Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Security Transportation

You Can Now Take Up To 12 Ounces of Hand Sanitizer Through Airport Security 128

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will now allow passengers to bring on board hand sanitizer containers up to 12 ounces in size, which is much larger than the standard 3.4 ounces (100 milliliters) previously allowed. The Verge reports: There are some caveats, though. The updated policy only applies to hand sanitizer. And larger containers will be subject to additional screening by TSA agents, which will likely lead to increased wait times. So ask yourself before heading out to the airport: how much sanitizer do you really need? Airports are said to be stocking up on disinfectants and other cleaning equipment. Passengers are likely to see hand sanitizer stations everywhere at airports reflecting this new reality, so no worries for those who don't feel like lugging a huge bottle of the stuff on the plane with them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

You Can Now Take Up To 12 Ounces of Hand Sanitizer Through Airport Security

Comments Filter:
  • by I75BJC ( 4590021 ) on Friday March 13, 2020 @09:33PM (#59828680)
    In my area, there is no Hand-Sanitizer to purchase!
    It's been sold out for weeks.
    • by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Friday March 13, 2020 @09:43PM (#59828710)

      so what, you don't need it. There is soap and water everywhere especially at airports and in planes. You're going to get the disease by breathing, not from your fingers.

      • Soap and water dries out my skin too much.

        The (non-alcohol based) hand sanitizer we use at work is mot quite as bad..
        Its not just the hands that are affected, also the wrists just beyond the edge of the gloves.

        At home I use R&R Hand Sanitizer Alcohol-Free Re-Moisturizing Cream Using BZK
        (of course its Currently unavailable. but I was able to get a 32 oz bottle Delivered Feb 29, 2020

        Hopefully it will get warmer(more humid) soon - At the moment the dewpoint is only 261 kelvins

        • by quenda ( 644621 )

          The (non-alcohol based) hand sanitizer we use at work is not quite as bad..

          ... but useless for viruses.

          • Soap or vinegar works just fine, and there are surely dozens of other simple "sanitizers" that work equally as well.

            • by hawguy ( 1600213 )

              Soap or vinegar works just fine, and there are surely dozens of other simple "sanitizers" that work equally as well.

              Soap? Sure, that (along with running water) is recommended by the CDC.

              But vinegar? I've seen no published evidence that it's effective against COVID

              • But vinegar? I've seen no published evidence that it's effective against COVID
                And why would you need "special evidence" when you have learned in school that vinegar kills bacteria and virus just fine? If at all we would need "special evidence" that it does not work against COVID19, that would be an interesting anomaly.

                • by quenda ( 644621 )

                  Vinegar is better than nothing. It does have some effect on flu, so hopefully useful if you are desperate. 70-80% alcohol is recommended.

                  • by hawguy ( 1600213 )

                    Vinegar is better than nothing. It does have some effect on flu, so hopefully useful if you are desperate. 70-80% alcohol is recommended.

                    But is it better than water?

                    At least one study found that "washing" your hands with plain water (without soap) is more effective against flu pathgens than even alcohol based sanitizer.

                    https://www.minnpost.com/secon... [minnpost.com]

                    • by quenda ( 644621 )

                      But is it better than water?

                      In that study, the water only wins because of quantity. Running vodka or vinegar on tap would be better :-)

                      Alcohol sanitiser is only recommended when running water is not available, and soap definitely helps. Soap is easy to carry, so the question in the study is not of practical use.

                • by hawguy ( 1600213 )

                  But vinegar? I've seen no published evidence that it's effective against COVID
                  And why would you need "special evidence" when you have learned in school that vinegar kills bacteria and virus just fine? If at all we would need "special evidence" that it does not work against COVID19, that would be an interesting anomaly.

                  I didn't learn that in scool. What school is teaching that? Some microorganisms are resistant even to commercial disinfectants, why would anyone think that vinegar is effective against them all?

                  To that end, the study's results also showed that "only" the commercial disinfectants, not the vinegar, were effective against viral pathogens. ...

