Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU Bans Full-body X-ray Scanners...Health Concerns  
User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9376 times:

Here's a quote from Consumer Reports.


EU bans full-body X-ray scanners due to health concerns
Nov 16, 2011 1:30 PM

Full-body scanners that use X-ray technology for security screening purposes will be banned at Europe's airports because of radiation risks and concerns, said the European Union (EU) on Monday.

The scanners screen airline passengers for hidden explosive devices, hundreds of which were installed at airports across the United States after the failed Christmas Day attack in 2009 by the so-called "underwear bomber." Soon after the new full-body X-ray machines were unveiled, concerns were raised over the possible levels of radiation exposure during airport security checks.

http://news.consumerreports.org/mone...x-ray-scanners-at-eu-airports.html




[Edited 2011-12-01 09:54:20]

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinestandby87 From Switzerland, joined Jul 2001, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9326 times:

The UK Government will not comply with this directive on the grounds of the "hightened security risk in the UK"

So the UK remains the only country in the world where playing conkers at school is banned for Health and Safety Reasons, yet giving full body X-Ray scans to young children by medically unqualified personnel is perfectly OK.

Anything else I write and I suspect the a.net crew will ban me for using swear words, so I will just say this is "fantastically" outrageous behaviour by UK Government. There was another f-word I could have used...


User currently offlinestandby87 From Switzerland, joined Jul 2001, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9271 times:

Me again:

"The U.S. government has stated that the radiation emitted from those devices is minimal, equal to the natural exposure during 2 minutes of flying, though some research suggests it's higher."

The "equivalent" or "equal" Quantity of radiation is a misnomer!

I try and explain without using long words:

If you stand in a shower of 38 degree C water, it's very nice.
If I fire that same quantity of water at your skin at high pressure, it's most definitely not very nice!

And that's the "equivalent" to what is happening to "anyone who can walk" in the UK right now when they enter the Backscatter X-Ray machines at various airports.

Add in the fact that the machines have never been indendently tested and it beggars belief why the UK Government has given a December 2012 extension to those already installed at Manchester Airport.

Also, while I'm on the Soapbox, these machines would not detect Mr. Underpants travelling to Detroit on 1-way ticket with no coat or indeed any rectal material.
You don't want to imagine the results of that - but in fact the bottom has already been used by terrorists. Just don't Google for it at work else you will see worse than this:   

[Edited 2011-12-01 10:07:45]

[Edited 2011-12-01 10:08:52]

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9212 times:

Quoting standby87 (Reply 2):

"The U.S. government has stated that the radiation emitted from those devices is minimal, equal to the natural exposure during 2 minutes of flying, though some research suggests it's higher."

Justification for the US government to deploy scanners in their country.
I admit that as a former colony they could be told what to do by the colonial master, but it seems as if the colonial master is once again being told what to do by someone else.

I suspect they are concerned about the amount of traffic going thru LHR to the US and whether the US will mandate screening of pax on arrival, the rest of Europe does not seem to fear such an outcome so I say go for it and let the Americans do what they deem is necessary on their side to protect their nation.

It would certainely show whether LHR is the end all for European travel to the US.


User currently offlineairbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4269 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9171 times:

Good, so I wonder when AMS will remove these scanners which are fully in use for staff working at the airport, and also used at specific flights/departure gates. Can a passenger refuse to enter these scanners from now on? And, what will be the consequence. I never liked these kind of machines.


"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9112 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
I suspect they are concerned about the amount of traffic going thru LHR to the US and whether the US will mandate screening of pax on arrival, the rest of Europe does not seem to fear such an outcome so I say go for it and let the Americans do what they deem is necessary on their side to protect their nation.

The USA already re-screens anyone continuing on a connceting flight, so your logic doesn't follow. It is an independent decision by the UK government and the USA doesn't really care one way or the other.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9096 times:

Quoting standby87 (Reply 1):

The UK Government will not comply with this directive on the grounds of the "hightened security risk in the UK"

It's on this that the government chooses to defy the EU?

