 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Galaxyfunk
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 52
Location: England
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:32 |
 |
|
If flying to the UK for the gigs....Body scanners-UK NoOpOut
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've been on a bit of a mission lately getting this information out there on travel forums and then thought, I should be passing this on to jami fans!!
Sorry Ive only just posted it  if you do feel strongly about this subject (all about beliefs and choice and im not here to cause any kind of argument, obviously ) and you have already booked your tickets, from my experience i can share with you how you may be able to avoid being being selected..
Anyway, I hope this information helps you to make an informed choice when booking your flights from the UK, for any event.
The 3 airports in the UK trialling back scatter technology body scanners* within the departure gates 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Galaxyfunk
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 52
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:36 |
|
|
This is my experience...
...and why im posting the information out there! (this was a reply I wrote on a forum when they challenged my involvement / experience on the topic)
Back in Oct 2010 I refused to go through one at Manchester ( Ive been told Im only the 3rd person to refuse). I offered to go to a room and strip to my underwear. Not that I wanted to do this, however, I didnt want to go through the scanner either due to my beliefs (dont want to be xrayed and i dont like the loss of rights - we lose more and more!).
I had no choice though., I was refused boarding and even though the discussion with airport staff had been just that, a discussion (no argument, i didnt kick off or aything like that i just discussed the situation with managers) armed police were called, i was questioned and escorted out the airport.
My details have been sent to the government (I was told because such a small % of people refused, my details would need to be logged), the passport people and it's been recorded with greater manchester police.
Whatever peoples views are on the machines and the technology being used, my point is, as a person, who has never and would never dream of being a security threat (which they even confirmed 15minutes into me refusing and discussing it with the airport staff), I had my rights taken away.
I should have the choice as to which form of security check i undertake.
Alongside having it writing that i did offer the same level of security check on the day, the government has also admitted that i did not break any laws. An outstanding question back to the airport is why they called the police - On the day they said that its in governments guidlines to contact the police, but the government have said it isnt and its the airport which makes that decision. It appears the airport doesnt even understand the policy which when it involves the police, is a little worrying to say the least.
I mention beng only the 3rd person to refuse because by all accounts, even if an opt out policy was in place, not many would use it? although i did mention on the day, to be fair, by the time youve paid your ticket and maybe have your family with you, going on that hard earned holiday, how many people when faced with this could turn round and say, no, im not doing it.
I have put the question forward that if they did offer a policy, by all accounts, to cater for such a tiny % f people there would be no impact to Q time or resource within the security area. After all, a passenger survey, conducted at MIA, says 95% of people dont mind them..
However, according to steven may, they wouldnt want to put in an opt out policy.. in case people did opt out! and yes, he confirmed its all driven by budget and resourcing costs. We discussed security threats and like ive pointed out, the trial may have met budget and time objectives but there certainly isnt any proof whatsoever that it had contributed to the 'war on terror'
So, turns out, they arent as confident of their survey results either. But then, like ive mentioned in emails.. how accurate is the date collated? It appear both the government and the airport agree with my challenge. Maybe they know the average person has not looked into this and really thought about what it means.. They are clearly worried about giving people the choice and that having an impact on targets and budget etc.
In the EC document, future deployment plans are stated and how they will be implemented in every airport and used as the security procedure for all passengers.
All information provided is 100% researched and is a balanced view. I understand we have radiation blasted at us, day in, day out and of course, thats the offical line you get given. However, I also find it amazing that the same people refuse to acknowledge a level headed approach and won't admit, that even in their own documents, there is a clause saying fingers crossed regarding long term health effects, especially on pregnant women and children (and of of course, 1 in 20 of people with different dna strands).
This little gem below is even on the government website (see if you can make head nor tail of this one):
Whilst there are stages of pregnancy where a fetus is considered to be more susceptible to harm from radiation, the backscatter technology ensures that negligible doses are absorbed into the body (where the fetus is) and the fetal dose is thus much lower than the dose to a pregnant woman. Therefore for this comparison, which due to uncertainties only provides indicative risks, maternal and fetal dose can be considered the same. Similarly, because of the uncertainties at these low levels of exposure the risks to children, people with any type of illness or people undergoing any type of medical treatment are considered to be comparable to the risks to adults.
I have written many emails to the government and the responses i recieve are very interesting.
I am happy to answer any further questions or provide emails. Im not here to argue peoples points of view.. im just hear to give a different opinion
I just wanted to make sure people who are booking travel understand their rights regarding this issue. I knew they were there and knew that if you refused, the policy is you cant fly. However, i had no idea that my offer of strip to underwear search would be refused, that armed police with machine and taser guns would be called, that i would be escorted out the airport or that my details would be put on some form of watch list! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Galaxyfunk
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 52
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:48 |
|
|
oh dear... im back on your forum for 5 minutes and mess the sections up  
i really meant to post this under the tour section! sorry could you move it, please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Editorial
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Private messages
Log in
