So how effective would the alleged London plane bombers have been, had they actually bothered to buy tickets (which none did) or apply for passports (many didn’t have one), much less get on a plane? How easy is it to inconspicuously mix enough of the materials necessary to blow up a plane?

Thomas C. Greene gets into the science of mixing liquids into explosives, and concludes that you’re at no real risk of liquid bombs in the passenger cabin, unless you see a guy making multiple trips to the lavatory, lugging a chemistry set in with him. Go read the whole thing: It exposes the no-liquids policy as a sham and makes mockery of our present-day security theatrics.

Liquid-bomb threats aren’t even new. As Patrick Smith points out in Salon, the “Oplan Bojinka” plan of 1994 was thwarted, but governments around the world responded with cooler heads, and passengers weren’t required to give up their water. The plot was thwarted with police work (much like the London suspects), not by airport security. (Sit through the ad, and read the whole article.)

It’s also not the first time we’ve seen moronic overreaction to potential threats. In 2004, a plane was turned back from Sydney, Australia because the name “Bob” was found written in an inflight magazine. Someone interpreted this as an acronym for “bomb on board.” Really. Lesson: If your name is Bob, look out. Your name is synonymous with terror. (Go with “Robert” for now.)

The real threats? Cargo hold bombs remain the far greater risk, but are those threats being addressed? Of course not. Only 15% of cargo in aircraft is actually inspected. 15%. You can’t take a bottle of water on board, to supposedly stop an extremely unlikely threat, but 85% of cargo isn’t even checked. THAT’S security for you.

TV news was all about this non-threat threat for much of the week. CNN’s “Target: USA” coverage this past week, parsed brilliantly here, actually made our world less safe by putting everyone on edge, looking for harm where there is none. (Thank goodness JonBenet Ramsey trumps “Target:USA.”)

But with the taste of media blood still fresh on their tongue, the TSA breathlessly rushed out a press release yesterday announcing that its officers had discovered explosive residue in a bottle at West Virginia’s Huntington Tri-State Airport. Two swab tests of the bottle’s contents came up positive for explosives. The terminal was evacuated. The culprit ended up being a facial cleanser that contained chlorine.

Sure, the passenger was stupid to bring facial cleanser to the checkpoint during this time of hysteria. But questions persist: 1) Why was the TSA testing the contents of the bottle, anyway? Aren’t liquids just supposed to be confiscated or dumped out? Why the tests? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the woman was wearing a headscarf, would it?… 2) Why did not one, but TWO tests come up positive for explosives? If chlorine is the trigger, then are swim trunks now off-limits, too? Will those swim trunks be thrown away or sold on eBay?

I give up. I know, I’m ranting. I’ve been ranting a lot lately. But it’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion. As passengers, there’s not much to do, except to write to legislators with your gripes. What is perhaps more frustrating is that corporations aren’t doing more to protect travelers’ interests (and subsequently their companies’ bottom line).

It’s different overseas: In the UK, Ryanair is threatening to sue the British government for lost income as a result of the heightened security. The airline calls the precautions “nonsensical” and “totally ineffective,” and charges that the security policy has “handed the extremists an enormous PR victory.”

I couldn’t agree more.

(image)