steve8482,

Have you been through T2 since Sept 2008? Since the new security suite opened, I've never had any delay going through and have found it a pretty slick operation compared to what it was prior to then. Even with the addition of the body scans, it's still pretty quick.

Darren

Darren

this was arrivals. I don't actually remember departures at all so can't have been too bad!

European legislation has banned the use of x-ray body scanners because evidence has emerged that the backscatter technology knocks the DNA/chromosomes around a bit, which could lead to cancer.
They say the risk is low, but that's no consolation if you are one of those people who has to travel by air, for example, business men/women who fly around the world and where airports become their second home, and who fly far more than the average family going on their annual holiday once a year.

Technology has moved on and machines have been developed using radio waves instead of the backscatter technology, (I believe) Heathrow Airport uses the radio wave technology.
However, the EU decided that Manchester Airport could continue to use the backscatter technology in all their terminals until the trial has been completed in 2012, so, what are we.? The guinea pigs for Europe.?

More importantly, Manchester Airport's policy makes it compulsory and if don't go through the scanners, you don't fly.
This is now totally wrong according to the legislation from the EU, which states.

Passengers must be informed about conditions under which the security scanner control takes place. In addition, passengers are given the right to opt out from a control with scanners and be subject to an alternative method of screening.
By laying down specific operational conditions and by providing passengers with the possibility of opting out, the legislation safeguards fundamental rights and the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1343&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/eu-airports-banned-from-using-x-ray-body-scanners

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1465389_eu-halts-trials-of-naked-security-scanners---two-years-after-they-were-brought-in-at-manchester-airport

Sanji

forget the newspaper items, and any others you find, just read the EC press release, especially the bit on the first line

The European Commission has adopted today a proposal

got that? everything that follows that sentence describes what they are proposing - nothing has been put into law yet. So by the time whatever they finish cobbling together has been ratified by the UK government and is law the Manchester trial will be over anyway.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ%3AL%3A2011%3A294%3A0007%3A0011%3AEN%3APDF

And another thing, Manchester Airport has been continuously trialling x-ray body scanners since October 2009 and the extension to November 2012 puts it well beyond the 30 month EU Commission allowed maximum. All other trials have been stopped to safeguard passenger's health, so why have they been extended.?
Me thinks it's time to boycott Manchester Airport and hit them where it hurts, in their pockets, there are plenty of other options available where you can leave this god forsaken country and not be somebody's guinea pig.

Sanji

so the Government has 20 days to comply with the regulation, but that's just the next step. The airports can't do anything until the Government changes the Aviation Security Act. The DfT might start work within 20 days but who knows how long they'll take.

So whilst waiting for them to do something I've read the Manchester Airport website and spotted 2 interesting things straight away. The page about the scanners starts "Following trials....." which implies that the trials are over and what's there now is the permanent result. But then it gets a bit odd, it names a piece of equipment which is definately the "back scatter" type and says that use has now been extended to T1 and T3. But the kit in T3 6 weeks ago wasn't this type, it was clearly the "millimetre wave" type. So what exactly is now in T2? Have they kept the back scatter or was it changed to millimetre wave? And what was installed in T1? This needs answering before anyone is stirred up into causing a scene when they get there.

Body scanners to be rolled out at airports

Air travellers will not be allowed to opt out of body scanners at airports, the Government announced today.

But in the future machines, rather than security staff, will see the apparent ‘naked' images of passengers, Transport Secretary Justine Greening said.

Ms Greening also said that she would consider carefully the EC report on the health risks of scanners, amid concerns that the backscatter scanner, which is being trialled at Manchester airport, emits ionising radiation.

Manchester, with Heathrow and Gatwick, has been trialling body scanners following the Christmas Day transatlantic flight incident when a would-be terrorist had an explosive device concealed in his underwear.

In a Parliamentary written statement, Ms Greening said she believed, in principle, that scanners should be rolled out more widely at UK airports.

But she added that the precise timing of future installations of such devices would depend on how quickly the new generation of scanners can be developed.

With permission from Travelmole

The actual Ministerial statement is this:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/greening-20111121

as I read it, the trials and consultation have ended.

It doesn't confirm which type is now in use at Manchester in any of the terminals, without going there for a snoop (and getting myself arrested "on suspicion") I'm guesing that the original backscatter is in T2 but T1 and T3 have millimetre wave. Anyone been there in the last few weeks? Millimetre Wave kit is like a roomy phone box with doors at two sides.

It doesn't say what will happen if the UK does not ratify the full EU regulation - I think the EU has bigger problems to worry about than chasing the UK over this. Whilst that argument is (or is not) going on, UK airports will have to apply the UK Aviation Security Act which means passengers can't choose, if passengers are refused admission I suppose they could in theory take it to the European Courts but they will miss a lot of planes in the meantime. If passengers kick off in the airport then the police can use the old fashioned Public Order laws.

The statistic I'd like to see is what percentage of people who didn't want to be scanned wanted to know where the smoking area was afterwards!

The statistic I'd like to see is what percentage of people who didn't want to be scanned wanted to know where the smoking area was afterwards!

