# Manchester airport scanning machine refusal



## z107 (4 Jul 2011)

I have a couple of questions about the security scanning machine at Manchester airport. (Passengers now have no choice but to go through the scanner if they are requested to and want to get their flight.)

1. What are the chances of being selected? Does everyone have to go through or is it only for example, 1 in 10?

2. Has anyone refused to go through, and what happened? - Did they detain you or are you free to go to another airport?


----------



## JP1234 (4 Jul 2011)

I know a few people ( my husband and son included) who have gone through the airport since the introduction but they weren't scanned. He said there didn't appear to be a lot of people being chosen but it could have been due to the fact it was late evening and the airport was less busy.

If you refuse you are denied travel. I suppose there is nothing to stop you going elsewhere but I imagine you would be flagged up on a system somewhere so you might end up getting more hassle.

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/X-Ray-Scanners-Public-Information


----------



## z107 (4 Jul 2011)

Thanks for that jp1234. So it looks like a lottery!
If I'm picked, I will just not say anything or cause a fuss, but make my own way to the exit and go to another airport. Hopefully they won't force me to give them my passport or any other details. Last thing I want is to be on some database.

As an aside (don't want to derail my own thread!) - JP1234, would you mind your own son going through this scanner?


----------



## aristotle (4 Jul 2011)

Why do you have an issue going through the scanner?


----------



## dahamsta (4 Jul 2011)

These machines were rushed to market post 9-11, and they haven't been tested fully and correctly by independent 3rd parties. Results I've seen from tests completed by 3rd parties don't inspire confidence; in particular, there are concerns that the manufacturers have lied or misled about the levels of radiation generated by the machines. Until there's a reasonable level of proof that they're safe, via a full systematic review of randomised controlled trials, I won't be getting within 50 feet of one of those things. Manchester won't be seeing any of my income any time soon.


----------



## JP1234 (4 Jul 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Thanks for that jp1234. So it looks like a lottery!
> If I'm picked, I will just not say anything or cause a fuss, but make my own way to the exit and go to another airport. Hopefully they won't force me to give them my passport or any other details. Last thing I want is to be on some database.
> 
> As an aside (don't want to derail my own thread!) - JP1234, would you mind your own son going through this scanner?



I wonder though, if you do refuse might they insist on seeing ID ( not saying they would, just curious as I doubt they would simply let a person walk away) and warn other airports you refused the bodyscan?

Actually, this is what appears to happen if you refuse...



As for my son, well no, I wouldn't mind ( he is nearly 18 afterall!). Even if he was younger I would be happy to let him go through.Personally speaking I would rather a body scan than the pat down search which I had to go through at Heathrow last year.....

Out of curiosity, why would you object?


----------



## potnoodler (4 Jul 2011)

Im sure you  could just agree to the normal search type if you explained your concerns, sure they get it all the timr


----------



## z107 (4 Jul 2011)

potnoodler said:


> Im sure you  could just agree to the normal search type if you explained your concerns, sure they get it all the timr



No, you can't. It's now the law that if someone refuses to go through this scanner, they are not allowed to fly. Disturbingly, they are bringing these machines into other airports as well.

I am not happy exposing myself to this type of radiation for a non-medical reason. I certainly would not allow a child or pregnant woman to go through this scanner, regardless of what databases I'd end up on.


----------



## dahamsta (4 Jul 2011)

potnoodler said:


> Im sure you  could just agree to the normal search type if you explained your concerns, sure they get it all the timr



First post, second sentence. And the 2nd post if you don't believe the OP and want evidence.

Why do people constantly have to repeat themselves here?


----------



## flossie (4 Jul 2011)

I have passed through these scanners in a number of airports, including Manchester and Moscow Domedovo, and i really don't see what the issue is. Yes, we are being exposed to a slight dose of radiation, but sure aren't we doing that every time we use electrical applicances, talk on the mobile phone etc? 

I do a decent amount of travel, and there are some security measures i think are a bit of a joke such as the liquid size restrictions, taking laptops out eyc. but at the end of the day these are implemented in an attempt to make for a safer way of travel. We've seen what can happen when it goes wrong. We have to accept that it's a change here to stay. I am sure people grumbled about the seatbelt laws when they came in, but that's stayed, as for using the mobile when driving. Just give yourself a bit of extra time at the airport, keep quiet and let the security staff do their job.

And no, you will NOT be allowed to fly if you refuse to pass through. There was a case of this last week in MCR.

This is useful reading: http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/X-Ray-Scanners-Public-Information and dicusses the safety of the radiation dosage.


----------



## dahamsta (4 Jul 2011)

flossie said:


> I have passed through these scanners in a number of airports, including Manchester and Moscow Domedovo, and i really don't see what the issue is.



