they will have too have really good eyesight too see anything with me

the body scanner I used was at San Fran.
Interesting to hear that some airports do the scanning at the departure gate. I know this would mean huge reorganisation in a lot of airports but I just can't see that being able to shop after being scanned is great for security. Too many opportunities to smuggle I would have thought.

Without getting into too much that deviates what Holidaytruths is about, in my opinion it looks like people are now doing "things" to re-assure the public.

This particular guy who kicked it all off was known to organisations that should have been alert and should have prevented him boarding the plane in the first place. In my opinion that is they key to prevent any future attacks.

What he did was something new. What the shoe bomber did was something new. The next guy will do something new as well. No point shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Bottom line is that travelling to the USA for the ordinary traveller is going to me more trouble than it was a few weeks ago. It surely must put some off travelling to that destination at all.

Mark

Fiona HT Mod wrote:

I know this would mean huge reorganisation in a lot of airports but I just can't see that being able to shop after being scanned is great for security. Too many opportunities to smuggle I would have thought.

Everything airside should be security cleared though so there shouldn't be too many issues in terms of security. Anything that shouldn't be in the departure lounge should have already been picked-up at security checkpoints. Any duty free items etc should be low risk, they wouldn't be on sale otherwise. I can see the advantage of doing things immediately before boarding aircraft and some airports have metal detectors at boarding gates as well as what you've mentioned, but a sterile departure lounge should be just as good.

MarkJ HT Mod wrote:

Bottom line is that travelling to the USA for the ordinary traveller is going to me more trouble than it was a few weeks ago. It surely must put some off travelling to that destination at all.

I can see that viewpoint Mark and I think you're spot-on. Some would be put off by the extra checks and may think twice about going and look at alternatives. However, I'd take the view that why should a minority of (got to be careful here!) people spoil travel for the vast majority or law abiding travellers? If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. For me, any extra security checks are welcome and although they might be a little inconvienient in the sense that you need to provide extra information and it takes longer to transit airports, we live in a world where it's needed and if you want to travel, you have to put up with the security measures. Personally, it won't put me off travelling.

Darren

Trouble is that at huge hub airports like Amsterdam who knows who is there. Any enterprising group could arrange for people to meet up there and exchange objects. EG las year when we felw to the US via Amsertdam we were checks at Brum, our bags were not rechecked before we got on the KLM flight neither were we checked. I could have met with someone who had flew in from a less secure airport and been given something to carry. On the way back we were scanned for both flights.

Surprised no concerns re health issues. Is this one of the reasons the operator is in a separate room?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23397526-health-fear-over-new-airport-scanners.do

What he did was something new. What the shoe bomber did was something new. The next guy will do something new as well. No point shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Sadly true Mark

Hello all
I've created this thread to share information with you regarding your rights and the security body scanners currently being trialled in 3 UK airports.

I hope this information helps you to make an informed choice when booking your flights.
The 3 airports in the UK trialling back scatter technology body scanners* are Manchester International, Gatwick and Heathrow. If selected to be scanned / x rayed you have 2 choices - You either go through the scan or you are not allowed to fly.

*Technology can change and currently 2 forms are used, millimetre wave (non radiation) and back scatter (radiation) - Always check with the airport which technology is currently being used

The UK operates a No Opt Out policy, driven by the Government. So, whereas in other trial countries you can consent to a full body pat-down, in the UK, even if you offer to go to a room and strip to your underwear*, you will still have your loss of rights / choice taken away.

*Offering the same level of security check as a body scanner - As confirmed by Mr Steven May on behalf of The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP Secretary of State for Transport, UK Government

Regarding the Back Scatter technology being used at Manchester International Airport, the airport Directors and the Government insist the technology is harmless, both in the short and long term. They use the argument that the level of radiation being administrated is within the recommended, legal limits of dose and exposure.

However, conveniently, they will not acknowledge the fact that ALL official documents written on the trial have certain clauses in them, admitting that like with all radiation, it IS radiation! And long term there may be health effects.

Point 71 from European Commission report:
While the doses emitted by X-ray security scanners to screen persons are rather low, it is evident any exposure to ionising radiation, however small, may have health effects in the longer term. Therefore exposure even below the dose limits set by European legislation require that any decision on exposure to ionising radiation must be justified on grounds of their economic or public benefit to offset the potential damage from radiation. In addition, radiation protection measures must ensure that all exposures are as low as reasonably achievable (the ALARA principle) for workers, the general public, and the population as a whole. Therefore, if and when a ionising technology is being deployed, the improved efficiency in security terms, compared to the use of a non ionising technology, must be weighed against the possible health impact and thus has to be justified through a considerable gain in security level. Special considerations might also be called for when it comes to passengers that are especially sensitive to ionising radiation, primarily pregnant women and children

Further links to documents within the public domain can be provided if required

Finally on the technology, one of the leading experts in the field of radiation Dr David Brenner was a member of the US Government committee that originally set the safety guidelines for these devices in 2002 and endorsed their use. He now says he would never have made that decision if he'd known there were plans to use them on all passengers. He goes on to say that children and passengers with gene mutations - around one in 20 of the population - are more at risk as they are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA.