                  "[Vinegar] does have acid in it and it has the capacity to damage bacteria and viruses, but it's not something I would recommend using to prevent the spread of coronavirus," confirms infectious disease expert Amesh A. Adalja, M.D., senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

                  https://www.shape.com/lifestyl... [shape.com] (the actual study is linked to from the article)

                  • You learn it in biology class, no idea when that starts in your country, in my country it was grade 5. But I think now it is grade 3 already.
                    Actually I guess I learned I learned it from my mother ....

                    Some microorganisms are resistant even to commercial disinfectants,
                    Nope. How should that work? A living thing is suddenly "resistant" to a chemical that simply dismantles it, ah ha ....

                    why would anyone think that vinegar is effective against them all?
                    Because the basic principles of biology are the same.

                    Acid -

                    • by hawguy ( 1600213 )

                      Some microorganisms are resistant even to commercial disinfectants,
                      Nope. How should that work? A living thing is suddenly "resistant" to a chemical that simply dismantles it, ah ha ....

                      C. diff is one of the most well know pathogens that are very hard to kill with chemical disinfectants (as well as antibiotics):

                      https://www.medicalnewstoday.c... [medicalnewstoday.com]

                      "We found no disinfectant was able to completely eliminate C. diff embedded within biofilms, although we did note differences among disinfectants,” reports Prof. Garey."

                      But there are other classes of bacteria and viruses that are difficult to kill:

                      https://www.infectioncontrolto... [infectionc...ltoday.com]

          •       >.. but useless for viruses

            I don't know about that. I know we are not supposed to use hand sanitizer if a resident has C-Diff but we haven't has that problem for a while.

            The only outbreak we have had recently was Influenza A but that is over now. They didn't tell us to stop using hand sanitizer during that.

            I haven't heard about any cases of Covid19 in this area (Ottertail County) but who knows with the lack of testing..

        • yikes.. stop that right now. you need to use alcohol based hand sanitizer. if necessary carry lotion with you.
      • You're going to get the disease by breathing, not from your fingers.

        Except that COVID-19 is not airborn, so no you're not getting it by breathing. You're getting it by being sneezed on, coughed on, but most likely from your fingers.

    • That's why they allow you to take a large bottle of it on the plane! It's a non-issue now for them.
    • by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Friday March 13, 2020 @11:02PM (#59828900)

      Soap is a better disinfectant than hand sanitizer. (It does a better job of disrupting the lipids in the virus shell.

      Save your money and just get a bar of soap.

      • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

        Soap only does this when mixed with water. Plus, unlike alchohol, which evaporates, soap sticks to things unless rinsed off. All of this ends up being pretty dumb, because you are advocating that instead of a tiny hand wipe or little bottle, that instead I bring with me soap, water, a sink, and plumbing.

        Note that no one recommending you buy (or make, because at the time of this writing you cannot buy) hand sanitizer is recommending this instead of hand washing. These things have ALWAYS been something to

        • by mspohr ( 589790 )

          Most airports, hotels, public buildings, etc. (just about anywhere you go... even out in the woods) have bathrooms with water so you don't need to bring along a sink, water and plumbing. (I don't really know why I had to point this out but you seem to be obtuse.)
          Stupid to carry 12 ounces of hand sanitizer.

          • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

            When you go through security at an airport, you are usually 5 minutes away from a bathroom (once you are THROUGH it- much longer whilst standing in it).
            When you are on an airplane, there's nowhere near enough bathrooms, and plenty of the time you aren't supposed to go there to wash your hands.
            You will sometimes want to clean your hands after going through some door in a public building...

            Hand Sanitzers plus soaps allow for more cleaning than soaps alone!

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Soap is quite enough for this one.

    • Thorouhly mix 1/3 cup aloe vera jell and 2/3 cup 91% isopropyl rubbing alcohol. (Add perhaps 10 drops of a skin-friendly essential oil if you want it scented.)

      You want it at least 60% alcohol, and this is 60.6% so measure carefully or boost the alcohol a bit. (You can use slightly lower proof alcohol, but you have to cut the aloe vera down until it's thin, so not recommended.)

