Full body scanners - staff using them to ogle

[Lymond]

Here is the link

My own opinion was already that if we have to be seen naked to fly, to some extent the terrorists have already won. Another erosion of our civil liberties. But I was quite reassured by all the assurances that staff were properly trained, were in a room far away from the scanner so couldn't seeTheFaceOfThePersonWhoseWobblyBitsThey'reSniggeringAt match bodies with faces, and that nothing would be stored.

Now, staff are being accused of using the scanner to ogle over other staff members bodies. Yes, great staff training has obviously resulted in a very high level of professionalism which should reassure us all

especially images of children.

Exactly. Couldn't give a flying fuck who sees me naked. But my children....

One of the major things that worries me about them, and have asked people and asked in online news comments fora and asked elsewhere also. Are these scanners safe for pregnant women? I have asked this question of an acquaintance who works at Heathrow and his response was 'pregnant women should not be flying anyway'. (You mean, even though the planes take women to 35 weeks, and even though lots of women don't know they are pregnant for a while... blah blah? What next? Pregnant women should not go out in public?). But I have never seen this issue raised or addressed. I even wrote to whatever the organisation is who is lobbying against this (cannot recall their names) and they DID reply, but said their concern is privacy only.

I've wondered, theoretically, about this too. I'll do some digging.

The way I was manhandled at Gatwick, like my bump was packed full of semtex I wouldn't recommend flying if you can avoid it, they were very rough and made no apology for it.

MMM - I trust that was "manhandled" by female staff. Might be worth a complaint and reporting to some consumer show like You and Yours (to see if they can query those who come back from Easter breaks).

It's been years since I have been away (my passport was new for my last holiday, in 1999) so really out of touch as to what can be carried and all about taking shoes off etc...

OK, in 1995 there had been the Oklahoma bombing and American Airlines had 3 security checks at Manchester before I took off, but even then they didn't frisk me, just asked questions. Nothing like that in 96/97/98/99 on my trips to California (sometimes via Schipol for KLM flights).

LAX (95) had a no parking policy in their two biggest car parks (blocks in the middle of 8 terminal buildings) "just in case" but now air travel sounds frightful, even without strikes.

Of course, all that was before 11/09/2001 and I guess things went mad after that, security-wise. Don't suppose they let children into the cockpit on flights to Lapland these days, and my walking into the 747 cockpit on a flight to Thailand in 1979 would end up with me being locked up (or shot) if I tried it today!

Sad, sad, world, and yes, the terrorists have already forced loss of too many civil liberties.

MPuppyKin

I got DH (who has a doctorate in science and stats) to read this study:
www.rcog.org.uk/womens-health/clinical-guidance/airport-full-body-scanners-and-pregnancy-query-bank

His conclusion "They don't have a clue whether its harmful or not."

He also said he wouldn't want me to go through one when pregnant, and that he'd rather not go on holiday then do so. He thinks that if a pregnant woman was asked to go through one then she should refuse on grounds of her unborn childs health, and ask for a regular search instead... who knows whether that would be acceptable...

How do we cause a stink about this? Its terrible!

R4 Woman's Hour ?

Might be a starting point, even if it does sound a bit corny.

Its only one member of staff, not everyone. Although I am slightly alarmed that misuse of the machine doesn't warrant an instant dismissal.

As others have said, it doesn't bother me going through the machine but I'm not sure I would allow my DCs to go through it.

From the operators POV, it must get to be a bit boring and mundane after a short while. You've seen one you've seen 'em all.

Children cannot go through them as things stand because it constitutes making indecent images of children, which is against the law. They are also not compulsory (yet). I would not go through one. Outrageous. They can send me through a metal detector and search me, but they aren't looking at me naked and making images of me. Fuck that.

I am so looking forward to trying them out on Sunday evening. Do you think wearing suck it all in pants will help at all ?

Can these machines see sanitary products and coils.?

Yes, they can - and I presume pace makers, implants, metal hip joints, plates, pins etc.

I wouldn't go through one while pregnant.

