So Justine Greening is an expert,is she? How many 'pat down' searches has she seen or done?

See below-particularly last sentence of third to last paragraph and first sentence of second to last paragraph



Aviation security: Commission adopts new rules on the use of security scanners at European airports

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference: IP/11/1343 Date: 14/11/2011




European Commission - Press release

Aviation security: Commission adopts new rules on the use of security scanners at European airports

Brussels, 14 November 2011 -The European Commission has adopted today a proposal for an European Union legal framework on security scanners. This legislation allows airports and Member States that wish to use security scanners for the screening of passengers to do so under strict operational and technical conditions.

Member States have been trialling or testing security scanners1, since a terrorist attempted on 25 December 2009 to blow up a plane flying from Amsterdam to Detroit with plastic explosives he had hidden in his underwear. Until now the use of security scanners has been done under a patchwork of different national operational procedures and standards and in a limited way. As a common EU-wide framework, the new legislation legally allows Member States and airports to replace current security systems with security scanners. It also ensures the uniform application of security rules at all airports and provides strict and mandatory safeguards to ensure compliance with fundamental rights and the protection of health.

Member States and airports do not have an obligation to deploy security scanners, but if they decide to use them, they will have to comply with the operational conditions and performance standards set at European level.

Vice-President Siim Kallas, Commissioner responsible for transport, said: "Security scanners are not a panacea but they do offer a real possibility to reinforce passenger security. Security scanners are a valuable alternative to existing screening methods and are very efficient in detecting both metallic and non-metallic objects. It is still for each Member State or airport to decide whether or not to deploy security scanners, but these new rules ensure that where this new technology is used it will be covered by EU wide standards on detection capability as well as strict safeguards to protect health and fundamental rights. Experience to date shows that passengers and staff generally see security scanners as a convenient method of screening."

Security scanners are an effective method of screening passengers as they are capable of detecting both metallic and non-metallic items carried on a person. The scanner technology is developing rapidly and has the potential to significantly reduce the need for manual searches ("pat-downs") applied to passengers, crews and airport staff.

Under the new EU legislation the use of security scanners is only allowed in accordance with minimum conditions such as for example that: security scanners shall not store, retain, copy, print or retrieve images; any unauthorised access and use of the image is prohibited and shall be prevented; the human reviewer analysing the image shall be in a separate location and the image shall not be linked to the screened person and others. 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.

In order not to risk jeopardising citizens' health and safety, only security scanners which do not use X-ray technology are added to the list of authorised methods for passenger screening at EU airports. All other technologies, such as that used for mobiles phones and others, can be used provided that they comply with EU security standards.

“These threats still exist and the required level of security is not achieved by permitting passengers to choose a less effective alternative.”


Yet at every other European airport the required level of security can be achieved without these scanners?

So, in order to protect travellers against an almost non-existent threat to their safety, they will be subject to a real and clearly not fully understood threat to their safety.

Another example of idiot politicians at work.

You could always get some of this underwear - give them something to "read"

http://www.jaffamood.com/the-4th-amendment-underwear/

Where and when did she make these comments?

What happens to people who refuse to go through the scanners?

Just scan those who are deemed to put planes at risk! What's the point of scanning a grannie taking a couple of her grandchildren on holiday? Right! It has twigged with me now. We have to be SEEN to treat everyone the same. Same old political correctness,eh?

I reckon most of the complaints are from males with small appendages - and it's not even cold, yet.

This did not stop the import of 80+ firearms into the UK through Manchester International Airport by a certain criminal recently, this device sounds to be a cost effective way (and cheap, nasty, and unsafe way) of checking people as they leave the airport, if it was not cost effective it would not be in use. It is indeed a pity MIA are less bothered about what travels in the opposite direction. It is also an even geater pity that we cannot flaunt other EU rules and directives.

