saving since 2005 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Today I was told by staff at Heathrow that if I didn’t have a full body scan they would not allow me to fly. They gave a leaflet saying that they offer no other option such as a pat down and I have to have this invasive xray in order to fly. This technology is claimed to be unsafe by some and causes a cancer risk. I can’t believe they’ve introduced it without an opt out. The machine was new and there was only one in T5 I expect they will be rolling it out more, I will avoid Heathrow in the future now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GloomMonger Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Today I was told by staff at Heathrow that if I didn’t have a full body scan they would not allow me to fly. They gave a leaflet saying that they offer no other option such as a pat down and I have to have this invasive xray in order to fly. This technology is claimed to be unsafe by some and causes a cancer risk. I can’t believe they’ve introduced it without an opt out. The machine was new and there was only one in T5 I expect they will be rolling it out more, I will avoid Heathrow in the future now. From the Heathrow website: Security (body) scanners Why are security scanners installed at airports? Scanners have been introduced following a Government review of aviation security measures to ensure we are taking the most effective action against the emerging threats to security. They provide an additional and less intrusive method of screening passengers. What legislation allows security scanners to be used? Security scanners are a recognised screening method under European aviation security law. In the UK, it is a Department for Transport (DfT) directive that we use these scanners under the Aviation Security Act 1982. What are the selection criteria for scanning? Passengers are selected at random or when there is a particular security concern, such as the activation of a metal detector. Can passengers choose to be screened by an alternative method? No. If selected, you will not be offered an alternative method of screening. Refusal to be screened will result in you not being allowed to travel. EU and US regulations allow passengers to opt out and have an alternative method of search if selected for scanning. Why doesn’t the UK? Security measures must constantly adapt to combat emerging security threats. Security scanners are effective in detecting concealed devices on a body, such as those used in recent terrorist incidents. The UK Government’s view is that current alternative measures do not provide the same level of assurance against such threats. Do you use backscatter-type scanners? No, at Heathrow we only operate millimetre-wave based scanners. Do children have to be scanned? If selected, children will be required to be scanned. What if I am pregnant or undergoing medical treatment? All our scanners are approved for use by the UK government. There are no known health risks associated with the type of scanner in operation at Heathrow. Can I view the image that is produced of me? All our scanners are fitted with Automatic Threat Recognition (ATR) software. The image produced is a generic stick-like figure, with marks showing where the scanner has detected concealed items [view a sample image]. You can see this image as you exit the scanner. No images are saved or retrievable at a later date. Where can I find out more? The Department for Transport has published information about security scanners at UK airports, including the code of practice, on its website at www.dft.gov.uk. Another nail in the UK coffin. It seems we are now outgunning the US and Europe in our efforts to be a police state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 From the Heathrow website: Another nail in the UK coffin. It seems we are now outgunning the US and Europe in our efforts to be a police state. /Fascist mode on. If it saves just one life, taking the freedoms of the entire population away for ever will be worth it. /Fascist mode off. These people don't think like normal people. The believe the end justifies the means, WHATEVER the means is. Personally id be happier flying with an marginally increased risk of someone blowing the plane up than having to be subjected to some jumped up authoritarian touching me up at every juncture. Still, im sure G4S shareholders will make a tidy sum from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GloomMonger Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 /Fascist mode on. If it saves just one life, taking the freedoms of the entire population away for ever will be worth it. /Fascist mode off. These people don't think like normal people. The believe the end justifies the means, WHATEVER the means is. Personally id be happier flying with an marginally increased risk of someone blowing the plane up than having to be subjected to some jumped up authoritarian touching me up at every juncture. Still, im sure G4S shareholders will make a tidy sum from it. It's the lack of choice that makes me angry. To force a pregnant woman or child to go through these untested machines without offering an alternative is obscene. What's their argument for not offerring a pat down as an alternative? Is a pat down now not reliable enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishman Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 It's the lack of choice that makes me angry. To force a pregnant woman or child to go through these untested machines without offering an alternative is obscene. What's their argument for not offerring a pat down as an alternative? Is a pat down now not reliable enough? It's a pregnant lady to you or I. But to the security services it could be an internally-mounted improvised explosive device....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trampa501 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 /Fascist mode on. If it saves just one life, taking the freedoms of the entire population away for ever will be worth it. /Fascist mode off. These people don't think like normal people. The believe the end justifies the means, WHATEVER the means is. Personally id be happier flying with an marginally increased risk of someone blowing the plane up than having to be subjected to some jumped up authoritarian touching me up at every juncture. Still, im sure G4S shareholders will make a tidy sum from it. Of course all the 1000s of planes flying across London into Heathrow from various airports worldwide, won't have their passengers who have undergone full body scanners. So the security argument doesn't stand up. It is either necessary (in which case all other countries would operate it) or it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pole Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 For some reason very few people are outraged at this - most are actually grateful. The 'Полезный идиот' term comes to mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 F**k! I'm flying from T3 today. Perhaps I won't be one of the 'chosen'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 It's the lack of choice that makes me angry. To force a pregnant woman or child to go through these untested machines without offering an alternative is obscene. What's their argument for not offerring a pat down as an alternative? Is