Quoting standby87 (Reply 1):
So the UK remains the only country in the world where playing conkers at school is banned for Health and Safety Reasons, yet giving full body X-Ray scans to young children by medically unqualified personnel is perfectly OK.

Ooh that's good. Makes it sound extra horrific.

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
I suspect they are concerned about the amount of traffic going thru LHR to the US and whether the US will mandate screening of pax on arrival, the rest of Europe does not seem to fear such an outcome so I say go for it and let the Americans do what they deem is necessary on their side to protect their nation.

You mean customs?


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6556 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9018 times:

Quoting standby87 (Reply 1):
The UK Government will not comply with this directive on the grounds of the "hightened security risk in the UK"

So the UK remains the only country in the world where playing conkers at school is banned for Health and Safety Reasons, yet giving full body X-Ray scans to young children by medically unqualified personnel is perfectly OK.

Anything else I write and I suspect the a.net crew will ban me for using swear words, so I will just say this is "fantastically" outrageous behaviour by UK Government. There was another f-word I could have used...

They could easily switch to millimeter wave scanners, which are NOT being banned. The TSA should do the same by replacing all of their Rapiscan backscatter X-ray machines with millimeter wave scanners, perhaps made by Smiths Detection to maintain a two-supplier approach (current TSA MMW scanners are made by L-3).



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinedavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7380 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8859 times:

As reported in the Manchester Evenning News some days ago:

"The Commission said last week it would not allow further trials of the device until a report on its safety is concluded next year.

Manchester is currently the only airport in Europe where the scanner is used.

The government has already sought permission from the Commission meaning it can remain in place in Manchester until at least November 2012."

And an even earlier report

"The move comes after American academic Dr David Brenner warned last summer that he believed the scanner could deliver up to 20 times more radiation to the skin than previously thought – potentially increasing a person's risk of skin cancer. Other scientists – and the Health Protection Agency in England – say the scanner is safe for travellers to go through as many as 5,000 times a year."

"A Manchester Airport spokesman said: “We will carry on using the body scanner because it is safe. The UK and American governments say it is safe – the EU is taking its time to make its mind up but there's nothing to suggest it won't come to the same conclusion as the UK and America.”


"“The machines involve a very low dose of x-rays equivalent to less than two minutes of flying at altitude"

Interesting that the UK looked at it and passed it as safe. And if all we're taking about is the equivalent of 2 mins flying time then it must be very, very harmful (!)


User currently offlineWsp From Germany, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8714 times:

Quoting david_itl (Reply 8):
"“The machines involve a very low dose of x-rays equivalent to less than two minutes of flying at altitude"

Interesting that the UK looked at it and passed it as safe. And if all we're taking about is the equivalent of 2 mins flying time then it must be very, very harmful (!)

To determine the cancer risk on living tissue takes years of experimental research. No such tests with these devices were done.

Peer reviewed research in a reputable biological journal is the only source for trustworthy information on the health effects of this scanning method. All other opinions offered on this be it by the UK government or physicist equating two different radiations based on total energy are unqualified quackery that should be ignored.


User currently offlineshamrock604 From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 4181 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8659 times:

I don't care what reason the EU have for banning these things - I'm just glad they have. Good call!


Flown EI,FR,RE,EIR,VE,SI,TLA,BA,BE,BD,VX,MON,AF,YS,WX,KL,SK,LH,OK,OS,LX,IB,LTU,HLX,4U,SU,CO,DL,UA,AC,PR,MH,SQ,QF, EY, EK
User currently offlinechrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8634 times:

Too many people don't realize that radiation exposure is cumulative over your lifetime. One or two scans through those backscatter machines likely will have just a negligible (if any) effect on someone.

