I see the point you're trying to make; the authorities apparently accept a risk in terms of expensive equipment produced by corporations with strong lobbying funds, but decline that risk in terms of bottled liquids.
One fact that is overlooked is that there is actually a limit on the lithium-equivalent permitted per passenger just like there is a liquid-volume limit.
Last time I checked, the total maximum carry-on lithium-equivalent was 25 grammes which was about four smartphone batteries or two-dozen AA cells. Now as to whether that's an acceptable risk is for someone else more knowlegeable to evaluate.
Strange, I've been traveling with a 500cc refillable water bottle forever, never had any trouble (Germany, Netherlands, East Asia). Maybe it helps that my bottle is designed to be refilled, and not just an empty bottle from the supermarket.
Yes ... but sometimes only hot water is available, and at all times the quality of water not marked 'drinking water' could in principle be suspect (it might come via a tank somewhere — this is certainly common in old UK domestic plumbing — and the tank might have dead rat in it, etc.).
The problem is that with a water bottle, you can immediately see it's some kind of liquid on the x-ray and disallow it during inspection, whereas the Note 7 isn't immediately apparent when inspected from afar. While I don't agree with the liquid ban, it's much easier to ban a liquid than it is to ban a specific model of a phone.
Last time I was on an airplane the crew disallowed all Note 7s being turned on or being charged. I'm not sure if it was seriously enforced, but it was announced.
One fact that is overlooked is that there is actually a limit on the lithium-equivalent permitted per passenger just like there is a liquid-volume limit.
Last time I checked, the total maximum carry-on lithium-equivalent was 25 grammes which was about four smartphone batteries or two-dozen AA cells. Now as to whether that's an acceptable risk is for someone else more knowlegeable to evaluate.