I can still understand where things like this come from. ; I'm not necessarily fond of it, but it's a question of what sort of fire the passenger compartment can tolerate, I think. ; It's kind of like the no electronics during takeoff and landing rules, and no cellphones ever. ; Cellphones are an extra problem, but regarding other electronics it's likely that you could safely use a lot of stuff with no problems. ; But the aviation world likes to be extra sure. ; The potential, however unlikely, exists, and that's enough.
I'll sort of repeat what I've said before.. in the remote control world the dominant lithium chemistry is lithium polymer instead of lithium ion, it's capable of higher discharge rates which is what powerful RC motors need. ; And I've heard stories of people burning their car down after they left a battery charging inside it and something went awry.
It's probably more likely for one of those kinds of batteries to catch fire, and they're likely to be larger as well. ; So the risk is probably greater. ; But the aviation world is (rightfully, I'd say) obsessed about reducing risk to the lowest possible level. ; I suspect the news stories about those sony laptop batteries presenting a fire risk was a rude awakening to the FAA and they've been trying to figure out what to make of lithium batteries ever since.
However this whole "omg, maybe they could be made into a crude bomb" thing is pissing me off to no end.
With a little ingenuity almost ANYTHING could be made into a bomb. ; They're honestly not going to be able to legislate away every potential threat. ; This is the consequence of living in a free society and I'm starting to wonder if anyone is ever going to remember that that's what we were supposed to be living in.
I mean.. with regards to the current limit on carry on liquids? ; Yeah... ; I know of a chemist who has boldly stated that those are pointless. ; He seems to feel that he could bring a plane down using liquids within the current limits. ; I can't judge the accuracy of his claims, he is known to stretch the truth on occasion... ; but in this case I tend to trust him. ; The current limit is a nice round number that's just barely practical to allow people to carry what they must while making them feel comfy and secure so long as they don't really examine things.
I hate that I feel like I even have to say this... ; but I guess I'll stress that the person in question has no actual interest in destroying an aircraft, he was merely pointing out that based on his knowledge the carry on liquids policy was futile.