Related Links:
Airline Travel with Film (Ken Rockwell) [9/2002]
ASMP on Xrays
How CTX-5000 Works
How Not to Get Xrayed [11/2002]
Kodak Xray Update [04/00]
Neutron Luggage Scanning Gear and Film
NY Institute of Photography Article on Xray Damage and Film
Safer Skies, Savaged Snapshots
Slides melted in U.S. Mails to Smithsonian [4/2002]
US FAA Regs on Hand Inspection etc..
| SimaCorp Claims Xray CTX-5000 Protection |
|---|
| see Simacorp white papers and postings for details! |
|
While the CTX-5000SP is not typically used today to inspect carry-on luggage, the FAA has indicated that this technology will be implemented in the future, where practicable. Several reports of it being used for carry-on inspection have already surfaced. [see above Kodak link for more details] |
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998
From: [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Checked luggage and unprocessed films
Kodak has learned the following concerning unprocessed film placed
in CHECKED luggage:
There is new piece of X-ray inspection equipment, the CTX-5000, currently
being installed in major airports worldwide.
This system is designed to inspect CHECKED baggage only, not carry on.
Operationally, this unit performs two types of scans. The first is a
general sweep, which is harmless to film. The second is a focused,
high-energy scan targeted at any suspicious looking items identified by the
system in the initial sweep. If this second scan happens to strike
unprocessed film, it will be ruined.
Given the nature of the business, the severity of this problem would appear
to be great for professional photographers. Your options are
limited:
Don't carry unprocessed film in checked baggage
If you must carry large amounts of unprocessed film, contact the
airline prior to your filight to make inspection arrangements which
would not involve using the CTX-5000
*****************************************
>From http://www.invision-tech.com website:
In order to capitalize on the global opportunity for deployment of
explosive detection technology for civil aviation, InVision focuses on
three important markets:
1. installations at key U.S. airports
2. installations at new airports under construction worldwide
3. installations at international airports
As of March, 1998, InVision has shipped approximately 100 units to
customers in the following countries.
Belgium
France
Hong Kong
Israel
Japan
Malaysia
Netherlands
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
Taiwan
United Kingdom
United States
-----
The USA implementation will be primarily at airports designated as
''Category X'' by the FAA.
The FAA will not identify the ''Category X'' airports.
Please forward this note along to other interested parties.
Kodak Information Center, USA
1-800-242-2424
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998
From: [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taking print paper on aircraft
I can answer the first question you have.
Any sensitized material placed in checked baggage will be fogged with the
newest xray equipment. Lead-lined bags will not protect your materials.
Thom Bell
Kodak Information Center, USA
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 From: Andras Iklody-Szabo [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Checked luggage and unprocessed films (fwd) >Does anyone have any information on how effective lead shield film bags >might be with the new scanners? >Bill Lawlor I don't know about the new scanners but my confidence in the lead-lined bags was severely shaken already with the old scanners, when during an airport inspection I was standing next to the monitor while my bag was going through (hand-inspection flatly refused) and I could see each and every film can WITHIN the lead-lined bag. I did not notice any serious deterioration on the developed films but whether there was any at all I couldn't establish due to the lack of comparable films which didn't go through the check. The problem seems to be not so much the single inspection but the accumulated effect due to succesive inspections when changing planes or various consecutive trips. For example, I don't think anybody would throw away his unexposed films which went on a trip but were not used. Most likely he will take them on the next trip (if not used up in between) and thus add new radiation to the already absorbed one. If you travel to "developed" parts of the world, you can buy your batch of film from a professional outlet on the spot. Should be no problem in London, Paris, Munich, etc. But if you travel to less developed places, like some tropical islands for example, you'll have to carry your film and put up with those rays. Andras Iklody-Szabo Caracas / Venezuela
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Checked luggage and unprocessed films (fwd)
Does anyone have any information on how effective lead shield film bags
might be with the new scanners?
Bill Lawlor
I was told by an FAA representative that using the lead bags would
guarantee getting your film fogged. The lead sets off the machine to do a
targeted high power scan, and he said this goes right through the thin
layer of lead in the bags and foil.
Bob
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998
From: Alastair Firkin [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Film scanners
I bought a pair of "travel" pants from Structure, with deep pockets. Very
handy when you do not want to shell out $$$ and also hold an "enormous"
number of rolls. Being plastic, they "walk" right through the inspection
without a problem. This trick fails with 35mm whose cannisters are
metallic, so I've on occasion taken to rolling my own into plastic
cannisters. If there is no metal, its never failed ;-)
Alastair Firkin,
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Checked luggage and unprocessed films
we had a local TV news special on last night about the CTX5000 machines
and how they could ruin your vacation pictures unless you ask for hand
search and scanning, so the word is getting out pretty fast
also shutterbug has an article by Roger Hicks on the Xray Scare, pretty
funny - esp. where the security guard said "you'd know xrays don't harm
film if you were a professional photographer" to Roger Hicks (author of a
dozen photo books from Tibet etc. ;-) ;-) Low intensity scans from
modern machines may not, but the high intensity scanners are trouble...