      You can also use strong vodka or other extreme proof unscented unflavored booze. Remember that 200 proof = 100% alcohol, so adjust

  • by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Friday March 13, 2020 @09:35PM (#59828688) Homepage
    Cmon.
    • Every company I know of has cancelled all non-essential travel. Some travel *is* essential. Some people are currently not at home, and need to get home. My co-worker had to fly across the country for surgery he could not put off. Yes the risk of getting COVID-19 was less than the risk of not getting this surgery. I knew a guy who would travel constantly, calibrating automated water quality test equipment for purification plants. He was one of three people covering the entire midwest who could maintain this

      • I get that some NEED to fly, but most of the big planes should be grounded by now. Only essential flights a few times a day or something like that. And I am not saying to ground small aircraft, which is all that would really be necessary for essential flights.
        • by JBMcB ( 73720 )

          I get that some NEED to fly, but most of the big planes should be grounded by now. Only essential flights a few times a day or something like that. And I am not saying to ground small aircraft, which is all that would really be necessary for essential flights.

          So what flights are essential? How would you know? It's not like there is a registry of people who are "essential" to maintaining the economy or essential services. Like the water treatment guy - how would anyone know how important his job is by title alone? What about people who travel around and fix giant food harvesters?

          Let people know the risks of air travel and let them evaluate on their own if they need to fly or not. The situation is too complex for a top-down solution.

        • by hawguy ( 1600213 )

          I get that some NEED to fly, but most of the big planes should be grounded by now. Only essential flights a few times a day or something like that. And I am not saying to ground small aircraft, which is all that would really be necessary for essential flights.

          It's hard to guarantee that a few essential flights will be running if you ground most of the planes -- the whole system is interconnected and the plane you need for an "essential flight" in Chicago may have been grounded in San Francisco. Airlines may need to revamp their entire schedule to both ground significant number of planes and keep "essential routes" open -- and it's not even clear who would determine what an "essential route" is.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Then have these people fly, but only these. And make sure they are regularly tested. That would be a smart response. But no, business as usual until the catastrophe is in full swing.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Because politics is reactive not proactive. Look at other problems and you see them always only reacting, often with very long delays. On the other hand, a germ with pandemic potential spreads exponentially in the critical ramp-up phase and hence requires a proactive response to contain it, i.e. you need to anticipate something! Politicians are unable to do that. The best they can do is seeing it happening to somebody else and being reactive one-removed. Of course, then they will react to to the wrong situa

      • by ras ( 84108 )

        Because politics is reactive not proactive.

        Yes. That's how it must be in anything that functions remotely like a democracy. The aren't "leading the country". Regardless of whether it is proven down the track to be the right or wrong thing, if the populace doesn't like their actions when election rolls around they are gone. Instead they are just trying predict how the voters will gauge their actions at the next election. This is by definition reactive - they are reacting to what the voters want. That i

    • by k6mfw ( 1182893 )
      I'm thinking about huge drop in revenue impacting various airlines, will they be flying ghost ships? Back to your original question, for the US you have two choices. Fly or drive.
  • by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Friday March 13, 2020 @09:49PM (#59828728)

    Do you have to declare it as extremely valuable like $10,000 in cash or gold?

  • We're all DOOMED now! I'm not setting foot near an airport now. Those extra 10oz of liquid allowed on planes means that, not only are you going to die from COVID-19 by getting on a plane, but now the plane is going to blow up.

    Just think about how many explosives you can hide in that extra 10oz of liquid if they allow it past the security circus clowns!

    • Two quote an old SNL skit on the TSA: "What if two people brought hand sanitizer onto an airplane...."

    • Just think about how many explosives you can hide in that extra 10oz of liquid if they allow it past the security circus clowns!
      Explosives show up on the scanners ...

  • Passengers are likely to see hand sanitizer stations everywhere at airports reflecting this new reality, so no worries for those who don't feel like lugging a huge bottle of the stuff on the plane with them.

    Sooo, plane tickets are selling for under the price of a 12oz bottle of hand sanitizer on eBay and yet you can bring large empty containers through security and there will be dispensing stations everywhere you say? Sounds like an entrepreneur could get paid to travel these days.

  • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

    When are they gonna allow more than 3oz of KY?

  • Security theater (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tanman ( 90298 ) on Friday March 13, 2020 @10:18PM (#59828808)

    If the TSA letting you take soda can full of fluid that is more-easily ignited than gasoline onto a plane isn't a sign of security theater, I don't know what is.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Anybody somewhat smart has known for a long, long time that the whole thing is just a worthless and inconvenient show. But some people make tons of money from it and for a lot it provides a job.

    • by brunes69 ( 86786 )

      Who needs hand sanitizer when anyone with a phone or laptop has an incendiary device with them? Purposefully snap phone in half, throw in lavatory sink, wait for the fireworks.

    • There was a clearer example a few years ago, when a teenager was able to get over the fence at SJC.

      No one is trying to blow up planes. The TSA is just an exercise in violating the 4th amendment.

  • I hope at least a couple of cases

  • Units!? (Score:2, Troll)

    An ounce is a unit of weight which is a force. It cannot be equal to millilitres which is unit of volume. Do you mean fluid ounces? If so would that be US fluid ounces rather than the Imperial fluid ounces as used by practically everyone else who ever used the ancient non-metric system? Oh sod it, I'm off for a pint...
  • How much hand sanitizer do people need?!

    • Well, in an 6h flight in an air plane you can use it once after you are seated, and once every time you leave the toilet ... so 2 or 3 times ?

  • by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Saturday March 14, 2020 @01:26AM (#59829136)

    Viruses are made up of RNA, proteins, and fatty molecules that clump together to form a skin around them. Alcohol, that you find in hand sanitisers, might be able to dissolve the fatty skin if it's sufficiently concentrated, i.e. acting like paint thinner, which is at least 60% alcohol. Many contain ~75%. However, this isn't particularly effective at killing viruses but better than water or nothing.

    You know what's really good at destroying a virus' fatty skin & thereby killing it? Soap or detergent. It's as if it were made for the job. Like all the public information announcements in countries around the world are saying, vigorously wash your hands in soap & warm water for at least 20 seconds (the warmth helps to liquefy the grease & oils from your skin, which the virus may be stuck in, thereby allowing the soap & water to work better). The healthcare professionals know what they're talking about. Use soap & warm water vigorously for at least 20 seconds.

    Use. Soap. &. Warm. Water. Vigorously. For. At. Least. 20. Seconds.

    Oh, and try not to touch your face.

  • I've got a novel idea... Just sell hand sanitizer at normal retail costs inside the sterile area. Stop the price gouging.

  • by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Saturday March 14, 2020 @02:05AM (#59829172)

    Nitrile work gloves are comfortable and unlike your toxin-absorbent nasty hands are cheap and disposable. I keep boxes around home and shop. They're disposably cheap (pun of course intended) and won't go to waste if you're at all handy.

    Ever wonder why the military wear rubber gloves in BW scenarios? It's because they work. Most of the vets here have at least several hundred hours working in chem gear gloves during exercises. It's not difficult.

    Gloves also permit cleaning the glove while you're wearing it which allows much stronger cleaning solutions. For example I was cleaning some motorbike parts in 100% acetone today. Try that with bare hands. BTW surgical gloves are considerably more delicate. I wear 7mil nitriles for mechanic work, solvent use, paint stripper application and more.

    Hand sanitizer is for dirty hands. Why contaminate your hands in the first place? You can use sanitizer on the outside of your gloves to reduce viral load but you'll have zero viral load on the skin of your hands.

  • You probably also can take a few ounces of xenon trioxide with you. Powerful explosive, decomposes sponaneous around 25C.

    You're about as likely to have it.

  • "You Can Now Take Up To 12 Ounces of Hand Sanitizer Through Airport Security"

    What a time to be alive....oh, wait.

  • People worried about SARS2 still fly ?
  • And I'll print a JIM BEAM HAND SANITIZER label to slap onto the bottle.
  • It's disappear off the shelves here in Australia.

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Working...