He's claiming to shun technology mere hours or even minutes before getting on a modern aircraft. I think there's plenty else wrong besides "exercising a right that the government really didn't want anyone to have".

@Nij that's the thing about rights: you don't need to justify their exercise to anyone else in order to exercise them. You just need to choose to exercise them. I'm not saying he's right to want to, nor that his stated reasons justify in my eyes his wanting to. But my approval is not required; it's his right, and if he chooses to exercise it, that's up to him.

@Nij there is a difference between being in a plane that flies with fairly simple (to understand) mechanics, and stepping into a booth that will zap you with X-rays or whatever while violating your person. In a pat-down you can see and feel exactly what the examiner can see - it's definitely something that can feel more comfortable with that knowlege.

If the specific argument is "he hates technology" then every single thing about his flight, from the tickets to the boarding to the majority of the actual flying itself, let alone the physical plane, is absolutely beyond acceptability. Specifically radiation: this is a trivial myth to debunk. He gets as much radiation by flying for a few minutes as a year's worth of scans. And the mechanism is more simple than flight. @Baldrickk

@Roy as most of the current answers agree, he can't. The problem isn't inherent to him, so nothing he can change will change this. I'm trying to shine a little light on why a simple, lawful request is causing five screeners to show up and give an old guy a hard time, plus clarify that this often happens at border crossings in the modern world, and perhaps give some externally-validated common-sense rules for dealing with it.

@Nij - otoh (bared a solar flare), the dose acquired from a flight is independent of human/technology mishaps, unlike (potentially!) from the scanners.

To all of you mentioning X-rays and radiation: Backscatter X-ray scanners have been banned in the EU for >5 years now. All the scanners in Europe use millimeter waves (non-ionizing radio frequency waves), sort of similar to taking a picture of you with an IR camera. This "radiation" is much "weaker" than visible light, so if you're scared of the scanners, you should be much more scared of the ceiling lights above them.

Does this need all the mentions of HMs Govt and the EU? You could start this answer at the paragraph "If he decides to persist" and it would read just as well, if not better for being succinct.

@Philbo furthermore, I rather suspect that UK courts would have required the same accommodations in the absence of EU law, and suspect more strongly that they will continue to do so after the UK leaves the EU, because it's far from arbitrary. Still, if it's coming from a UK court, perhaps it will be more palatable for the anti-EU people.

@TooTea yeah, I've actually worked with (ok, worked with people who were working with) imagery from these systems, so I do know how they work. Other people are far less likely to know though. The fact that you felt the need to point it out supports this. My "X-Rays or whatever" comment was meant to be from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the technology and is worried about it. - I also tried to touch on the privacy side of it, which is another factor.

@TooTea It's not ionizing radiation, but still as far as I know we have no extensive data on what happens if you irradiate humans with high doses of millimeter waves. How can you exclude that they are dangerous in ways that we haven't figured out yet? For what we know, they might turn out to be the asbestos of the 21st century.

@MadHatter I don’t think you’ve effectively rebutted Nij’s objection: I (and, presumably, Nij) fully agree that you don’t need to justify your rights. But that’s a non sequitur: OP’s grandfather did give a justification, and the justification was objectively poor. This doesn’t affect anybody’s rights but it’s also not an effective strategy in convincing anybody. (That being said, your answer is otherwise spot on, and quite helpful.)

@Nij There are literally entire communities of people whose entire cultural identity revolves around selectively shunning technology. The OP even mentioned one such group by name...

@FedericoPoloni: At sufficiently high doses of microwave radiation you will get local heating. Below that the interaction of photons (which are what microwaves are composed) with matter has no biophysical basis for any sort of malignant transformation under our current understanding of physics and biology. We do have extensive experience with radar used for navigation and human health. "Proof" of a negative is not something you can logically demand. Sunlight has far more potential for harm. Those photons are ionizing and there is a plausible mechanism for harm.