Body scanners are being introduced to combat terrorism. However due to the fact only 3 airports in the UK and a handful around the world are currently trialling these machines, in-flight terrorism is not on the increase.

So, I urge you to think carefully when booking flights and making your choices. Look into the technology yourself, make your own mind up as to whether you want to be scanned... Think about your loss of rights and being unfairly treated as a security threat.

Most importantly, before booking your flight, check to see if the airport you are considering have these machines in operation so you can avoid being in a No Opt Out position.

its a shame youve merged my thread as i wanted to ensure people had the chance to understand their rights before they book...it may get lost here.

however, thank you for letting me post

I don't want to rekindle old opinions, but personally, I have no issue with going through a body scanner. Part of my professional life involves body searches and for the sake of 7 seconds and a small amount of radiation, I know what I'd choose over a 90 second search with a strangers hands over me. I've been through the body scanners at MAN a few times, and will continue to do so. I can see the argument for frequent fliers, but for regular fliers, you'll be subjected to far more radiation during a flight than you will be going through a body scanner once in a while. The images they produce may be slightly revealing,but with procedures in place and the fact they are totally annonymous, I don't have a problem. Body scanners are only part of security measures at airports, there are several other measures along side them.

There was asimilar argument years ago with cabin flight and cabin crew and their exposure to radiation with prolonged flying hours.

Darren

Hi Darren,

I respect your opinion and choice. I for one don't like my rights being taken away, the right to make the choice.. The government have confirmed that opt out procedures, especially stripping to underwear, provides the same level of security.

Regarding the technology - Again, I respect your opinion on it. I believe though people should have the full facts to make up their own mind and as stated in my OP, in all official documents there is a clause concerning this technology and the health impacts, which may not be seen until years to come. Time will tell. I really hope youre right though!

I think we're still waiting to see the outcome of radiation contact from carrying a mobile phone around for 8 hours a day/ 365 days a year whilst still having old style CRT computer monitors/ TV sets and laser printers around us - or to be more accurate, we're not waiting because people want those things so they don't care.

Few people on this board will make more than 6 flights a year, so even if they were scanned for each one that would be about 40 seconds exposure and for most much less. I realise that strengths and frequencies will be slightly different but I'd say general lifestyle will give more (theoretical) risk than the odd airport scan. And that's before you need an X-ray at hospital.

LikeAbird wrote:

The government have confirmed that opt out procedures, especially stripping to underwear, provides the same level of security

But would you really (realistically) want to strip down to your underwear at a security check point at an airport, in front of a couple of strangers in latex gloves? When you are an innocent traveller, I would guess the vast majority would object to that, I know I would in no uncertain terms. We only treat suspected criminals like that. Not to mention the size of the queues at security, they are bad enough as they are at peak times! When coming through Mombassa Airport (Kenya) last year, we were hand searched at security and the boarding gate. This was mandatory for every passenger with no opt out. To be honest, the quality of the searches undertaken by staff were woeful. Anyone with a criminal mind would have bypassed those searches with ease. I was with a friend who is ex-police and I have to do the training every year, and we couldn't believe how poor they were. They weren't even a basic pat down, I assume to save time with 260 people waiting to board. All the main hiding places for blades and concealed items etc weren't even tocuhed. That's were the use of body scanning technology comes in. 7 seconds and away you go, likely with a better accuracy too.

LikeAbird wrote:

I believe though people should have the full facts

I totally agree with you. You can't make an informed judgement unless you have the full facts. However when it comes to technical issues like this, you need a high level of understanding and qualification in order to make informed judgements on some issues. That's where expert opinion comes in and to some degree, trust in them. You are always going to get conflicting information, one will say it's fine, another will say it's not.

LikeAbird wrote:

in all official documents there is a clause concerning this technology and the health impacts, which may not be seen until years to come. Time will tell. I really hope youre right though!

