As with any ban, I question if the response is proportional to the threat. Yes we have all these chemical devices with us (hell you're flying on a burning tank

As with any ban, I question if the response is proportional to the threat. Yes we have all these chemical devices with us (hell you're flying on a burning tank of jet fuel, make no mistake), but the actual number of exploding electronics is so low we don't bother thinking about it. Even the Note 7, which was outright banned on flights, had only a couple hundred incidents, in a market that transports millions of phones a day (not to mention other electronics) routinely for _years_. In fact, let's compare apples-to-apples how likely you are to die from some of these things in a given year [1]: * Air accident (any cause): 1 in 767,303 * Traffic accident: 1 in 8,938 * Fall from ladder: 1 in 752,688 In fact, I'm having a hard time finding statistics that indicate passenger consumer electronics are a threat at all. Nearly all plane crashes are some form of human error from the flight crew and mechanical failure. Even the Note 7 didn't bring down planes, despite actually exploding on them several times. Even that ban isn't about the lethality, but the inconvenience and delays suffered because they _must_ check for worse problems. So to reiterate my point: What is the threat you are trying to solve? EDIT: Formatting [1]: http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/mortality-risk http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/mortality-risk