a pat down now not reliable enough? You never know. The baby could be a terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saberu Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 You never know. The baby could be a terrorist. Don't be stupid, babies aren't capable of that. However it's clear to me that all babies are actually potential terrorist bomb vessels. I propose a ban on having babies, and no babies should be allowed to fly- ever. For more information contact my representatives at Heathrow airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Don't be stupid, babies aren't capable of that. However it's clear to me that all babies are actually potential terrorist bomb vessels. I propose a ban on having babies, and no babies should be allowed to fly- ever. For more information contact my representatives at Heathrow airport. After 12 hours on a plane with someone else's fractious baby, I'd rather face the terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blobloblob Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Manchester's just taken all their scanners out so presumably Heathrow picked them up on the cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pole Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Manchester's just taken all their scanners out so presumably Heathrow picked them up on the cheap. They will probably be replaced by 'healthier models' (the 'one of your 5-a-year' version). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wherebee Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 This is appalling. Anyone know a pressure group link against this yet? Anyone know the specific legislation that allows them to force people to take the radiation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 It is ridiculous, completely disproportionate. You can bet some well-connected company, well-connected to the politicians, is going to do alright out of it. Don't G4S run the country these days? Calling Mr. Reid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 According to the leaflet quoted, they only use millimetre wave scanners, not backscatter ones. As I understand it, there are significant health/radiation issues with the latter, but not (according to the majority of medical opinion, at any rate) the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 For some reason very few people are outraged at this - most are actually grateful. The 'Полезный идиот' term comes to mind... Yes, its worrying. At least a significant minority (i wish majority, but it probably isnt) in the US are outraged by the TSA, and at least if you mention the NDAA, some mericans would know what you are on about. The UK population are so far gone down the big brother/nanny state jackbooted government knows best route its not funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pole Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 but not (according to the majority of medical opinion, at any rate) the former. according to the majority of medical opinion... I heard that one before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 "such as those used in recent terrorist incidents" when...what and did a scanner help? Lets discount the underwear and shoe bomber....what others have there been, apart from Drone attacks by the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saving since 2005 Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 What's their argument for not offerring a pat down as an alternative? Is a pat down now not reliable enough? "The UK government's view is that current alternative measures do not provide the same level of assurance against such threats." I should of refused to be scanned and stayed in the london office to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 According to the leaflet quoted, they only use millimetre wave scanners, not backscatter ones. As I understand it, there are significant health/radiation issues with the latter, but not (according to the majority of medical opinion, at any rate) the former. Different wavelength of radiation used. Millimetre wave is not ionising, whereas x rays are, which is a significant difference. Even so, the backscatter x ray means the radiation does not pass through the body and are therefore less dangerous than transmission x rays. Given the choice between the xray and the millimeter wave I would take the millimeter wave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 From the Heathrow website: Another nail in the UK coffin. It seems we are now outgunning the US and Europe in our efforts to be a police state. ?? I've recently been to the US (Boston) - full body scan on way out, and on way in, full set of fingerprints and an iris scan. The fingerprints really p*ss me off - it's the 2nd time I've had to give them at Boston. If not for having a sister there TBH I wouldn't go. And after all that, on arrival home I found 2 items in my hand baggage that I'd meant to pack elsewhere, which should have been picked up in the scanner: a pair of tweezers (usually banned) and a cig lighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saving since 2005 Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 ?? I've recently been to the US (Boston) - full body scan on way out, and on way in, full set of fingerprints and an iris scan. At least you can opt out of being blasted with radiation. Not allowed tweezers? really? Its like all the blunt metal knifes i've had taken off me - i just get another one from a food place after security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 So do ebay do radiation monitoring tags? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 The fingerprints really p*ss me off - it's the 2nd time I've had to give them at Boston. If not for having a sister there TBH I wouldn't go. They do this for all visitors to the US, every time. A colleague of mine recently had an interesting experience: upon having his fingers scanned on his second visit to the US, an alarm sounded. It seems that the computer compares the scan it's just done with that of your previous visits, if you're not entering the US for the first time (obviously). On this occasion, the computer thought that the two sets of prints didn't match. He was taken into a side room, interrogated and another scan was done on better kit. And after all that, on arrival home I found 2 items in my hand baggage that I'd meant to pack elsewhere, which should have been picked up in the scanner: a pair of tweezers (usually banned) and a cig lighter. The scanners (and the security in general) at the smaller regional airports aren't as effective. I once accidentally left a Swiss army knife in my carry-on suitcase from a previous trip (not by air), and it went through the x-ray at Teesside, and onto the plane with me, undetected. When the bag went through a second x-ray in Amsterdam while changing planes, it was caught (and binned). The operator of the Amsterdam scanner wasn't the least bit concerned that I'd just flown with the thing - he said that he picks up banned items in the hand luggage of transfer passengers who have come in on a flight from a regional spoke several times a day. It was for precisely this reason, he added, that Amsterdam x-rays the carry-ons of transfer passengers as well as originating ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.