The appalling "see through your children's clothes" body scanners inflicted on the innocent public at some British airports by are soon to be regulated somewhat by the European Union.
5) The Commission has requested its Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) to assess the possible effects of security scanners which use ionising radiation to human health Without prejudice to Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation (3) and of Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (4), at this stage, to safeguard citizens' health and safety, only security scanners which do not use ionising radiation are added to the list of allowed methods for passenger screening for aviation security purposes.
(3) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 374, 27.12.2006, p. 10
ionizing / ionising
Watch out for sneaky lobbying by the Backscatter X-Ray imager manufacturers e.g. Rapiscan, to try to get their products added to the authorised list in the future.
(7) By laying down specific operational conditions on the use of security scanners and by providing passengers with the possibility to undergo alternative screening methods, this Regulation, together with the specific implementing rules adopted pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including respect for human dignity and for private and family life, the right to the protection of personal data, the rights of the child, the right to freedom of religion and the prohibition of discrimination. This Regulation must be applied according to these rights and principles.
The appalling Manchester Airport scheme promoted by the Labour government under Gordon Brown (hatred for which does not dim with the passage of time), breaks both of these sections of the Regulation.
It uses a forbidden (for now) ionising radiation Backscatter X-Ray imager and it disobeys the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by deliberately not permitting an alternative, e.g. pat down search, if passengers refuse to allow themselves or their children to be snooped on by these unnecessary imaging machines and then prevented from flying (regardless of how many security staff are standing around idly).
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union
.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 10 November 2011.
The Publication of this body scanner regulation in The Official Journal of the European Union was on the 11th November 2011 (available online from the 15th November 2011)
Therefore this EU Regulations comes into force on Thursday 1st December 2011.
Watch out for Active and Passive Millimetre Wave radar scanners instead.
Remember that Millimetre Wave and TeraHertz scanners / imagers are prone to the effects of wet clothing e.g. during rain or snow.
According to
53. Existing technical facilities allow blurring the face and/or parts of the body not needed for further analysis of the absence of prohibited articles. Equally, it is technically possible to produce instead of real images of the body only a mannequin or a stick figure, which does not reveal any real parts of the screened person's body, but only identifies the location for further search.
It seems that the EU Commission was hoping to ban the use of images entirely , but there seems to have been lobbying from manufacturers who have not yet converted their systems to use synthetic "stick figure" displays to show the approximate locations of suspicious objects,without betraying any actual "naked" human images.
So let's be clear on this. Manchester Airport use these machines. I had the misfortune to be forced into one of them a few weeks ago. I was x-rayed not once, but THREE times, because I apparently "didn't keep still for long enough" each time. They use Rapidscan. There are no signs to advise passengers about the x-rays - should the National Radiological Protection Board be concerned about this? If you are selected for the scanner there is no alternative other than to not fly. I kicked up a real fuss about this (and I think I maybe came close to being barred from flying as a result, but I got away with it). Apart from anything else you are forced into a humilating "hands in the air" position while you are dosed with so-called non-penetrating x-rays (bullshit! they ARE penetrating).
Thankfully I have an alternative to Manchester airport for my regular flying, so I won't be going back there in a hurry. However, do you really think as a result of this directive Manchester Airport are going to decommission these dreadful devices? I can't see it myself. Almost certainly they will get around it somehow or other. I await the outcome with interest.
@ Alan Tench - after 1st December Manchester Airport will not have a legal leg to stand on.
It is very likely that bureaucrats who have been conned into buying Backscatter X-Ray scanners (ok for baggage or cargo but not for humans or or livestock etc.) and the manufacturers, will be lobbying hard to get them put onto the approved list at a later date, but that will certainly not be by December.
There is a lot of propaganda of the "the radiation exposure is less than that which you get from a long distance flight or a dental x-ray etc." which rather misses the point.
Passenger Aircraft could and should be shielded from cosmic rays as well - it is a scandal that they are not, entirely due to putting profit before health risks.
The cumulative doses of X-rays inflicted on airport security personnel themselves standing near these machines day and night, is not negligible, even assuming that every single one of the machines is working properly and is not, like so many other x-ray machines actually emitting far more radiation than intended, due to damaged shielding or maintenance errors.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062608/Naked-airport-scanners-banned-fears-cause-cancer.html
This is intolerable !
Who exactly has given Manchester Airport this alleged exemption for a year ?
Regardless of this "exemption", they must abandon their abuse of power and allow people an alternative e.g. "pat down" search is if they refuse to be dosed by the X-ray machine.