But all your last statement really does is make the problem someone else's, and more dangerously, because the design doesnt help even with caution.

If I have made an accidental kimchi bomb then I will want to defuse it safely before I dispose of it. If I put it in the trash and leave it for the refuse collector there is risk that it blows up in their face without any warning. That's a much worse outcome. The root issue here is that this thermos design doesnt have a way to safely defuse it.

I bet you actually have. Its those gaps in the threads for screwing on the lid. The pressure get escape through these gaps while the lid still stays on the bottle.

(That hamster-microwave thing is a disinfo campaign from manufacuturers to limit liability of corporations, BTW, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...)

Thought the same, but the recalled bottles were "food and drink" bottles, and they do usually have a pressure relief system of some kind.

Seems to be like they sold a bottle designed for a pressure relief cap with the wrong model cap, turning food storage containers into launchers.

Most lids you've ever used have pressure relief. It's not an extra part or valve or anything, it's just the simple geometry to ensure that the seal opens before the lid becomes mechanically free.

One word for you .... context.

I said "given it should be there" because Thermos have just issued a recall notice where they openly admit liability and they openly state it should be there (see side by side photos in the recall).

I was never seeking to pass judgement on the factual element of whether "it should be there" in the pure definition of the term.

I was just saying "it should be there on THAT product because Thermos says so".