See the latest issue here
Doubts cast over hi-tec security scanning future
 |
| IN THE PICTURE: But for how much longer will the system be used? |
DOUBT has been cast over whether the security scanning of containers bound for the US from Southampton docks will continue after questions were raised over the financial feasibility of the move long term.
The city's docks were among the first ports in the world to start scanning containers destined for the US for nuclear materials as part of a move to step up homeland counter terrorism measures.
The six-month pilot scheme aimed to prevent terrorists detonating a nuclear or dirty bomb by stopping any of the potential materials being shipped into the country under new US legislation
During the pilot scheme some 90,000 containers were checked for radiation at the gates of the port with a further 5,500 containers bound for the US x-rayed using state of the art equipment that shows the contents without having to open up the container and search it.
The equipment operated by British company Smith's Detection works by using infrared equipment that is able to penetrate metal containers, x-ray the contents and then distinguish cargo in a colour-coded image. Organic materials like drugs and explosives are coloured bright orange and non-organic materials are coloured blue.
The trial, which included similar schemes at several ports around the globe, started in October and came to an end last month. It is estimated to have cost $18m.
However, it has been reported that the European Union has expressed concern over the long term feasibility of the programme after it was calculated that imposing the scanning of all containers would cost in the region of $500 a unit to US trading partners, based on simple calculations.
The Union has also expressed concern that some smaller ports would lose out as the US trade would be directed to the larger ports, with the facilities to cope with the scanning process.
At the time of the unveiling of the project Southampton Container Terminal managing director Campbell Mason said they were looking forward to working with the US and UK authorities improving the security of goods around the world.
However, a spokesman yesterday said they were unable to comment about the trial or whether it would be continuing. No one from the Department for Homeland Security in the US was available for comment.
9:59am Wednesday 14th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Adrian Smith on 7:57am Thu 15 May 08
The EU is in denial about the threat of terrorism and will allow containers here without checks. The US is actively fighting its war on terror (not always successfully) but understands that there are few overseas sources that can be trusted to scan containers. The US will eventually settle for scanning them as they arrive on their shores because they will have little confidence in the EU's ability to.
The same will eventually happen with airline baggage - scanned before getting it on the plane and scanned again once on the ground at the other end. Why? - because we can't be trusted to correctly screen the baggage handlers in our own airports.
The EU is in denial about the threat of terrorism and will allow containers here without checks. The US is actively fighting its war on terror (not always successfully) but understands that there are few overseas sources that can be trusted to scan containers. The US will eventually settle for scanning them as they arrive on their shores because they will have little confidence in the EU's ability to.
The same will eventually happen with airline baggage - scanned before getting it on the plane and scanned again once on the ground at the other end. Why? - because we can't be trusted to correctly screen the baggage handlers in our own airports.
Posted by: Plum Pudding, Swamptown on 12:01pm Thu 15 May 08
If I read this correctly, and I am open to correction...
a) The scanning is for outward bound containers destined to the US
b) It is about preventing "dirty bombs" etc. entering the US, and protecting US citizens
c) One question;-The scanning is carried out by who? Is it only Smith's Detection, or are others involved?
d) This is therefore not about protecting UK citizens...or even EU citizens as containers are not scanned on export from other countries for import into the UK/EU. And the containers being scanned in Southampton are here already...
e) So if it is for the protection of the US only and not the UK/EU, then why should I as a UK citizen be bothered?
f) Except, obviously, why should I not be afforded the same protection as the US government affords it's citizens?
g) Or perhaps more importantly (from business's point of view that is), the lack of scanning could leave Southampton unable to export containers to the US unless the EU provides some sort of subsidy, risking profitability.
h) My conclusion is that if the US is the target perhaps I would be better off from a terrorism point of view if no export traffic destined to the US was handled at Southampton...as directing unscanned containers through Southampton for scanning and export puts me, personally as a local resident, at increased risk.
