The airlines are such a joke. When I fly I am ALWAYS searched, I once entertained the thought of walking through the airport in my underwear to protest the way that people are treated.
Come on, the woman should have drunk her own breast milk? That's ridiculous. How about scanning the milk to make sure it's legitimate? I mean this is ridiculous. <b>I also don't quite understand what the big deal is with drinking it. Contamination?? please. Even so, they probably would have given her a cup or accepted her squirting it in her palm and lapping it. </b> It is possible to contaminate it. You're not even supposed to drink from the same glass as someone without scrubbing it clean, and it's doubly worse for babies who are a million times more vulnerable to diseases. My little cousin got sick while we were watching her, and she was in the house with us 99% of the time. <b>So, I guess we should just stick to Arabs. There weren't any women with babies who hijacked the planes, nor where there any white men. Just every person with a darker shade to them should be bothered. Do you not think if Al Qaeda figured out that they weren't testing certain things that could be bombs, they wouldn't find a way to get passed it.</b> I'm guessing that if Al Qaeda knew they could sneak acid bombs in a baby bottle they could have done it a long time ago. This had nothing to do with testing that bottle, that was just a screener being an ass. They could have did a scan of the bottle and found out when was in it. They could have done a ton more things. In fact if I were the mother I would have had the baby drink it. That screener was just being an idiot.
It's one thing to check it, it's another to make somebody drink it. There's several things you could have done and show more respect. Scan the milk, have the baby drink the mile, do a better job of testing the milk. Having the mother drink the milk is just bush league. I'm also willing to bet that if she went to the bathroom and "pumped" after going through the security gate they would test it again.
OK, let's talk "common sense." First, the "acid test" is part of what drives the rule, so I'm just pointing it out. Like her excuse of "contamination" or not asking for a cup to avoid "contamination" makes common sense more than applying rules with no exceptions. It makes more common sense to apply rules in all cases than she was going to contaminate her own milk or a baby that she is feeding from her body. She just inconvienced herself and whined about it. Common sense demands following the rules in all cases, unless you say that her baggage shouldn't be x-rayed or she shouldn't have to go through metal detectors. Why would the rule of drinking liquid not apply, but turning on her cell phone apply?
No they wouldn't anymore than they screen my coffee a second time. They don't screen twice. I don't know about you guys, but I walk through detectors with coffee, and they make me drink. I walk onto planes with that coffee, and they don't screen me. What is up with drinking your own milk?? 1. Drink the milk, and feed the baby. 2. Pour out the milk, and breastfeed the baby in the plane's restroom 3. Show up early and pump 4. Take the next flight if she is dry and doesn't want to drink. She has 4 choices. It is unreasonable to change rules when she has that many choices. Maybe no one thought of the "feed the baby" thing. I cannot believe she would let her baby go hungry versus getting up and going into the restroom on the plane and feeding it. She got inconvenienced and whined. I have ZERO sympathy. She is just being stubborn, and security should NEVER make exceptions, anymore, especially for such basic requests as "Drink your liquid, please."
Would you agree that this is #6? I think this may be worse than not hitting in the playoffs. That has become an Astros rite of passage. I can't believe you put Stalin and Hitler ahead of the Utah Jazz. You're a real sicko buster.
They can't sneak it in, unless they are going to drink it. That's the point....??!! Uhh, unless she was caring three bottles in her hands, any bag is supposed to go through the X-Ray. When is the last time they let you carry something through. Maybe she objected to that, or their policy is spot liquids and make people open cases because they can't detect a difference in all liquids. How do you know they can scan those bottles to detect whatever it is that they are worried about? It could be a flammable liquid and not acid, as well. I do not think they can detect the difference. Drinking liquid is a common request. She is not going to contaminate her own milk anymore than the baby is already getting from drinking that milk...that is a stretch. If you are contagious, isn't your milk going to make them sick. And she could have asked for a cup, anyhow. I know each of my sisters would have drink a sip of their milk. She could have thrown at two and just took a small sip. Talk about a strange phobia. She was being the whining ass. Lessoned learned for us all. There are solutions.
I think it is important to note that the whole time the jackass was making her drink, there was a machine (which is at all terminals) at the end of the rown that will detect any explosive material. If you are worried about her carrying acid on board then you could have her squirt a drop or two on her hand. it has become clear that a good many people here know little to nothing on caring for an infant. I don't know much more than you guys do, but I do know that you can easily make that milk unsafe for the baby. We need airport security, but we also need to have people treated with dignity. If anybody think that she's just a whiner...then you just don't understand this one I guess.