for your info - bobm
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182
[email protected] *
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 From: "Stephen F. Schaffner" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Checked luggage and unprocessed films David Seifert wrote > Apparently if you are in a plane at 30,000 feet the amount of environmental > radiation is so high that protection of films would require a lead > container so heavy as to be impractical. The longer the flight the worse > the damage since it is, as pointed out earlier, cumulative. I am not sure > what the radiation levels of the new scanners are (and I am sure the > manufacturers and security agencies aren't telling) but I bet it is mostly > irrelevant compared to the radiation incidental to high altitude air travel. It would be interesting to know just what the radiation levels are for luggage scanners, of any type. The number I've seen for the increased radiation level while flying is 0.3 millirad/hour, so a six hour flight exposes your film (and you) to roughly 2 mrad, which is something like one tenth of a chest x-ray. I suspect that scanners for hand luggage give much lower doses than medical x-rays; if so, the exposure from flying is comparable to or larger than that from the scanner. For comparison, leaving your film at home in the freezer for a year will expose it to roughly 30 mrad of cosmic ray radiation (more if you live at high altitude), and probably a much larger dose from terrestrial radiation. So I don't worry too much about scanners. By the way, it's not the amount of radiation at 30,000 feet that's the problem, it's the energy (i.e. there aren't all that many cosmic rays, but each one packs a punch). In order to have any significant effect on the exposure your film gets you'd need to have at least 25 cm of lead around it, which seems a bit impractical. Much smaller amounts of lead will actually (slightly) increase the exposure, since the lead will stop very few particles, but will cause some of them to interact in the pouch, spraying your film with a bunch of particles instead of with just one. Steve Schaffner [email protected]
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998
From: frantzd [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film scanners
I use a Pelican #1100 plastic case for exposed film. It's fairly small,
cheap, strong and watertight. I hand it to them for visual inspection and
have never had a problem. It's a good device to keep out humidity, dirt,
dust, etc. Several years ago it got bumped fell out of a boat with about 10
rolls of exposed film inside. It floated of course, and no water got inside.
That convinced me to always use it. I still do.
F. Dantzler
From: [email protected] (RR) Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc Subject: New XRAY-alert for air-travelling photographers Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 New in The Eye of the Low Countries; Urgent XRAY alert for air-travelling photographers : there is new piece of X-ray inspection equipment, the CTX-5000, currently being installed in major airports worldwide. It can harm your unprocessed films. More specific info in The Eye: http://www.gms.lu/eye The Eye of the Low Countries is the comprehensive website of photojournalists and press photographers from The Netherlands and Belgium. Lots of pictures, free photosoftware, photo game, articles and documentation, links to all important photo press agencies, homepages of 100 plus photojournalists, Top 50 Photo Links, and more...
Two questions: > > 1 Does anyone have experience of taking unexposed printing paper > through aircraft security? > Will the machines cause fogging? Yes. Don't send it through the x-ray machines particularly in European airports, etc. The effect are cumulative with France and Israel have the strongest machines, that can fog film with a single use. Most take 2 or 3 with 100 to 200 speed film. Just to be safe have it hand inspected or bomb/drug dog sniffed. ... -- Patrick Bartek (NoLife Polymath Group) [email protected] http://www.skylink.net/~bartek
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 From: Matthew Phillips [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Checked luggage and unprocessed films One of the items that I always pack when traveling is a box of large zip-lock (or other similar) plastic bags. They're handy for all sort of toiletries, sunblock, snack food, damp wash-clothes or swimwear... they also serve to get my film through security and customs without incident. All the film, exposed or not, is stuffed into a ziplock bag and is the last thing that goes into my camera bag which I always carry on. That way, I can whip it out for security or customs to see and let the equipment go on through the x-ray machine. I've never had a problem while traveling in Europe, or North or South America using this strategy. Zip lock bags are also great for protecting equipment from sandy or damp conditions. Of course, you don't want to seal the bag if you're in a high humidity climate for an extended period. Regards, M.Phillips
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 From: David Seifert [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Checked luggage and unprocessed films The questions about lead lined bags and their effectiveness against new scanning systems reminded me of a discussion on another list not too long ago. Apparently if you are in a plane at 30,000 feet the amount of environmental radiation is so high that protection of films would require a lead container so heavy as to be impractical. The longer the flight the worse the damage since it is, as pointed out earlier, cumulative. I am not sure what the radiation levels of the new scanners are (and I am sure the manufacturers and security agencies aren't telling) but I bet it is mostly irrelevant compared to the radiation incidental to high altitude air travel. All that being said, I still cart film around in a FilmShield bag in case hand inspection is unavailable. Best Regards, David Seifert [email protected]
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PIMA Press Release for 13 Mar 98: XRay warning http://www.pima.net Photo industry warns fliers: Don't check your film with your luggage NEW YORK, March 13 The Photographic and Imaging Manufacturers Association has a warning for travelers: if you check your bags before you board an airplane, keep your undeveloped film with you. The warning was sparked by the recent introduction of new baggage-scanning technology expected to enter service at airports worldwide. The new equipment now in limited use but expanding uses a combination of x-rays and computed tomography (CAT scan) to detect suspicious packages. If the equipment ''sees'' anything that it's been programmed to examine closely, it turns on a high-powered scan, says Tom Dufficy, PIMA executive vice president. This more-powerful inspection can cause unwanted streaks and fogging which could ruin your pictures. Dufficy points out that the problem applies to unprocessed film whether or not it's been through a camera. He warns that the damage will not be visible until the pictures come back from a photofinisher. We applaud the FAA for making the skies safer for air travelers, Dufficy said. We just want to make sure that travelers understand this new guideline: Don?t check undeveloped film with your luggage. Dufficy offers these simple tips: * Don't put unprocessed film in checked baggage. * Your film and cameras should be placed in your carry-on luggage. * The vast majority of x-ray equipment used for hand-carried baggage examination uses a level of x-rays that is safe for most film even in multiple scans. * If you are traveling with a high-speed film (400 and higher) and expect to go through several x-ray examinations, you can request a hand search. FAA regulations in the U.S. provide for a hand search if requested. * If you can't carry your film, use a cargo handler to ship film. Require that they certify your films will not be subject to X-rays. The Photographic and Imaging Manufacturers Association represents 55 imaging companies including most film and camera makers. * * *