Folks who live on the road and pass through security 2-3 times a week, for 45 weeks a year, are exposed to a lot more radiation from scans than Ma and Pa Kettle who travel once a year. Over a 5, or 10 year period this adds up. And we're assuming that the amount of radiation the scans give off is a constant, known number. They might give off that 2 minutes of flight amount of radiation when they come out of the factory, but what about 1, 2, or 3 years down the line? I can guarantee that these machines aren't calibrated every day, or even every week.

These scanners are nothing more than window dressing. They slow down the lines and give the Kettles the appearance that the TSA (or UK/EU equivalent) are doing something.


User currently offlinestandby87 From Switzerland, joined Jul 2001, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8405 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 6):
The UK Government will not comply with this directive on the grounds of the "hightened security risk in the UK"

It's on this that the government chooses to defy the EU?

Quoting standby87 (Reply 1):
So the UK remains the only country in the world where playing conkers at school is banned for Health and Safety Reasons, yet giving full body X-Ray scans to young children by medically unqualified personnel is perfectly OK.

Ooh that's good. Makes it sound extra horrific.


1. Yes. That was the reason given by the Secretary of State for Transport - it's so dangerous in the UK...

2. "Extra horrific". Given the alternative of a physical pat-down, would you put children as young as 2, sick relatives or a pregnant partner through a backscatter X-Ray machine?
Maybe you don't now have either of those 3 categories, but I suspect you will have all of them at one stage of your life.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 7):
They could easily switch to millimeter wave scanners, which are NOT being banned. The TSA should do the same by replacing all of their Rapiscan backscatter X-ray machines with millimeter wave scanners, perhaps made by Smiths Detection to maintain a two-supplier approach (current TSA MMW scanners are made by L-3).


Exactly. Do not use ionising radiation on members of the public for non-medical purposes.

[Edited 2011-12-01 14:13:20]

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8398 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 7):
They could easily switch to millimeter wave scanners, which are NOT being banned. The TSA should do the same by replacing all of their Rapiscan backscatter X-ray machines with millimeter wave scanners, perhaps made by Smiths Detection to maintain a two-supplier approach (current TSA MMW scanners are made by L-3).

And to avoid waste, all the x-ray machines should be moved to various DHS offices to be used there as security. After all, they are claiming that they are safe, so why not have them use them daily to test that theory...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinepeanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1438 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8295 times:

In the US: When traveling with my children, we are always directed through the "old style" security devices. When I'm alone, most of the time I'm directed towards the new technology. I decline and get the manual pat down. Oh well...

At AMS I did not even get a choice last Summer, including my children. We were "mandated" to go through the newer equipment. There was no alternative. I thought that was very odd. At least I get choices in the US.



Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8216 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 5):
The USA already re-screens anyone continuing on a connceting flight, so your logic doesn't follow.

Not talking about connecting via the US.

Quoting Glom (Reply 6):
You mean customs?

The US has "requested" a number of security measures for flights into the US, if the EU does away with body scanners will the US ask for something else or just allow the situation?
Biometric passports, luggage scanners, countries who do not comply, what the US penalty?

On this topic, what's the EU penalty on the UK for non-compliance?

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 5):
It is an independent decision by the UK government and the USA doesn't really care one way or the other.

So the US had no input on such devices being deployed worldwide, ok


User currently offlineEI564 From Ireland, joined May 2007, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8132 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 15):

The US has "requested" a number of security measures for flights into the US, if the EU does away with body scanners will the US ask for something else or just allow the situation?
Biometric passports, luggage scanners, countries who do not comply, what the US penalty?

On this topic, what's the EU penalty on the UK for non-compliance?

I believe Manchester (the only airport that uses the banned scanners) has a derogation from the EU until the end of 2012.

And given that the other scanners are not banned, I presume this just means that we'll see a lot more of those. The EU has not suggested it is generally anti-scanners.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6556 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8026 times:

Quoting EI564 (Reply 16):
And given that the other scanners are not banned, I presume this just means that we'll see a lot more of those. The EU has not suggested it is generally anti-scanners.

Yep, millimeter wave scanners will remain legal in the EU.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinedavescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2307 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7933 times:

Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 10):
I don't care what reason the EU have for banning these things - I'm just glad they have. Good call!