If I read this correctly, and I am open to correction...
a) The scanning is for outward bound containers destined to the US
b) It is about preventing "dirty bombs" etc. entering the US, and protecting US citizens
c) One question;-The scanning is carried out by who? Is it only Smith's Detection, or are others involved?
d) This is therefore not about protecting UK citizens...or even EU citizens as containers are not scanned on export from other countries for import into the UK/EU. And the containers being scanned in Southampton are here already...
e) So if it is for the protection of the US only and not the UK/EU, then why should I as a UK citizen be bothered?
f) Except, obviously, why should I not be afforded the same protection as the US government affords it's citizens?
g) Or perhaps more importantly (from business's point of view that is), the lack of scanning could leave Southampton unable to export containers to the US unless the EU provides some sort of subsidy, risking profitability.
h) My conclusion is that if the US is the target perhaps I would be better off from a terrorism point of view if no export traffic destined to the US was handled at Southampton...as directing unscanned containers through Southampton for scanning and export puts me, personally as a local resident, at increased risk.
Posted by: Plum Pudding, Swamptown on 12:01pm Thu 15 May 08
If I read this correctly, and I am open to correction...
a) The scanning is for outward bound containers destined to the US
b) It is about preventing "dirty bombs" etc. entering the US, and protecting US citizens
c) One question;-The scanning is carried out by who? Is it only Smith's Detection, or are others involved?
d) This is therefore not about protecting UK citizens...or even EU citizens as containers are not scanned on export from other countries for import into the UK/EU. And the containers being scanned in Southampton are here already...
e) So if it is for the protection of the US only and not the UK/EU, then why should I as a UK citizen be bothered?
f) Except, obviously, why should I not be afforded the same protection as the US government affords it's citizens?
g) Or perhaps more importantly (from business's point of view that is), the lack of scanning could leave Southampton unable to export containers to the US unless the EU provides some sort of subsidy, risking profitability.
h) My conclusion is that if the US is the target perhaps I would be better off from a terrorism point of view if no export traffic destined to the US was handled at Southampton...as directing unscanned containers through Southampton for scanning and export puts me, personally as a local resident, at increased risk.
If I read this correctly, and I am open to correction...
a) The scanning is for outward bound containers destined to the US
b) It is about preventing "dirty bombs" etc. entering the US, and protecting US citizens
c) One question;-The scanning is carried out by who? Is it only Smith's Detection, or are others involved?
d) This is therefore not about protecting UK citizens...or even EU citizens as containers are not scanned on export from other countries for import into the UK/EU. And the containers being scanned in Southampton are here already...
e) So if it is for the protection of the US only and not the UK/EU, then why should I as a UK citizen be bothered?
f) Except, obviously, why should I not be afforded the same protection as the US government affords it's citizens?
g) Or perhaps more importantly (from business's point of view that is), the lack of scanning could leave Southampton unable to export containers to the US unless the EU provides some sort of subsidy, risking profitability.
h) My conclusion is that if the US is the target perhaps I would be better off from a terrorism point of view if no export traffic destined to the US was handled at Southampton...as directing unscanned containers through Southampton for scanning and export puts me, personally as a local resident, at increased risk.
Posted by: Worker, Southampton on 1:08pm Thu 15 May 08
I work in the terminal and know that the US government has made it a reqiurement for ANY port shipping containers to the US must have the scanning facilities in place, otherwise they would simply refuse them. Shippers and supplying terminals have therefore had their hands forced as the US is one of the biggest markets in container shipping. However, I have yet to see any use of the new scanning sheds that were built last year, which is apparently down to no-one being able to decide who should man them!
I work in the terminal and know that the US government has made it a reqiurement for ANY port shipping containers to the US must have the scanning facilities in place, otherwise they would simply refuse them. Shippers and supplying terminals have therefore had their hands forced as the US is one of the biggest markets in container shipping. However, I have yet to see any use of the new scanning sheds that were built last year, which is apparently down to no-one being able to decide who should man them!
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
Have you a view on this or any of our stories?
Why not write a 'Letter to the Editor' and, if we can we'll publish it in the Echo. Click here to submit your letter.