That misses the point about choice, a person choses to smoke, you have no choice about scanners, you are still being herded into them like sheeples until the scientists and radiation experts can state that there definitely is or isn't harm to humans using the backscatter technology.
Comparing the risk with the amount of radiation on a flight from cosmic rays,( which is what the backscatter technology was compared against) the low dose backscatter data becomes flawed because the compared radiation is all around you, but the way the radiation is delivered in an airport is directly aimed at the human body, so the ‘low dosage' becomes questionable in this situation and is now being ‘questioned' because of the penetration levels in the skin.

It's not making sense when the EU Commission have stated that hand searches are of equal security efficacy to a body scan and if they didn't think so, then why are they allowing this?
If the EU commission didn't believe this then surely they wouldn't have legislated for it, and If compulsory x-ray body scanners are so essential then why aren't ALL UK airports using them now, and why has the commission (by banning until scientific evidence is produced) left other airports in Europe already using this technology‘ vulnerable.?
Heathrow Airport has just begun a trial of MMW with ATR...Manchester Airport has 16 Rapiscan scanners using the backscatter technology costing £120,000 each, in all terminals, and I read an article and only 2 days before the legislation, that the commission gave the go ahead for Manchester to extend the trial period until November 2012, when in fact it should have ended in March 2012 and the 30 month maximum trial period.

For Manchester, well there's nothing like hearing it from the horse's mouth and it's all about saving money on their investment by reducing the need for staff and seeing their insurance premiums go down.
Mmm well reducing staff at 5am allows people to by-pass the scanner and any other form of security check, just ask my hubby.!
http://www.futureairport.com/articles/026_sep2011/FAI026_safe-and-sound.pdf

Heathrow trialed the predecessor of the ‘one pose Rapiscan' machines used in Manchester and they ditched them because they were just as time consuming as the 'pat down' method, because the machines needed 2 shots (back/front and sides) and now they're using the ProVision L3 scanners, which use low-power radio waves, which show a cartoon type image, but still showing objects.

The Government intends to use its powers under the Aviation Security Act to maintain the current position. Those passengers selected for scanning will therefore not be able to fly if they are not willing to be scanned.
How can you refer to it as being selected, when it is compulsory and they (Government) intend to install scanners in all airports.?
Basically, the Uk government are sticking two fingers up to the EU and the legislation.
This is a government that likes to spread democracy around the world, but doesn't allow it to its own citizens.
http://www.sds.l-3com.com/advancedimaging/provision.htm

I personally don't have any problem with the concept of being scanned and I don't have any problem with the 'pat down' method, in fact I have no problem being taken into a room and stripping off into my birthday suit, but I would like all doubt about the technology and health issues removed once and for all, and if I was pregnant or had young children, I probably would make it my mission to find out, and not leave it to some politician for Putney who has been in Government 5 years.

Sanji

if you want ALL the health issues removed you'd best avoid flying. Apart from the radiation received in the air there are the infections passed around when they turn the airconditioning down to save fuel (or the even dodgier fumes that can be drawn in when they run it properly!).

But there is one group that haven't been mentioned at all. Whilst everyone has been going on about passenger rights from airports, airport requirements from government and government compliance with EU directives the airlines have been quietly keeping their heads down. There was nothing in the directive about them. So even if the government caved in and said they'd allow individual searches at UK airports, the airlines, and especially the US airlines, could turn around and say if you haven't been through the scanner you can't get on our plane. Since they pay for the security any increase costs from large number of manual searches would get passed onto them to recover in fares and that would affect their business. Can you imagine what Michael O'Leary will say if he gets an extra bill for searching people who didn't want to got through the scanner?

AFAIK: In America on internal flights you still have a choice not to go through the scanners and are then subjected to the ‘pat down' method, which has been described as a thorough grope, so if American airlines can cope with this, then why not the UK.? America has both versions of the scanners.
I thought passengers pay a UK Passenger Service charge to use the airports facilities, and airlines have been levying a charge per passenger to cover the increased insurance and security, so before the installation of scanners we were already paying for the pat down method, now we are paying for the scanners.
16 scanners @£120,000 each, that's some investment to get a return on.

if you want ALL the health issues removed you'd best avoid flying

You cannot remove all health issues, but you can remove the health hazards that are unnecessary .
Ionizing radiation is accumulative, so why give someone another unnecessary dose? It depends on how they define 'significant' risk. They state: "we are confident that full-body x-ray security products and practices do not pose a significant risk to the public health." Would you go through the scanner if it caused 'some' risk? How about 'a little risk'? We are talking about getting cancer here.

There are too many questions that have surfaced since these scanners were installed in airports and not enough conclusive answers, and these questions are coming from people who are highly qualified in their various fields and not Joe Bloggs passing through the scanners once a year, who perhaps don't understand the implications of ionising radiation and the dosage from a single beam being aimed directly at them from toe to head.
The fact is that at this time, neither you nor I know what the long term effects of the scanners are on the human cells, and even the scientists, radiation experts and medical professors who are advising the government, they are divided and don't know either. The Rapiscan data can be 'dissed' down by some experts, but still we are being herded into them because it saves employing more people and reduces the insurance premiums at Airports.
Justine Greening is way out of her depth.
O'Leary is not worth the effort.