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 From: frantzd [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film scanners I use a Pelican #1100 plastic case for exposed film. It's fairly small, cheap, strong and watertight. I hand it to them for visual inspection and have never had a problem. It's a good device to keep out humidity, dirt, dust, etc. Several years ago it got bumped fell out of a boat with about 10 rolls of exposed film inside. It floated of course, and no water got inside. That convinced me to always use it. I still do. F. Dantzler
Date: 3/15/98 (Nikon Digest) From: A and B San Juan [email protected] Subject: airport x-rays There are new x-rays machine being installed in US airports that will fog unprocessed film in checked luggage. I think it is called the CTXorA 500O. A crew that works with David Attenborough found their film fogged in London after a five week trip to papua new guinea. Al
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 From: "Dr. James Chow" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Checked luggage and unprocessed films Bob Shell wrote: > > I was told by an FAA representative that using the lead bags would > guarantee getting your film fogged. The lead sets off the machine to do a > targeted high power scan, and he said this goes right through the thin > layer of lead in the bags and foil. > > Bob I've put film in the lead bags (I have the one made by Kenko that supposedly guards up to ISO 800 film) and through x-ray machines with no problems (that was using ISO 50 and 100 films). From my experience, all the airports I've been to in Europe WON'T handcheck film when requested. Same thing happened to me in Hong Kong yesterday (I didn't use the lead bag this time, and has a max speed of ISO 400). They always point to the "film safe" sign and refuse a handcheck, even when I have everything conveniently placed in zip-lock bags. Only US and Japanese airports seem to do handchecks when requested. It's usually not likely that a single xray is going to fog you're film, but if you do it 5-10 times, it adds up. One xray operator in Syracuse, NY, told me that if you run the film through the xray machine, it's safe, but if you walk through the xray scanner, it'll be destroyed. I have my doubts about this, since it would be unhealthy for the airport employees to be standing there without lead suits on. My guess is that check-in luggage scanners scan at a higher intensity. My dentist tells me that dental xrays (they put a lead blanket over you for this) are less intensive than the radiation you'd receive from a plane trip. --Jim
From: "Gary Colnar" [email protected] Subject: RE Airpot x-rays (cat scans) >Subject: airport x-rays >There are new x-rays machine being installed in US airports that will fog >unprocessed film in checked luggage. I think it is called the CTXorA 5000. A >crew that works with David Attenborough found their film fogged in London >after a five week trip to papua new guinea. True enough. Denver International just announced they are installing these machines and recommends get there early and ask for a hand search of your film. Gary Colnar [email protected]
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 From: Bob Shell [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Checked luggage and unprocessed films Jim, We're talking about something totally new, so your past experience with lead bags does not apply. The new X-Ray machines are just being installed right now in airports all over the world, initially for checked baggage only, later for carry on. These new machines WILL fog your film, guaranteed, and in only one pass. Lead bags only make it worse. Bob
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 From: Richard Knoppow [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Checked luggage and unprocessed films Thom Bell of Kodak's customer service department has posted details of this new equipment in rec.photo.darkroom within the last few days. In a private e-mail he calls it "scarry". This stuff is being installed throughout the US and in many other countries. Here you may be able to arrange for hand inspection but that isn't true everywhere. There are other places beside airports that X-Ray luggage, the ferry boats between England and France or Belgium do and _will not_ hand inspect anything. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles,Ca. [email protected]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format From: Bob Flood [email protected] [1] Re: new xray equipment fogs film Date: Mon Mar 16 1998 ThomBx19 wrote: > The warning was sparked by the recent introduction of new baggage-scanning > technology expected to enter service at airports worldwide. The new > equipment now in limited use but expanding uses a combination of x-rays and > computed tomography (CAT scan) to detect suspicious packages. Let me add one more item to this. A few airports have just added a new explosive detection technology that uses neutron activation of nitrogen compounds. In general, luggage should not contain materials high in nitrogen, but explosives do. So the device irradiates the luggage with neutrons of the right energy to activate nitrogen, i.e., make it radioactive. A detector just downstream in the conveyor system can detect the activated nitrogen, and this can prevent explosives from ever getting onto a commercial aircraft. The half life of this activated nitrogen is very short - measured in seconds, so the luggage owners and baggage workers are not exposed to radiation - it's all gone even before the bag leaves the machine. But the effect on undeveloped film could be significant. Remember, any radiation effect, xrays, neutron activation systems, etc, will be cumulative. The more times the film passes thru such systems, the larger the effect. Once thru might yield an effect too small to notice, but several times thru could be devastating. -- Bob Flood [email protected]
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 From: "Dr. James Chow" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [Rollei] Re: airport scanners >This stuff is being installed >throughout the US and in many other countries. Here you may be able to >arrange for hand inspection but that isn't true everywhere. > There are other places beside airports that X-Ray luggage, the ferry >boats between England and France or Belgium do and _will not_ hand inspect >anything. >- ---- >Richard Knoppow Richard points out a problem that I've run into time and time again. Everywhere I've been to in Europe, they've refused to handcheck my carry-ons. They always point to a "film safe" placard on the xray machine. The same thing happened in Hong Kong last weekend. From my experience, you can only get a hand inspection in the US (probably Canada, too?) and Japan. Anywhere else, and you'd better find a pro-lab at get your film developed BEFORE returning home. --Jim