I agree. Further, there have been articles here in the US suggesting the amount of radiation said to be used and actually used is not the same. At least in the US you can opt for the putdown (which I do). After all the drama about the pat down, even the "wait" time for the putdown and the putdown is under 3 min as a rule.

Dave



Can I have a mojito on this flight?
User currently offlineplanejamie From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2011, 576 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6633 times:

One point missed here is that the full body scanner machines aren't used by everyone at MAN. Essentially you walk through the old style metal detector into an enclosed box. This has two doors, one leading right out to the end of the baggage x-ray and one leading to the body scanner. If the metal detector goes off, you go to the body scanner.

I'm actually backing up the idea of these full body scanners on security grounds, an unpopular opinion but still, since their introduction - has there been any terrorist incident on a passenger flight? I will also point out that MAN was once one of the most insecure airports in the UK and I remember the BBC (I think it was) doing a trial there and carrying some form of weapon or something through. The flying public only goes through one of these maybe 4 times a year at worst (unless you're a very frequent flyer). Maybe they should look at profiling for frequent flyers, they still go through the metal detector, but if it beeps, they get a pat down rather than the full body scan.

I think if they switched to the other type of body scanner, that might reduce health risks. But this is in the UK, probably one of the most health & safety concious countries in the world and to be honest, I highly doubt the government would have given the green light for these unless they were properly tested. They've also been in place for a while now, I see no one claiming to have cancer from them who's a frequent flyer anyway. I think the EU needs it's head testing...


User currently offlineskyguyB727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6560 times:

Quoting airbuseric (Reply 4):
Good, so I wonder when AMS will remove these scanners which are fully in use for staff working at the airport, and also used at specific flights/departure gates.
Quoting peanuts (Reply 14):
At AMS I did not even get a choice last Summer, including my children. We were "mandated" to go through the newer equipment. There was no alternative.

When I flew out of AMS, I simply refused to go through the human x-ray machine. I insisted on being patted down. The screeners didn't want to do it. They said the machines did not use any radiation, just radio waves. I knew better and insisted on being patted down. They finally relented and patted me down.

Passengers always have the right to a physical search. Know your rights and insist that they be upheld.

I recently had a TSA screener say he didn't blame me one bit for not wanting to go through the x-ray machine. Why expose yourself to any more radiation than you have to? As another poster correctly stated, radiation exposure is cumulative.


User currently offlinestandby87 From Switzerland, joined Jul 2001, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6332 times:

There's so much nonsense on the Internet e.g. 911 Conspiracy theories, that it's difficult to see the wood from the trees, but I found this and I think it's worth a read

http://www.propublica.org/documents/.../april-2011-letter-to-john-holdren

It's not hysterical, it's not ranting. But it does put in more technical terms than I managed above some of the arguments against backscatter X-Ray machines.

Manchester Airport - can you read this?


User currently offlineEI564 From Ireland, joined May 2007, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 6113 times:

Quoting planejamie (Reply 19):
They've also been in place for a while now, I see no one claiming to have cancer from them who's a frequent flyer anyway.

A while. 1 or 2 years? That's really not a long time at all when it comes to the effects of radiation.  

The argument for using scanners is that we need to err on the side of caution when it comes to aviation security. By the same logic, if X-Ray scanners are a possible health risk, then it makes sense to err on the side of caution and not use them until we are sure they are fine.

Saying that the EU needs its head testing because it is trying to be somewhat logical is a bit silly.


User currently offlinenclmedic From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 6035 times:

Quoting standby87 (Reply 2):
"The U.S. government has stated that the radiation emitted from those devices is minimal, equal to the natural exposure during 2 minutes of flying, though some research suggests it's higher."

The "equivalent" or "equal" Quantity of radiation is a misnomer!

Gosh, you should work for the radiology department at my gaff - this is sort of rage I get back when I innocently try to refer a patient down for a 'routine' chest x-ray, which to be fair every single patient admitted acutely gets.

