Its the Daily Fail, but its actually got a pretty good list of some recent instances where bombs have been hidden in suicide bombers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2387332/Nightmare-te...

I know you're joking but it seems like it is possible that Richard Reid the shoe bomber could have inserted the explosives inside a plastic bag and then put that inside himself (either swallow it or in the rectum) and then remove the explosive in the airplane bathroom and ignited it. Not sure why they have not done this already.

In Gibson's Count Zero, Turner was almost killed by a "Slamhound", an exploding dog trained to find him. I vaguely recall that the dog's liver was replaced by explosive.

Sounds vaguely like the Soviet anti-tank dogs from WW2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog

Wow. That's crazy. And it didn't work, either. But humans arguably wouldn't get confused so readily.

Even so, they'd just X-ray all passengers.

There already exist commercial transmission (not backscatter!) full-body x-ray security scanners. They are used in prisons now, but there's no reason they can't be used in airports.

Given that flights are one of the leading sources of CO2 pollution, maybe this would finally be something where terrorists made a service to humankind.

(I am not being against technology, I just believe that modern humans can live perfectly well with flying much, much less.)

I'm not knowledgable about this subject but do you have any sources for that?

After some quick Googling the best numbers I could find state that air travel is responsible for somewhere between 2%-4% of all human induced CO2 emissions and somewhere around 12%-15% of the emissions from transport sources.

Those percentages have outsized impact because you are emitting them very high.

So while they contribute to 4% of emissions, they may as well contribute to 8% of global warming. We don't reduce emissions just because. We want to stop the climate change.

We should just optimize the planes. I do hope that in 10 years batteries will be good enough for electric fan engines.

The problem with electric aircraft is a bit like a mini Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. In a conventional aircraft fuel is burnt off as it flies causing it to lighten and become more fuel efficient as it travels. With battery aircraft this doesn’t happen so you need more batteries upfront to travel the distance.

Captain: "Scotty, we need more lift!"

Scotty: "We're giving it all she's got. If I eject the empty batteries we might just lose enough mass, but I cannae guarantee it"

Captain: "Do it, do it, do it!"

Scotty: "Aye, captain!"

Additionally, the energy density of batteries is nowhere near that of Jet A/A-1.

Batteries do get lighter as they discharge!

Just not by enough to matter.

OK, if we’re being pedantic ;) This SE answer puts the difference between a fully charged and fully discharged Chevy Volt at half a microgram: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/34424/134467