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 From: Jan Decher [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [Rollei] x-ray - indep. study needed I have had my share of frustrating arguments at security checks around the world trying to carry my films out of the cans jingling in a plastic bag. Too often I had security point to their signs "no x-ray film damage" and face me with the options: ... either put your film bag on the belt or you stay here. I have never trusted the lead bags - if they worked they would also work for those with evil intentions... I can imagine the last thing the airlines want is a major trend of every tourist carrying their 3 films in a zip-loc baggy and demanding hand-check. But given the new powerful machines it seems the photo industry (POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY?) should conduct a thorough (worldwide!) comparative study of the issue and come out with a report (picturing damage done and showing ALL FILM TYPES). Perhaps Kodak and Fuji would be interested in sponsoring this. Such a report should be sent to all governments, airlines, and airports and could be obtained by photographers as "evidence to the contrary". After all, many countries are also interested in promoting tourism which goes hand in hand with photography. Perhaps smart airlines could even boost their sales by guaranteeing "hand check service" for photographers... I also wonder if there is another non-fogging technology available - tomography? Finding pro-labs in many countries? In Kenya, Ghana, Namibia... - forget it !!! Using expensive carriers is not an option for many of us serious amateurs (ever inquired about DHL prices to or from Africa? It's outrageus!). Jan
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 From: "Dr. James Chow" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [Rollei] Re: airport scanners >Jim, I'm planning an extensive trip to Asia next year and have been >concerned about the x-ray problem. I understand that 35mm color print >film is processed by minilabs all over Asia. I am willing to have it >done there just to get the negs. However, I have read that E-6 is more >difficult to get processed professionally. Further complicating the >picture is the fact that about half of my film will be 120 rollfilm >which is even hard to get processed in California! I can do the black & >white in a hotel room if I have to. Is there any source of information >about reliable color labs in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, >India and Nepal? > >Thanks, Bill Lawlor Bill, I don't know about those countries. I hear they already have high- powered x-ray machines. It's been 3 yrs since I've been to Thailand, and at that time, I was using ISO 400 neg film, carried it on board, and it came out okay. There's another issue you should be concerned about if you plan to shoot at the temples in Bangkok. I talked to a guy who took his 6008 there last year, and he said MF cameras were NOT PERMITTED without written permission of the Thai embassy/consulate, as they're afraid you'll sell your images. I'm told to contact the Thai consulate to obtain written permission before you go (tell them your a tourist and use a medium format camera and are taking images for yourself). Things may have changed now that their currency is in the dumps, so they want US dollars. If all else fails, you can always bribe whoever tells you that you can't shoot. --Jim
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 From: JJMcF [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ruined vacation photos -> action Re: [Rollei] x-ray - indep. study needed you write: In the meantime, I like the carry-on with special deep pocket pants idea ;-) and 120 film doesn't have any metal in it, so I'm a happy camper ;-) bobm Excellent point about 120 film--this has been my preferred solution for a number of years. Other films with no metal include 8mm and Super 8 movie film (Super 8 has a little bit of metal but usually doesn't trigger metal detectors). Haven't tried 126 cartridges. Not too helpful a list for 35mm fans, but is there a plastic spool available for rolling your own? JMcFadden
From: "John_Mares" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace Subject: Re: New XRAY at Airport....Read This !!!!!!!!!! Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 >There is new piece of X-ray inspection equipment, the CTX-5000, >currently being installed in major airports worldwide. One other warning about the CTX-5000: after it has processed your bag, it literally SHOOTS it out the end at what looks like 100 MPH!! There is a metal stop at the end, so your bag gets slammed into this wall. I was shocked when I saw my bag catch air coming out of the machine. Ask for a hand inspection of your photo bag. Even a Nikon can't take that kind of punishment!!!
Robert Ricke wrote: > A lead film bag should do the trick, unless ... >
Actually, there are 2 new detectors in use at airports, both for
checked-in luggage. One is a new adaptation of CAT-scan technology. It
does a simple xray scan of luggage, and, if anything that doesn't meet
security criteria is found, a second full blown CAT-scan is done to create
a three dimensional image of the object. That second scan uses a ***LOT***
of radiation and will most definately ruin your film.
The other new gizmo is an explosives detector that uses neutron radiation.
I don't know how strong the neutron fields are in these systems, but I can
tell you that lead is useless to protect your film from neutrons. Just
like an xray system, repeated exposure to neutrons will be cumulative: if
the first time thru one of these machines doesn't cause noticable fogging,
several runs thru probably will.
> The suggestion was to hand carry your film -- but who doesn't do that? >
This fellow speaks the truth! The worst place for your film is in your
checked-in laggage - carry it with you on the plane.
--
Bob Flood
[email protected]
From: [email protected] (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Airport Problems
Date: 6 Apr 1998
Jean-David Beyer [email protected] wrote: >[email protected] wrote (in part): > >> REPOST >> From: [email protected] (ThomBx19) >> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format >> Subject: checked luggage and unprocessed films >> Date: 10 Mar 1998 >> >> Kodak has learned the following concerning unprocessed film placed >> in CHECKED luggage: >> >> There is new piece of X-ray inspection equipment, the CTX-5000, currently >> being installed in major airports worldwide. >> >> This system is designed to inspect CHECKED baggage only, not carry on. >> Operationally, this unit performs two types of scans. The first is a >> general sweep, which is harmless to film. The second is a focused, >> high-energy scan targeted at any suspicious looking items identified by the >> system in the initial sweep. If this second scan happens to strike >> unprocessed film, it will be ruined. >> >> Given the nature of the business, the severity of this problem would appear >> to be great for professional photographers. Your options are >> limited: >> >> Don't carry unprocessed film in checked baggage >> If you must carry large amounts of unprocessed film, contact the >> airline prior to your filight to make inspection arrangements which >> would not involve using the CTX-5000 > >All very well. BUT! I hand-carry my film. In both Chicago (United Airlines) and >NYC (Air-France) they have REFUSED to hand inspect the film and gave me the >choice of missing the flight or getting the film x-rayed. I have always been at >the airport at least one hour in advance of scheduled departure time for >domestic flights and 2 hours in advance of scheduled departure time for >overseas flights, so there was no question of their being too rushed, just too >damned lazy or insiderate.
Ask to speak to a supervisor. It's against FAA regulations for them to
refuse to hand-inspect film or camera equipment. The X-Ray personell may
refuse to identify themselves or to call a supervisor because they know
they'll get in quite a bit of trouble for refusing; in this case, either
pick another entrance (the United concourse at O'Hare has several) or
complain to an airline ticket agent.