I can just imagine that in 20 or 30 years time all the claims for damages from cancer suffers that are now being subjected to this scanning flooding in as they are now from the nuclear tests in the 1950s, and all the claims in the EU court by passengers who are not allowed to board because they refused to be scanned, it could be an interesting situation.
Still it easy to smuggle firearms going the opposite way, innit. The Manchester end failed miserably on that one, it was the American end that spotted the firearms being smuggled in through Manchester Airport; lest we forget.

Those behind the introduction of these scanners at Manchester, the airport and the government, must be sweating on top notch that the the EU does not find that the scanners are a health risk or they could be found liable under the Health and Safety Acts for causing unnecessary risks to the health of the general public and to their employees who have been forced to go through these machines.

Should all those forced to pass through these machines then decide to take legal action it could cost the airport millions.

I truly do not know where to begin in relation to Ms Greenings comments. I can say she is a person I would like to meet with to discuss the matter of body scanners.


There are a few points I would like to make. This maybe a bit lengthy so please bear with me.


Let us not forget that there are two types of body scanners to choose from. The millimeter wave scanner and the X-ray backscatter scanner. The millimeter wave scanner uses T-radiation and known to be SAFE and have no harmful effect on human tissue. The X-ray backscatter scanner is advertised as being SAFE, however, it uses ionizing radiation which has very well documented ill effects on human issue and DNA.


No one can argue that the radiation levels received as a result of the x-ray backscatter technology is lower than the radiation levels received for x amount of time at 30,000 feet. What you can say, however, is the radiation dose received as a result of
this backscatter technology is extra or in addition to the radiation dose received while flying at 30,000. I cannot - for the love of God - see why anyone in their right mind would want to add to this radiation dose no matter how small it is perceived.


The DfT and airports alike keep on quoting the likes of the HPA (Health Protection Agency), saying how they have said time and time again that the x-ray backscatter scanners are safe. If people look for themselves on the HPA website, people like the DfT
- and Justine Greening - would see that they said no such thing. Yes the HPA say that the radiation dose received falls with safe limits when compared to an annual dose a person can receive in year. What they have NEVER said is that ionizing radiation is safe. Yes, individual risk of harmful effects - as a result of the x-ray backscatter scanners - might be low but if you consider that MAN airport alone boast 20million passengers a year that is a lot of people being exposed.


Why is the DfT backing a technology that is potentially harmful when there is an alternative body scanner that yields the same results which is not harmful?


As for the comment that only 12 people have refused to go through this backscatter scanner, I wonder why that might be. Could it be that if you say no to the scan you lose the entire cost of your holiday with no refund, which for a family of four could be thousands of pounds. I wonder how many people could easily afford to do that.


Consider this: If the airport said “excuse me sir/madam would you: A. prefer to go through this scanner to which there is no harmful effect or B. this scanner which is a known mutagen and may be detrimental to you health”. How many people would pick scanner B over A?


Let us also not forget, it was up to the individual airport as to which technology they chose to implement. I have a lengthy recording from a meeting myself and two others had in relation to the scanners with a MAN airport official Mike Fazackerley, (Manchester Airport’s Product Director) which confirms this. They chose to opt for the more harmful of the technologies. Now given the fact that they have spent £1.28milloin on 16 scanners, and have no alternative, I wonder why it is them alone that can still use this potentially harmful technology despite Europe’s stance. Obviously Ms Greening’s careful consideration of the EC
report on the health risks of backscatter scanners has nothing to do with this.

If the government must force the UK population through these machines then why not force them through the safer option rather than use the passengers of MAN airport as a giant experiment.


Finally, if we are talking about listening to the people as a democracy I must quote Ms Greening: “Most responses to the consultation expressed discomfort with the idea of having an image of their body captured for analysis, and they indicated
that - if selected for a security scan - they would prefer to opt for an alternative method of screening. I have considered this carefully. However, I HAVE decided against it, on security, operational and privacy grounds”. I am pleased to see democracy is alive in the UK.


Anthony Hall