Whenever I've flown whilst pregnant the security staff have always been understanding and allowed me to avoid the normal scanners, so I don't see why these should be any different - particularly as they have no idea about the effects on the unborn child.

I do object to complete strangers seeing me naked - why should I not have the choice over this, just because I want to travel abroad? I think these naked scanners are a total infringement of our civil liberties, but it does not surprise me that the Labour government has done sod all to challenge their introduction. 'Civil liberties' and 'New Labour' parted company on Sept 11th 2001 and have not been seen together since. It encourages me to hear that a group of senior Parliamentary folks have finally got around to challenging the huge range of anti-civil rights legislation, but I have no idea whether their challenge has any teeth.

Just to reassure you all that there is absolutely no reason to worry about using the body scanners on health grounds (including children and pregnant women). The radiation dose is completely trivial when compared with the natural radiation dose that we all receive every day. This is my area of expertise and I have personally been involved in the measurements on these devices.

I would also be more confident that body scanners would be more successful at catching terrorists concealing explosives about their person than any pat down searches.

But I don't particularly care if anyone sees a grainly blobby image of my body, mostly on the grounds that, like doctors etc, they've seen it all before.

Thanks Lymond... sorry, took ages for me to revisit this thread. I find the article you linked to and your DH's assessment about not knowing if body scans were harmful to pregnant women very frightening indeed. I hear what LizzieMint is saying, but I do believe that there should be an option for a pat down search instead.

I have to fly in a couple of weeks for work and I'll be 19 weeks pregnant. I'm not bothered about them seeing me naked (nothing exciting to see...), but I think I'd rather be strip searched than expose the baby to any unnecessary radiation, just because of the very, very, very slight risk of terrorism. No-one has any real idea of the harmful effects of this radation in the different stages of pregnancy (LizzieMint73, if you know of any published evidence I'd be really glad to see it!), so they shouldn't really be able to expose any pregnant woman to it without proper justification.

But hopefully it won't go as far as a strip search, surely they'll just monitor me like they used to do (the metal detector and a quick pat down) if I refuse??

If you refuse then I'm pretty sure that they won't allow you to fly.

Okay, there might be a slight risk, but if you refuse then you are prevented from flying and/or treated like a criminal. Does anyone else find it odd that due to rather spurious risks pregnant women are told not to eat soft cheese, not to eat bagged salad, not to do whatever, yet in this scenario either there is NO formal discussion on the risks to the foetus and that any slight risk is just fine and we just have to put up with it and take what the government dishes out to us?

I am not expressing myself well, but do you know what I mean?

Call me cynical though.

At the airports where they have them,they are not the only scanners are they?

Why can´t you refuse but go through the usual scanners?

"Why can´t you refuse but go through the usual scanners?"

The rules seem to be that if you refuse to go through the body scanner then you don't fly.

A woman has already tried to refuse on health grounds and she wasn't allowed to fly.

I'm not saying that I agree with this, or that I think the scanners are totally safe, I'm just saying how things seem to be working right now.

MPuppykin, I know what you mean - so much you can't do or eat during pregnancy, but apparently it's 'perfectly okay' to go through a scanner that provides enough radiation to see through your clothes and produce quite a clear picture but 'bounces off the skin'. Maybe it is safe, but I really would like some evidence to prove it, not just rely on what is essentially hearsay.

I have found some information that might be useful?

www.diagnosticimaging.com/viewpoints/scan-man/display/article/113619/1521147

ht tp://www.diagnosticimaging.com/news/display/article/113619/1537426

www.diagnosticimaging.c om/news/display/article/113619/1509059

Anyway, I thought the scanners were supposed to be voluntary initially?

It´s just that whilst there are alternatives available, I don´t see how it´s legally enforceable iyswim.

And I wonder what "criteria" they use to choose who goes through.

"Anyway, I thought the scanners were supposed to be voluntary initially?"

No, they're now compulsory if you're selected. That's due to the man with the exploding pants.

"It´s just that whilst there are alternatives available, I don´t see how it´s legally enforceable iyswim."

If you refuse to put your bag through the X-Ray scanner and request that it be hand searched you're probably going to be refused permission to fly, so this isn't new or unusual.