I fly with a Graflex fairly frequently, so I deal with this issue a *lot*.
Outside, the U.S., of course, forget it -- unless the security personnel
are friendly, you have no chance. In that case, I've had good luck with
DHL, who are used to odd requests; just bring a small dark bag and film
boxes, unload the film, explain use of dark bag and film boxes to the DHL
counter rep, and let him leaf through the film, then reseal the boxes with
"DHL Security Checked" and "NO X-RAY" stickers and tape.
Considering that they'd have to be absolutely nuts to let you fly with
unsealed 8x10 film boxes or probably even holders, that getting 8x10
developed in unfamiliar places can be Quite Hard, and that sheet film
doesn't even have the metal can for protection that 35mm or movie film
has... DHL is about the only option I can think of.
New equipment and FAA regulations here in the U.S. appear to be leading
to multiple back-and-forth scan passes for carry-on luggage, too! Watch
the belt motion and the "energized" light next time you go through the
x-ray line. If you have something "odd" in your luggage it could easily
get two or three doses in a single trip through the scanner.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon
[email protected]
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
rec.photo.misc
From: Tim Forcer [email protected]
[1] Re: X-ray checks
Date: Fri Jun 19 1998
Peter B. O'Neil wrote:
> >No film is safe in your baggage anymore. There's a new X-Ray Machine >called the CTX 5000 that's similar to a CT scanner.... >... article ... http://www.blackrabbit.com/xray.htm ...
DON'T PANIC. The CTX 5000 scanner is used for "checked"/"hold" luggage
ONLY. It is NOT used for hand luggage, as the Web site makes clear
(eventually). I quote:
"Fortunately, the x-ray machines used for carry-on items still are
relatively safe for film, provided the film does not pass through them
many times."
So film IS safe in HAND baggage (OK, safER).
--
Tim Forcer [email protected]
The University of Southampton, UK
From: "Don Forsling" [email protected]
Subject: Re: X-ray checks
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998
You're right to be curious and you're curious for the right reasons. The
lead-lined boxes (and bags) do no good in checked baggage situations,
especially those involving the new x-ray machines such as the CTX-5000 which
are now being deployed in substantial numbers worldwide. The lead-lined box
or bag simply causes the machine to automatically turn up the radiation from
1mR to 3mR to +get a better look" and there goes your film.
And as you say, even lacking the new machines, the presence of the
lead-lined box in checked baggage will be detected as a suspicious object
with any machine probably --causing your luggage to be opened and
checked--but your film would probably survive.
--
Don Forsling [email protected]
rec.photo.misc
Date: Fri Jul 10 1998
From: Pete Pollock [email protected]
[1] Re: X-Rays
AnTim Forcer wrote: > > Dan wrote: > > > > I've been told for the past year that the only film you need to worry > > about when it comes to airport X-Ray scanners is 800 ISO or faster. > > However, while in a camera shop today, the manager told me that new > > X-Ray machines just went online in most major airports with the capacity > > to expose even 100 ISO film. > > > > I'm flying from Cleveland to San Francisco in a few days, and I still > > plan on getting all (15 rolls) of my film hand checked (passengers > > behind me in security line be damned!!!). However, I was wondering if > > anybody had any further information on this subject. An email would be > > appreciated. > > Checked/hold baggage X-ray checks have been disaster for even low-speed > film for years. Almost all recent stories about X-ray damage has been > in relation to the CTX-5000 (IIRC) machine, which is ONLY for use on > checked/hold baggage. Non-checked/carry-on baggage inspection machines > are claimed to be safe, but I'd still try to get film hand-inspected by > the security people rather than put through the machine if at all > possible, whatever "film safe" messages may be posted around it and > whatever the speed. > > -- > Tim Forcer [email protected] > The University of Southampton, UK > > The University is not responsible for my opinions
The security people at Los Angeles (LAX) have been both polite and
friendly about hand-inspection of films. No problems.
HOWEVER, the security people at London (Heathrow) nearly threw
a fit - just because I started to take my camera out of my carry-on.
Everything MUST go through their X-ray machines. In fairness to
them, they do have to worry about terrorists. And in fact my film
was O.K. (even the ASA 800) after going through the scanner for carry-on
luggage. HOWEVER, how do they know how many other airports (X-rays)
I'm still going to encounter? I've heard that if your film gets exposed
5-6 times - it's dust.
Maybe you photo guys in the U.K. can have a word with your airport
personnel about this problem.
X-rays in the third world (e.g. Nairobi) are a scary proposition, even
for carry-ons. So far my film has survived, but it's a miracle.
Pete Pollock
[email protected]
rec.photo.misc
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: X-Rays
Date: Sat Jul 11 1998
Pete Pollock [email protected] wrote:
>HOWEVER, the security people at London (Heathrow) nearly threw >a fit - just because I started to take my camera out of my carry-on. >Everything MUST go through their X-ray machines.
Afraid so, but don't worry. The carry on xray machines are not the
problem. It's the new generation of big baggage machines that are the
problem. Avoid keeping undeveloped film in your check in baggage and
you'll be ok.
For your info. I recently travelled from Ireland to Seville for Semana
Santa. I carried all my films in a see through bag. At Dublin and
Heathrow I was refused a hand inspection. They had to be x rayed. On
the way back the guy at Malaga smiled when I showed him the 52 rolls
of film in the bag and just waved me through. But again at Heathrow
they insisted I put them through the machine. 12 of those rolls were
TMax 3200. They all processed fine, even after 3 runs through the
machines. So I wouldn't worry too much.