Refman, I found the article and it was outragious what she said they made her do. She offered to just taste it. And they said no, that she had to drink it all. What they did is outragious, so I was wrong calling her a whiner. You are mistaken about the "contamination" part. She never suggested that, nor refused to sip the milk. http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/8/6/92628 They were stupid and misinterpreted a new rule against food and opened drinks. They only allow sealed stuff and baby bottles now. It was a June, 2002 new rule, so they misapplied it here. But had they only asked her to sip, and she refused, then I stick by that that would be unreasonable. That is an unreasonable phobia to not sip your milk, or not to opt to breastfeed later on the plane. She did not express worries of contamination, because there are no contamination worries. Mothers are actually encouraged to breastfeed so that they "contaminate" their babies with their germs and their antibodies. As for the reason they make you sip, do we really know all the liquid explosives there are. I did find an explanation that x-rays and CT scanners (standard) are not outfitted with the necessary scanners to detect all liquids explosives. Any unidentifiable liquid requires them to open the bag and make you sip it or throw it away. The wipe-down scanner that you mention is not for liquid explosives.
It isn't going to contaminate the milk to squirt some on her arm and lick it off, or even just squirt some into a cup and drink it. She is one of the millions of people that think the rules should apply to everyone but her. I almost got in a collision because some ******* decided to drive past on his motorcycle while I was changing lanes. It is much easier and simpler just to apply the same rules to everyone, instead of having 6,000,000,000 sets of rules tailored to each individual.
Hydra, I just put the contamination thing to rest in my last post. She never mentioned contamination, and she even offered to taste it and to feed the baby in front of them. They refused, and told her to "drink it all." here's the article: http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/8/6/92628 Obviously, this story is outragious now that we have the facts straight. She offered to sip, which is supposed to be enough according to security rules. The guards got the rule wrong.
heypartner-- There are 2 cases of this. One was in NY and was outlined on Hannity & Colmes. The other is an attorney. You may be confusing the 2 cases. The news reports state that there is a machine that will test for liquid explosive...let's not create controversy where there is none. I don't know about anybody else, but I don't want to see somebody flop out their breast and feed the baby. This woman was trying to be responsible and she gets humiliated for it. This is one of the few times that you'll see me arguing for civil liberties over security. That should be pretty telling. I'd rather them give everybody a cavity search than see mothers having to drink their own breast milk. It is stigmatizing, unnecessary and ludicrous here in 2002. Period. End of quote. Flame away if you feel the need.
There are some things you don't do in a polite society. For whatever reason this has always been among them. On the other hand, maybe she doesn't wish to bear her breast in a plane full of strangers. Why are people uncomfortable with nudity? Why do people wear clothes? Because is the best answer I can give.
RM95 -- The female breast is attractive only after it has been implanted with silicone and squeezed into a lace push up bra. Duh!
Does anybody remember that episode of <i>Married With Children</i> where Marcie came into Al's shoe store with all those women and they started breast feeding all at once? For some reason, I'm getting memories of that episode.
I just skimmed this thread and didn't see it mentioned, but they talked about this case on Talkback Live yesterday. Apparently, the woman offered to let her baby drink the milk and the security people refused that as well. I understand the basic concept behind checking it, but I don't see the logic behind not letting the baby drink it.
Refman, Show us links, otherwise, your story is not representing the case we were debating. I showed the story. Women who breastfeed do not fear taking sips of their breast milk, and there is no contamination part to it. The mother is supposed to expose the child to her germs. That is one of the main benefits stressed by breastfeeders. If there is another case as you describe, then you can see from my case that reasonable parents comply, and offer to taste the milk and give it to their kids. give it up. Your story is unreasonable, and mine shows why. I can provide you links that show that the x-ray and CT scanner are insufficient, and the wipe down one is not for liquid explosives. This is a policy document post- 9/11 that stresses the inadaquacy of airport security and states that the new technology of detecting liquids should be outfitted everywhere. Without that, they are supposed to stop a bag with unidentifiable liquid and search it and make them pour it out or sip from it. This is why shampoo in unmarked bottles is being thrown out now.
See my link for the story. We were all misled by Refman's version of the story. In the link I provide, the security guards were wrong. I doubt any of us would debate that. They are supposed to be satisfied by someone sipping the liquid. What happened was that there was a new law by the FAA in June that stopped all open containers or unmarked containers. However, they explicitly say that baby bottles are allowed, but that you might be asked to take a sip from it. And I assume, letting the baby take that sip would suffice. here's the article: http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/8/6/92628
