. Some of that Mad River water seems to have infected both of us with a bit of thoughtful cynicism.
Woo-hoo! Get out the beers! 
they’re great at keeping people from carrying water bottles onboard.
TSA: Throwing Scissors Away
The ideal security would allow everything on which was safe, and not allow anything on which was not safe. If one had truly ideal security, then, the only way to verify it would be to try to take on something unsafe. If instead one had security which was merely very good, but not ideal, it would be possible to test it without taking on something unsafe, but it would be very difficult. And if one did manage to get a particular safe object onto a plane, that wouldn’t prove anything, because one could not distinguish whether that object was allowed on because of how bad the security was, or because of how good it was.
Thus, for instance, being able to bring medical nitroglycerin on board might mean that the security systems aren’t good enough to detect nitroglycerin, or it could mean that the security systems are so good that they’re able to correctly determine that such a small quantity isn’t a threat.
Oh no, they don’t throw them away, they sell them in huge lots which are then resold on ebay. :eek:
So the idea is here that the reason why fake bombs are brought through security is because security is so good that they know it’s a fake bomb and therefore does not pose a threat? Whereas if was a real bomb they would never allow it to be brought onboard?
My orginal question: are TSA personnel on the lookout for wanted felons? Like the FBI most wanted list-do they check passengers lists for such people? I could imagine that the TSA could be very useful, in that regard.