Regards
Liam
From: "Peter B. O'Neil" [email protected]
Subject: Re: X-ray checks (Was: Tripods through airports)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998
No film is safe in your baggage anymore. There's a new X-Ray Machine
called the CTX 5000 that's similar to a CT scanner, and used in 100
airports around the world. It will zap an unknown object many times from
many angles to determine what it is. This repeated scanning fogs almost
every type film. Your best bet is to ship exposed film home by commercial
carrier like FedEx or DHL and ask for a hand check of your unexposed film
(and hope you're not put on a "permanent list of known troublemakers" or
worse!)
There's more about this in an ASMP article reprinted on our website at
http://www.blackrabbit.com/xray.htm
Peter B. O'Neil
www.blackrabbit.com
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: X-ray Machines
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 98
"Don Tillotson" [email protected] wrote:
>X-ray machines WILL harm film. The photo industry just published a warning >about the new x-ray equipment being used at many airports. They maintain >that even the lead shield bags will not protect the film. We recomend that >you have your film hand inspected. Do not put it in your suitcase or pass >through the moving belt. DO NOT X-RAY FILM.
Your check-in luggage is at danger, not your carry-on hand-bag.
And you can politely ask for hand inspection, but outside the USA you have
NO legal right to this service whatsoever.
Inside the USA you can legally demand hand inspection, see my homepage for
a link to the text of this regulation:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
From: Rob Payne [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: X-ray Machines
Date: 03 Aug 1998
"Don Tillotson" [email protected] writes:
> X-ray machines WILL harm film. The photo industry just published a warning > about the new x-ray equipment being used at many airports. They maintain > that even the lead shield bags will not protect the film. We recomend that > you have your film hand inspected. Do not put it in your suitcase or pass > through the moving belt. DO NOT X-RAY FILM.
As was said by someone else, the *much* strong X-ray machines that are
being used at airports is being used to X-ray suitcases and
non-carry-on items. Carry-on (belt) x-rays should not have changed at
this time, but the effect of x-rays is said to be cumulative in its
effects on unexposed film.
The stronger X-ray machine that have caused warnings to be printed in
various photography magazines is the CTX-5000. You can find a quick
summary here: http://www.blackrabbit.com/xray.htm
The safest bet, in any case, is hand-checking film that you are going
to carry-on. If you have too much film for this, one photo magazine
(mine aren't in front of me) suggested you call the airline ahead of
time in order to make special arrangements to have your film
hand-checked in your suitcase, or that you use another special
delivery mechanism for getting your film to where you are going.
Happy shooting.
-rob
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Ed" [email protected]
[1] Re: Airport X-rays, are the lead bags effective?
Date: Sun Sep 20 1998
I use a lead lined bag with my carry on baggage and it effectively
shields my ISO-100 to 800 speed film. It is also supposed to work with
films up to ISO-1600, but I haven't used any film that fast so I cannot
comment on the effectiveness above ISO-800. I have also passed
unprotected ISO-800 and lower speed film without problems through the
carry-on X-ray equipment in US airports.
These shields only work with newer, low level X-rays such as those that
are used with carry-on luggage in North American airports. The
manufacturer cautions that the lead shield may be inadequate for the
higher level X-rays which are used with checked luggage or with the
older equipment that may be in use for carry-on luggage outside of North
America.
Ed
From: [email protected] (RocknL)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 Film with FilmShield Bag
Date: 26 Sep 1998
I have carried film through customs and always avoid the x-ray machines.
However, I still pack my film in the lead shielded bags. A little known fact
is that when flying at high altitudes x-rays from space penetrate
aircraft, and
can, with enough cumulative exposure, affect the color on high speed films.
Your ASA 25-100 film should not have any problems though. Another warning:
Quite a number of airports have the new high energy x-ray machines which can
look through the lead shields of film bags. so it is best to not take chances
and have the package hand checked instead of being zapped by x-rays.
Rocknl
From: Kallitype [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 Film with FilmShield Bag
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998
A good idea--unfortunately, some airlines (British Air at Heathrow)
will absolutely NOT hand-check your film, no matter how you politely you
ask, how it's packaged, etc. they send everything in your hand baggage
thru the converyor Xray. CNot as bad as the Xray for checked baggage,
but Xrays are cumulative. My 40 rolls of Delta400 were Xrayed 3 times
between London-Milan-London-seattle, and the background density went
from its usual 0.12 to 0.2, in PMK pyro. Not a big deal, could print
thru the increased fog, but, who knows what's next???
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998
From: Ed Luinstra [email protected]
Subject: Re: mailto:[email protected]
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Robert Monaghan wrote:
> Hi Ed, > > yes, I have seen both CTX-5000 and CTX-500 used in articles and postings; > this suggests to me a standard and deluxe model may exist, or just the > usual mass confusion out there ;-)
Robert,
I doubt there is such thing as a "CTX-500" x-ray machine. When I see "500"
in this connection, it is usually or always written by you or quoted from
your site. Announcements by companies always say 5000, never 500. InVision
never mentioned a CTX-500 on their web site.
Ed
[Ed. note: I have accepted Ed's suggestion and edited this page to remove
these CTX-500 references, or convert them to CTX-5000 in the above page.
The original posts (multiple people, rec.photo and nikon digest posts)
referenced a CTX-500, which is where I picked it up. Sorry for any
confusion!]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998
From: Ed Luinstra [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: updated - thanks
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Robert Monaghan wrote:
> in any case, I hope the SIMA shields work, for those that can't get hand > checking as in europe, but suspect they will just boost the intensity - > doesn't make much sense to let photographers protect film with a lead > baggie, when it could just as easily be a terrorist, at least to me ;-)
Bob,
The lead pouches are controversial. In my opinion, they don't absorb very
much x-ray. But I have never seen data on this.