Absolutely, you don't see it. That's because it's sidescan and/or millimeter wave radiation, not properly tested on humans in this mechanism.



> Yes, we are being exposed to a slight dose of radiation, but sure aren't we doing that every time we use electrical applicances, talk on the mobile phone etc?


Completely different kinds of radiation exposed in completely different ways.



> at the end of the day these are implemented in an attempt to make for a safer way of travel


99% of the security mechanisms implemented since 9/11 are security theatre. Bruce Schneier, a well known and respected security consultant, has said for years that:



			
				Schneier said:
			
		

> Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.



The problem with these scanners and many other security implementations is that, to most, ignorance is bliss. You don't understand the dangers, so you default to "ok". Using the Manchester Airport website as a reference, for example.

If you choose to go through them then that's your decision and your right. But arguing on their behalf based on evidence from the people actually implementing them is perpetuating something you don't understand, and that's just not ok.


----------



## flossie (4 Jul 2011)

Dahamsta, i do not appreciate your tone in that post, i was here to post my opinion not for it to be jumped on.  

I said that the measures are introduced 'in an attempt' to make safer travel. If it's theatre to make other passengers feel more secure, then so be it. Personally i would prefer to see them doing this then letting you walk willy nilly onto a flight with no stopping. 

How do you know that i don't understand the dangers? You do not know my background, my level of knowledge of the situation. I used that reference to show the OP that there is information available and it states in there that you cannot fly if you refuse. Please don't chastise me telling me 'it's just not ok'.

OP, i think posts until now have answered your original questions.


----------



## z107 (4 Jul 2011)

Yes, my initial query has been answered. Looks like I'll have to hope for the best, and if I'm chosen, then Liverpool airport isn't too far away, and they do not have these scanners. Unfortunately, someone else booked the ticket. If I had known about this issue, I would have just gone through Liverpool, even though it's much less convenient.



> How do you know that i don't understand the dangers? You do not know my background, my level of knowledge of the situation. I used that reference to show the OP that there is information available and it states in there that you cannot fly if you refuse. Please don't chastise me telling me 'it's just not ok'.



With regards safety, well the jury is out. The fact of the matter (based on my limited research) is that no one knows for certain the exact health effects of these scanners. We do know this for certain:
 - People are being exposed to a full body, non-zero amount of ionising radiation in the form of X-rays.
 - There is a risk of developing cancer.
 - We will probably only know the full health effects of these scanners in 20 or 30 years time, when people who use them reproduce, or cancers start to form.

This isn't good enough for me. I'm not exposing myself to this for a non-medical reason.
In future, I will only use airports that do not have these scanners, train/boat, or maybe a full body one of these:
[broken link removed]


----------



## dahamsta (4 Jul 2011)

I'm not going to respond to the previous post addressing me.

In general, I would ask people to be wary of these machines and to do some research before passing through one, from *independent* sources. (Manchester Airport is *not* independent. Neither is the manufacturer.) In particular, the claims about radiation exposure have been challenged by experts in the field, who point out that the levels disclosed have been averaged across the body, whereas this radiation doesn't penetrate the whole body. You can find some info on that here, follow the citatations if you don't believe Wikipedia.

To be clear, I'm not saying that these machines are dangerous, I'm saying they're not tested properly, and I personally won't go next to near them. If posters here want to take a chance, away with you, but don't come crying to AAM if you're diagnosed with skin cancer or worse in a few years. And if you have any respect for other people, don't cite unreferenced, non-independent sources to make them look a-ok fine-and-dandy. If it comes from the organisation that's forcing it on you, and their data comes from the manufacturer, it's not evidence, it's garbage.


----------



## Mel (5 Jul 2011)

An observation I made recently going through Manchester airport - I asked if I should remove jewellery, metal items etc and was told there was no need - but naturally the buzzer then sounded when I went through the scanner, and I was asked to step into the full body scanner.

I would think if travelling through there again, I would remove jewellery, shoes, anything metallic, and hope that by not sounding the alarm I would escape the full scan. Not sure what the selection criteria are but that seemed to be one, and they appeared to be more lax than other airports on the initial scan as they had a backup.


----------



## Leo (5 Jul 2011)

dahamsta said:


> I'm not going to respond to the previous post addressing me.


 
But it's OK for you to pick apart their post and accuse them of ignorance?


----------



## dahamsta (5 Jul 2011)

There are several definitions of the word ignorance, and I'm tired of people that go out of their way to take the wrong definition and be insulted by it, so I'm not going to engage with them. It's a modern scourge and it's a waste of my time.


----------



## Leo (5 Jul 2011)

dahamsta said:


> There are several definitions of the word ignorance...


 
Perhaps you should be a little more clear in your explanation next time.


----------

