The spokesman who was the subject of yesterday’s post replied to me today, telling me:
“I’m a spokesperson for this airport so when I said everybody in my quote, I meant our staff and our passengers from whom we’ve had overwhelmingly positive, genuine feedback.”
“On the health point, medical and x-ray equipment experts from across the World who’ve actually examined back scatter technology in detail have concluded unanimously that it poses negligible health risks.”
“Unsurprisingly, I also don’t agree that the scanners are ineffective. Security officers are not looking for metal tins but your film is an interesting watch and has certainly fuelled imaginations. We have actually operated body scanners for three years and we know they work.”
Well, on the first one, only you know whether or not you’re being truthful, but judging by the fact that even the TSA admits to receiving hundreds of complaints, it seems that Manchester must have very selective hearing.
On the second one, I’m no doctor, but I do know that there has been no fully-independent testing of the nude body scanners. Most of the times, the government has provided “researchers” with the data and asked them to come to conclusions, rather than giving them scanners and letting them run tests. I use “researchers” lightly because such a “scientist” is but a government lackey. I also know that the x-ray machines have been shown to operate out-of-specification (calculation error… or was it??) and to leak radiation to those near it (known as overshoot, which will affect the screeners more than anyone else). I also know that the most deadly computer programming error ever involved an x-ray machine that was “totally safe” until it accidentally overdosed its subjects, most of whom died a horribly painful death. Finally, I also know that the screeners are not qualified, even by the TSA’s own policies, to run radiation machines.
But that last one — the efficacy claim — I happen to know a lot about. 🙂 In March 2012, I took an undetected metal container through both backscatter and MMW ATD nude body scanners. The whole point of these things was supposed to be to detect non-metallic explosives, which my metal container could have been full of. To say that they are effective when they have been proven otherwise seems to be a matter of believing what you want to believe.
But Manchester, or any other airport with nude body scanners, if you would like an efficacy test, I would be happy to provide one. Get in touch with me and get me the proper approvals and paperwork, and we can have a challenge to see what can and cannot be brought past your security. My only condition is that we publish the results.
Somehow I don’t expect any takers on that one. I wonder why?
Professional Troublemaker ® 
I live in Manchester and I’m most definitely appalled by the use of these scanners. Haven’t complained on the basis that they wouldn’t listen. Mr. Craig is either being mendacious or has his head in the sand.
Some folks are not willing to take a stand for anything anymore. So if we won’t stand for anything we end up falling for everything…..
Don’t forget the TSA workers are getting alot of CANCER
Scientists also said if the computer has a glitch and gets timed out during a scan, the radiation could fry someone!
http://www.naturalnews.com/032841_body_scanners_cancer.html
This is evidence that U.S. American officials are not the only ones who lie.
You’re right no one will take your challenge because they know they would lose.
I can’t belive that you bunch of losers breath in what Jonny Boy is pumping out. What crap. “Challenge”? You don’t think that the authorities know exactly what will get through screening and what won’t? Geez………………….No of you get it yet do you?
John, any update on the U.S. Supreme Court Case?
Flight attendant’s gun goes off at Philadelphia Int’l Airport.
September 23, 2012 – It appears it was an unintentional act, but police say a handgun found inside the bag of a flight attendant at Philadelphia International Airport turned into a big deal this morning.
Action News has confirmed Republic Airlines flight attendant Jaclyn Luby was carrying a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in her carryon.
She was making her way through security in Terminal C around 6:30 a.m. this morning to work a flight to Denver when TSA spotted the weapon in the X-ray machine.
“Why would a flight attendant bring a gun, why would she carry a gun, I don’t know,” US Airways passenger Devrim Eren said.
Republic Airlines operates flights for US Airways which told Action News Luby was immediately taken into another room.
A Philadelphia police officer was trying to unload the .38 when it accidentally fired a round into the wall.
Investigators say Luby said she forgot the gun was in her bag.
“You would expect she would be more vigilant about the fact she travels so much that it should be second nature to her to basically check it out and check her bags out before coming to the airport,” traveler Brian Saldanha said.
Investigators say Luby who’s from West Goshen Township, Chester County had a valid concealed weapons permit.
She was charged with a summary offense of disorderly conduct and released.
We’ve learned Luby has been a flight attendant for Republic Airlines for more than five years.
“We are human and everybody does make mistakes and I understand that even though she’s a seasoned veteran she needs to be careful and I’m sure it will be a great learning opportunity for her,” US Airways passenger Andrea Burger said.
Republic Airlines couldn’t be reached for comment today.
No one was injured when the gun went off, but Philadelphia police will launch an internal affairs investigation over the handling of that gun by their officer.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8821505
Phillip Mocek v. Albuquerque et al.
Are TSA staff and police immune from liability when they violate travelers’ rights?
Are First Amendment rights not “clearly established”?
These are now the issues before Judge James O. Browning of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Phillip Mocek v. Albuquerque et al., a Federal civil rights lawsuit brought by “Freedom Flyer” Phillip Mocek following his acquittal by a jury on all of the trumped-up criminal charges brought against him after his false arrest at a TSA checkpoint at the Albuquerque (ABQ) airport.
Here’s how this case came about, what has happened, and where things now stand:
Phil Mocek was arrested by Albuquerque aviation police at a TSA checkpoint at the Albuquerque International Sunport on November 15, 2009. He had a valid ticket on Southwest Airlines (”You are now free to move about the country”), and was attempting to get to his flight. Like the “Freedom Riders” of the 1960s on interstate buses, Mr. Mocek sought to exercise his Federally and Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to travel and to film and record the actions of public officials in a public place, but was arrested by local police on false and trumped-up allegations of violations of state and local laws and ordinances.
On January 21, 2011, Mr. Mocek was acquitted by a jury on all counts. (More about the criminal case and acquittal.)
On April 20, 2011, Mr. Mocek filed a claim against the City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Aviation Police Department for violations of his civil rights including false arrest and interference with his First Amendment rights including his rights to photograph and record police and TSA checkpoint staff.
On November 14, 2011, Mr. Mocek initiated a Federal civil rights lawsuit with the filing of this complaint against the city, the airport police department, and the responsible police officers and TSA checkpoint staff.
Mr. Mocek brought this case under 42 U.S Code 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, “Civil action for deprivation of rights”:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
Read more:
http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2012/09/23/phillip-mocek-v-albuquerque-et-al/#more-4833
Joe- Thanks so much for sharing this incident and link! I appreciate it and am forwarding it on to my friends. God bless;-)