Anyone can do the experiment, though... put a pouch in your carry-on, let
it go though the machine, and crook your head around so you can see the
screen. Look for the infamous black blob. I have done this and have never
seen it. Also I have never had any inspector ask about an opaque object,
and I have never heard of anyone who did have this experience....
Probably another one of those unfounded stories.
Lead probably does shield the film a bit, but not much.
Anyway, even high speed film is safe to multiple exposures from the hand
luggage scanners. No wonder then that there are no (known) complaints
against the lead pouch companies.
Regards
Ed
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998
From: "Lionel F. Stevenson" [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Airport X-Rays
Carrying a few rolls in your pockets is OK. In 1993, I passed through
Schifol airport, on the way to Italy, and pushed the security to hand
inspect 150 rolls of 35mm. The film was in zip lock bags, 10 to a bag, no
cannisters. In Italy they just smiled, said, You must be a photographer".
My last trip to Italy, I took 75 rolls of 35mm. At Heathrow, they insisted
I put them through the machine, or they don't fly. The film wasn't damaged,
but now the machines are more powerful. Security wants to be able to see
right through the cassettes, so they know you're not carrying coke or some
other contraband, C4 maybe?
Let's pool our knowledge about these machines. Let's hear about the horror
stories and specific airport requirements.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Flying 'blads and Airport X-Rays
Last summer my family and I went from Erie to Pittsburgh to
Philadelphia to London to Athens to Santorini and back. In Erie they were
reluctantly willing to handcheck our film, and we did not have to repass
thru security in Pittsburgh. Howver everywhere else they insisted on
putting our film thru the x-ray machines - and British Air did it twice in
one port- once in the airport in general, and once at the gate (in
Athens). All were most insistant that the film could not be handchecked.
Needless to say, we suspected we would have fogged film after so many
passes thru the scanners. To our amazement the film was fine. We were
using primarily Velvia, so the slow speed may have helped. British air
decided to x-ray my husband's bag one extra time for good measure because
they couldn't identify something in his bag ... and then after all that
went thru it by hand anyway. Very annoying, but seemingly unavoidable
also, and I do prefer to be safer from terrorists.
Summer of '97 we went to Australia. They also insisted on running
camera bags thru the scanners, but nothing was hurt. However they are
VERY picky about the dimensions of carry on luggage. Although my husband
and I had identical bags, because I am smaller, they decided my bag was
too bag and gave me all sorts of hassels. British Air did the same thing
this summer. I haven't figured out how to have only one carry on piece of
luggage (European regulations, as well as some domestic airlines), carry
all my film for 1 - 2 weeks away, as well as my camera bodies and lenses
and still have a small light backback. One goon in the Toronto airport
also decided the bag was too big (in fact it measures exactly the largest
legal dimensions) and when I proved it wasn't, then picked it up and told
me I had to check it as baggage because it was too heavy (which it is).
My kids thought I was going to deck him since the plane was scheduled to
leave in 10 minutes. Instead my husband found the airport manager who
agreed to let me carry it on.
Just some of my experiences.
-Ellen
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998
From: Jim Stewart [email protected]
Subject: Re: Flying 'blads and Airport X-Rays
TLC wrote:
> I wonder about shipping or mailing film. Do the Postal Service and other > small parcel shippers x-ray packages routinely? > > I know that UPS was not accepting any packages unless you presented it to > the counter clerk unsealed so they could inspect the contents. This was a > couple of years ago. > > They don't do it any more. I don't know whether they got over their > paranoia, or they bought an x-ray machine.
It wasn't their paranoia, the unibomber was caught.
As of about 3 months ago, FedEx stated unequivocally that they do not
X-ray packages.
Jim
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998
From: Dr R G Marusyk [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Cameras and airport security
I've been reading with interest the horror stories on airport security
checks, lost bags, etc. Here's my contribution: While changing airlines in
Frankfurt, Germany, on my way to the Middle East, the airport security
staff asked me to unpack my camera bag (2 Leica M6 bodies and 4 lenses).
The guard then opened both camera bodies (he obviously knew what he was
doing as he had no trouble at all taking the bottom plate of the bodies)
and poked around the inside with what looked like a dental pick. He then
took the front and back caps off the 4 lenses and tapped the front and rear
lens elements of each with the dental pick device. I've never seen this
done before or since. When I (politely) asked what he was doing, and why,
he looked at me and said that it was a necessary procedure. Anyone else
ever have this happen?
Ray Marusyk
rec.photo.film+labs
From: andrew hardacre [email protected]
[1] Helpful airports
Date: Sat Oct 24 1998
I took 3 dozen rolls of film through Hong Kong airport 10 days ago. I
put them in transparent containers and the lot in a see through zip loc
bag. They did a hand inspection, no problem. Coming back through
Brisbane I did the same and got the same highly co-operative stance. A
refreshing change from LHR.
Andrew
[Ed. note: thanks to Peter for sharing this clever idea!]
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Peter Mlynek)
Re: Return of XRays (was Re: Recommended print
film for London in November?)
Date: Sun Nov 01 1998
[email protected] wrote:
> If it's going to be hand-checked anyways, might as well avoid > the scan altogether and save a step.
In the United States you can have film hand-checked, but in most modern
European airports, I am afraid they refuse to handcheck anything. Either
an object goes through the X-ray machine, or it wont get on the plane. I
am really disappointed in this, and if there are airports where I could
get around having my unprocessed films X-rayed, I'd use it.
What I do in airports that demand X-raying my film, is to put the film
canisters into my luggage in such a way, that the film canisters stand on
its end instead of lying flat. In this way the film will be pretty much
in the plane of the X-rays, causing minimal damage.
--Peter Mlynek
[email protected]
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Titus" [email protected]
[1] X-rays on airports - Caution, better hand-check - but how?
Date: Sun Nov 08 1998
Hi everybody,
Is there any way to convince people on the airport to hand check your films
(exposed or not)?