In our health and safety and litigation culture, you will find such clauses in pretty much everything you see. It's like the advertisement of anti-bacterial products, they never claim 'kills 100% of germs', it's always 99.9%. It's a case of we know we are right, but if anything does go wrong, you can't blame us as there's still that 0.01% risk factor. It's just an anti-litigation statement just in case, I see it all the time! Look at a few years ago with mobile phones. There were similar health risk being banded about due to concentrated radiation fears. Do people still use mobile phones even though a theoretical health risk was suggested? Of course they do. It may have changed habits, but in reallity it made no difference. As you say, time will tell but products such as body scanners don't go in to use unless they are tested and certified as 'safe'. Ultimately, you can argue for and against, but they are here to stay with current security threats. I think more people will have issue with the images they produce than the radiation fears. But again, with procedures in place, I personally don't have an issue with the images as there's no personal information on them.

Darren

Hi Darren,

No, I wouldnt really want to be stripping to my underwear... However, when I was faced with going through the scanner that is was I offered to do and was refused, thus missing my flight.

What I wanted was choice.

You clearly are all for them and like i say, thats your choice

You don't need qualifications in radiation to be able to see that NO ONE can give these machines a 100% long term safety certificate. As Steve said, just like they don't really know what the effects of mobiles and wireless etc will be. This is just ANOTHER low level dose of radiation that we are allowing.

As for security, well, again, as I said in my OP, only 3 airports are trialling the machines and in flight threats have not increased with pant bombers going to airports without the machines.

Its a little bit like installing millions of pounds worth of CCTV but crime not going down!

Anyway, my point to posting in your website was to raise awareness of the fact that the UK operate a No Opt Out policy

LikeAbird wrote:

You clearly are all for them and like i say, thats your choice

I'm not too fussed either way to be honest but you have to be realistic. In this day and age with the security threat to aviation, measures such as these are unfortunately warranted. What would you you like to see happen? What would your choice be? You didn't want to go through the body scanner which is fine but at Mancheter, there aren't the facilities or the staffing levels for the strip search in the new security areas. Plus this opens a whole other area of issues and legislation. Bear in mind airports like Manchester handle over 20 million passengers per year. If everone refused and needed a strip search, you'd have to check-in for your flight >4 hours before your departure rather than the current 2 or 3 in most cases. It has to be managable on a daily basis. How do you think the Home Office and aviation security agencies should handle the threat? Look at it from a security perspective; you refuse to go through a security device. First reacton is 'why have they refused? what have they to hide?'

LikeAbird wrote:

only 3 airports are trialling the machines and in flight threats have not increased with pant bombers going to airports without the machines.

You could have that same argument with speed cameras. If you don't put a deterrant in place, you're never going to make a start in tackling the problem. Until all airports have the same systems in place, you can't really do any analysis on it. However, with only a handful of major airport operating flights through which terrorist cells may choose to travel through, do you really need them at every airport? It's quite a complex issue with no easy fix.

Darren

likeabird.

please don't drag me into your side of the argument. My points, maybe too subtle, were that to most people there is good radiation and bad radiation (good radiation comes from things you want anyway) and the amount of radiation you'd get from these scans is minute compared compared to what you pick up in daily life without worrying. Change your TV from CRT to LCD and the normal tourist can probably balance out the extra radiation over a year.

People campaign against a phone mast near their local school because it's "bad" radiation (obviously not because it's a monstrosity that might affect property values). But they give their kids mobiles to keep near their bodies (good radiation because it makes life easier) and campaign FOR police radar speed checks outside the same school (good radiation).

The main complaints we had about the Manchester scanners was not the radiation (it cut down queue times so would count as "good") but the privacy issue due to the type of image it showed to the operator.

It doesn't bother me even if someone's monitoring it or not. I've got nothing to hide and if it means I'm going to get there in one piece i'm all for it.

The main complaints we had about the Manchester scanners was not the radiation (it cut down queue times so would count as "good") but the privacy issue due to the type of image it showed to the operator.

I was put through the body scanner at MAN last October. My own daft fault I had left my pen in my pockets under a sweater. I complained because I could not have a copy of the picture

Seriously though our freedoms are being eroded in many ways but the body scan and the so called privacy thing is a red herring. Without wishing to go off topic we hear the same thing about parents wanting to take pictures of their kids in school nativity plays. Some cannot get their mind round the idea that everybody but them are perverted and get kicks out of it.
The need for these checks has been brought about because their are people in this world who want to do harm to others. Those people at MAN and all the others are doing a job, and could not care less what you look like under your clothes. My youngest has spent a great deal of time in the USA in the last few years and tells me that internal flight security checks there can be even more intrusive.

The choice is yours - If you do not want to go through the checks then find an alternative mode of transport.

fwh

Edited by me to add the country

its the sniggering from behind the screen that unnerves me

Year to date statistics for the new airport screening from the Department of Homeland Security:

Terrorist Plots Discovered 0
Transvestites 133
Hernias 1,485
Hemorrhoid Cases 3,172
Enlarged Prostates 8,249
Breast Implants 59,350
Natural Blondes 3