I'm extremely well aware of that. But saying that they hold a belief and then actively going against it, makes them a hypocrite. They can say what they like, but it's doing a different thing that is the problem here. @industry7

@Nij & co. It's fine for you to take this as a personal affront to the beliefs that make your travel more comfortable but wet kisses to the security apparatus aside it is less sure than you're making it out to be even before you factor in the possibility of machines being miscalibrated or being on the fritz. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to dislike this tech but still fly.

My beliefs are that security theatre does nothing but active resistance to minor intrusions with zero evidence of lasting effect are not worth the energy. That people try to defend such resistance with nonsense is not a personal affront, it's just another example of stupidity that is more commonplace than necessary.

EC 1147/2011 cropped up during the referendum? Obviously I wasn't paying as much attention as I thought.

@phoog The courts cannot just make up whatever rules they like or "require accommodations" just because they like the idea. They need a statute to interpret as a starting point, or alternatively precedent from a previously decided case. Parliament on the other hand can do this, and in fact that is exactly what they intend to do for the foreseeable future at least.

@JBentley Under the Human Rights Act 1988, UK courts can strike down airport security measures unless they are effected by primary legislation, and the Aviation Security Act 1982 does not directly specify methods of carrying out security scans. Furthermore, even if the Human Rights Act 1988 is replaced with something else, and even after the UK leaves the EU, the European Court of Human Rights will continue to have jurisdiction under the European Convention of Human Rights, which the UK ratified 20 years before joining the EEC.

@42 x-rays are also composed of photons, yet they can cause cancer. That something is composed of photons does not say much of what it is or is not capable of. Visible light, composed of photons, cannot propagate through a wall, but radio waves, also composed of photons, can.

@phoog Perhaps, but they still can't just make up rules. The HRA 1998 doesn't specify that "UK courts can strike down airport security measures". They will have to apply a particular ECHR right to the situation. It will also require someone actually applying to the courts over this issue before we would have a precedent.

The WHO has classified millimeter-wave scanners (which operate in the microwave frequency) 2B, which means they are "potentially carcinogenic". Until this changes, nobody has a leg to stand on as to their possible health effects. If you can avoid it due to concern, by all means, do so.

@Calchas EU Regulations (plural) did crop up during the referendum, constantly, as did the claim that the EU generally over-regulates. This was one of the key arguments supporting the claim that the EU robs the UK of sovereignty (along with the power of brokering trade agreements).

@phoog The difference lies in the energy of an individual photon of the stream. At high enough energies they can ionize atoms and pass through between them, but at lower energies they can't. Your argument ("both are composed of photons") is like saying a pickaxe can penetrate rocks and is made of metal, therefore a paperclip made of metal can too.

@zovits my argument is that 42's logic is flawed. Your analogous statement about metal and rock therefore supports my argument.

@Nij: every single thing about his flight ... is absolutely beyond acceptability. "Beyond acceptable" and "not preferred" are two very different things. Keep in mind that he has no control over the other things, but he is able to freely choose to avoid the scanner in exchange for agreeing to a patdown. Just because he can't change some things doesn't mean he's not allowed to make choices when he's able to make them.

He could absolutely change things. The flight isn't necessary at all - his legs are natural and work just fine. Or he can have everyone come to him. Things absolutely can be changed, the point is that the choices are made for arbitrary convenience and this is patently obvious and people would look a lot less stupid if they just acknowledged that it doesn't matter why, they simply are choosing. @Flater

@Nij: Your argument are simply ridiculous. Your suggestion that any distance traveled by plane can easily be walked is not even worth addressing. people would look a lot less stupid if they just acknowledged that it doesn't matter why, they simply are choosing. It seems like you're picking a fight with religious preferences regardless of the context here. No one is arguing against this point. It is the exact core of the question. The person is under no delusion that he's making a personal choice; he's simply trying to get others to not needlessly question him for making the choice.