There are two issues here - is the system safe and is it effective?

Of course, ionising radiation does cause cancer. But the quantities we are talking about here and completely negligible. In fact, frequent flyers, pilots and crew will be getting far higher levels than most without these body scanners. Don't get me wrong, if these machines were wheeled out for every pax, every time, then the risk might become more significant, but this doesn't seem to be in the pipe line.

Do they work? Well, it adds another level of security, I suppose, but there's no real evidence that they work that well.

In short, I have patients that get a chest xray (generally regarded as being the lowest dose of radiation we can give clinically) on a weekly or even bi-weekly basis. This is considered safe with a negligible risk. The sort of doses being dished out on these scanners is much lower than this.


User currently offlineju068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2645 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting david_itl (Reply 8):
The government has already sought permission from the Commission meaning it can remain in place in Manchester until at least November 2012."

It's an extension which doesn't matter, if the UK as a whole disagrees with this measure then it needs support from other 8 European regional parliaments in order to use the EU yellow card. Once it does that the Commission will give an explanation to why this law is necessary, in other words the law will pass but the regional EU parliaments will get a simple explanation... so much for European democracy.

On the other hand, I believe this is a step in the right direction. Thank God that we are moving away from the US-induced paranoia.
First the ban on credit card charges and now this... great!  


25 Post contains links and images standby87 : It takes years. And scientists can be wrong. Else we'd all have fallen off the edge of the world when we fly over the Horizon Have a read about a spe
26 standby87 : It's good to get info from a real Doctor. But without sounding funny, how you know that the doses are much lower? I'm an Engineer, and I was taught "
27 MD11Engineer : And what about airport employees, who´ll have to go through security up to 20+ times a day? I don´t fancy being x-rayed several times a day. In thi
28 Post contains links Wsp : Such frequent X-rays are not considered safe, they may be considered acceptable if the patient has other severe medical issues that make these scans
29 nclmedic : Threat to public health? I'm hardly trawling the streets looking for healthy victims for the 'dreaded' x-ray machine! I have to agree - never say nev
30 AngMoh : The newer machines most likely produce lower doses of radiation than the old style devices due to the improvements in detection technology. So for he
31 AustrianZRH : To add some numbers: TSA claims that one backscatter x-ray causes an equivalent dose of 10 μrem, or 0.1 μSv. Four times a week, 52 weeks a year for
32 Wsp : You are suggesting that millions of travelers should be subjected to ionizing radiation. Even though there are systems that work without it. For a co
33 Cubsrule : Where? Tell me more. You'd have to try pretty hard to get 4 scans a week, even if you were flying every day. They simply aren't used that much (I thi
34 Grid : Good point. Not to mention that the government runs out and spends millions, if not billions, of dollars on new - and not fully tested and verified -
35 AustrianZRH : I cannot tell you the exact paragraph, however, it's what we learned in my Medical Radiation Physics (my secondary specialization during my undergrad
36 Post contains links rwsea : AMS does not use the same scanners at the US. AMS has the millimeter scanners which do not have an x-ray and therefore no radiation. These are differ
37 nclmedic : Not the same process but the same type of energy. I completely agree with you! It won't stop certain internal concealments from making it onboard air
38 Cubsrule : The US has both backscatter and millimeter wave, actually.
39 Post contains links AustrianZRH : Here's a German verdict (German only, but says essentially says that an x-ray without medical justification may be prosecuted as intentional assault
40 Cubsrule : I don't read German, but I don't understand how a wrong judgment call, which almost by definition cannot be international, can possibly be prosecuted
41 Grid : Something is amiss here. First, international or intentional. The only thing I can think of is that there is a mistake in translation or the act of g
42 Cubsrule : Well, I can fix that part. It should have been intentional.
43 AustrianZRH : The verdict at hand is on a case of a doctor (an orthopaedic specialist) ordering 140 x-rays over a 12 year period, which was considered excessive. B
44 Cubsrule : Objectively excessive or subjectively excessive?
45 AustrianZRH : I was not there in the trial, but as Germany is a modern constitutional state I would expect there were several third-party experts testifying on the
46 Cubsrule : Fair enough. How many body scans are equivalent to 140 x-rays? How much flying?
47 AustrianZRH : Of course, body scans have a way lower equivalent dose than a x-ray image which have between 1 mSv (arms, legs, head) to 20 mSv (CT of the stomach).
48 Cubsrule : So why are we even talking about the possibility that some level of body scanning could be objectively unreasonable?
49 Babybus : We should never play with people's health. If the technology is un-tested or potentially life threatening then it must be banned. Surely it's a Health
50 justloveplanes : Having worked in radiation control projects, I can add a little of my observations here. Radiation is often misunderstood as it is so easy to measure
51 AustrianZRH : Because there is no such thing as a "non-dangerous" amount of radiation. Every radiation exposure that is not necessary should be avoided. It takes o
52 Cubsrule : If that is the case, we should all just kill ourselves now. We are incidentally exposed to radiation all the time. Cost and availability, apparently.
53 Post contains images AustrianZRH : Nah, I like to live dangerously .
54 Post contains images David L : Just as a point of order, playing conkers was banned by some schools, not by the government. At least one school provided safety goggles, just in cas
55 EDICHC : It doesn't matter how much these scanners have been 'tested' it's the long term effects that are at best, unknown. Years ago asbestos was considered
56 ltbewr : One other factor about the use of X-ray or even some technologies is how those close around such equipment for many hours a day - the TSA or = agents
57 shamrock604 : Yes, many people seem to forget airport staff! This was my issue too - I'll have to pass through these many times, and there is also the privacy elem
58 EDICHC : Very valid point, and this begs a few questions as I am not familiar with these devices. How often are the devices calibrated and by whom? How are th
59 MD11Engineer : While I don´t care about being seen naked (Now, I´m not an exhibitionist running down the street naked, but last week my Misssus and I have been in
60 Post contains links chrisair : Because the company that makes the BSX machines, Rapiscan Systems, had Michael Chertoff's company as a consultant/lobbyist. You'll remember that Skel
61 Cubsrule : It's very hit or miss. I almost never get scanned at BNA (my home airport). Some checkpoints at LAX (the busiest O&D airport in the country) are
62 OA260 : I refused to go through one at SJU the other day. No issues and the TSA guy was very friendly. I had just read the article on health concerns and unt
63 standby87 : Thanks! I learnt something there. Good questions. Will we see answers?
64 EDICHC : I'm not holding my breath. It seems when it comes to 'security issues' UK governents seem to think they are immune to answering awkward questions.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Schiphol To Use Full Body Scanner On Flights To US posted Wed Dec 30 2009 08:48:29 by DariusBieber
Full-Body X-Ray Screening posted Sat Dec 2 2006 00:22:37 by AirTranTUS
Pilot Stands Up To TSA And Refuses Full Body Scan posted Sun Oct 17 2010 08:33:14 by MadameConcorde
EU Flight Disruption Due To Strikes In France posted Tue Sep 7 2010 16:27:10 by Speedbird555
Full-body Scanners: What Do They Really See? posted Sun Jan 24 2010 22:46:52 by ManuCH
Full Body Scanners At BWI: Invasion Of Privacy? posted Fri May 2 2008 07:18:47 by Argonaut
Pilot Has Pax Removed Due To "perceived" Threat posted Sat Nov 26 2011 10:33:47 by Boeing747_600
QF31 A380 Diverted To DXB Due To Engine Problem posted Thu Nov 3 2011 17:04:52 by raaadek
Part Of Roof FAO Collapsed Due To Rain posted Mon Oct 24 2011 01:16:37 by HansHubers
Passengers Pass Out Due To Pressure Problems posted Thu Oct 20 2011 08:45:13 by SWA TPA