If yes what is the procedure? What should I do to convince them?
I've already tried that, (I kept my films in the pocket), the metal detector
beeped, I told them they are just
films, and begged them to open the boxes and hand check them (they were new,
unexposed films in the
original box) but they didn't want to, They kept saying that their machines
do not harm at all any film that is
less sensitive that 3600 (bullshit), and they pushed me to the X-ray
conveyor
In my next trip I did the following: I bought a film in Canada (just out
from the fridge), that went through the X-rays
(in my carry on luggage), then I bought another film in the US (same brand,
sensitivity, expiration date).
I took pictures of the same subject bracketing with my Nikon 6006, exposing
in the same way the two films,
from the same tripod, and in the same place.
The film that I bought in the US I developed immediately at a 1hour 3rd
class lab in the US, the other film
I went again with it through the X-rays, and developed it at my favorite
(one of the best) labs at home in Montreal
Results: The prints obtained from the film that didn't go twice through the
X-rays, were much much better than the
other prints. The X-rays exposed film produced low contrast, much lower
color saturation, and an overall pink-orange
mask. This was not a simple coincidence. I still have the proofs. If you
want I can e-mail you the scans of two samples.
Did you have similar experiences? What is the solution? A lot professional
or amateur photographs people travel,
carrying on their films, What do these guys do?
I bought a lead protection bag, but I read on this news group that they
increase the power of the X-Rays until they are
able to see through the bag what's inside.
Thanks for all the replies.
You can also e-mail me at [email protected]
Regards
Titus
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "55443534" [email protected]
[1] Re: X-rays on airports - Caution, better hand-check - but how?
Date: Sun Nov 08 1998
in the US , Canada and Mexico you have a right to have your packages
inspected manually, you just need to ask politely and firmly. i've never
been refused. Europe is much different, you loose many small rights
there(for "security" reasons). French authorities now have the right to stop
and ask you for ID on the street without any reason whatsoever, or maybe
just because they don't like how you look . Yikes!
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Ed" [email protected]
[1] Re: X-rays on airports - Caution, better hand-check - but how?
Date: Sun Nov 08 1998
In many European airports, carry on luggage is X-rayed twice before =
boarding the plane and there is no way to avoid it.
I brought back several rolls of exposed Fuji ISO-400 print film that had
been carried in a lead bag, but X-rayed three times with carry-on baggage:
once when boarding in the US and twice when returning from Amsterdam
Schipol Airport. I developed all of the rolls after I returned home and
the results were fair. There wasn't as much color saturation as I would
like, but that may be due to the use of the ISO-400 film as well as the
overcast skies that I had rather than the X-rays.
Ed
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "PLD" [email protected]
[1] X-rays on airports - Caution, better hand-check - but how?
Date: Fri Nov 13 1998
I keep seeing posts like the one I'm responding to that reads:
>>The whole subject is pretty much of a red herring that pops up in the new >>groups every couple of weeks. Unless I were carrying film rated at 1600 >>speed or above, I wouldn't hesitate a bit to let it be run through the _hand >>baggage_ XRAY machines. The science just doesn't support the theory that >>the film will be damaged, although I'd probably want to limit exposure to >>five or six passes. And no, the hand-baggage machine operator cannot "turn >>up" the radiation output of the
All of the following material is quoted from the Kodak Website:
X-Ray Fog
Until recently, x-ray inspection units used for airport security have been
relatively safe for films. However, as airports step up their security
measures, some have introduced a new type of inspection unit that has a
greater potential to fog film. To date, these units are not widespread, but
we expect them to become increasingly common.
This new equipment is intended for checked luggage, although it is possible
that boarding-gate security checkpoints will use it in the future. Because
your checked luggage may be subjected to these new units, we suggest that
you hand-carry your film and request visual inspection.
Historically, fog caused by x-ray radiation has appeared as lines or
patterns across the width of roll film. The patterns are usually widely
spaced lines followed by many more closely spaced lines. This happens
because the image of the plastic core at the center of the roll and the
individual laps of the film are projected onto the other laps of film in the
roll. Undulating or wavy patterns may also occur throughout the length of
the roll; this happens when the film is x-rayed at an angle and the shadow
from the end of the film spool and magazine alters the exposure. Shadow
images from other objects may also be evident. For example, film x-rayed
inside a camera may show images of camera mechanisms
The fog caused by the new airport inspection units is usually more
pronounced. It typically appears as soft-edged bands 1/4 to 3/8 inch (1 to
1.5 cm) wide. Because the new equipment uses a higher and more focused x-ray
beam, the banding will be very dark on negative films and very light on
reversal films. Depending on the orientation of the film to the x-ray beam,
the banding may be linear or wavy, and can run lengthwise or crosswise on
the film. It can also undulate, depending on the combination of the angle of
exposure and the multiple laps of film on the roll. However, the fog will
usually lack the more subtle patterns produced by traditional types of x-ray
equipment.
X-ray fog may appear as follows:
On Black-and-White Negative Films--Dark areas in patterns as described
above.
On Color Negative Films--Dark areas with neutral or brown patterns.
Color Reversal Films--Minus-density area with patterns as described above.
From Medium Format Digest:
From: Jeff Spirer [email protected]
Subject: Response to Mid West travel photography
Date: 1998-12-05
Airport security is *required* to give a hand search on film and it certainly shouldn't take multiple requests. You might want to carry this document: http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-108.txt with you. During "crisis" times, the regulations don't apply, and when I traveled during the Gulf War, there was no hand inspection.
I don't think any other country has this as a law and when it is
done, it is a courtesy.
From: "Tim Atherton" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Hand Inspection - Air France - JFK - FAA Regs
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998
The following are the FAA Regulations for hand inspection at X Ray machines
(obviously, in the US only)
http://www3.landings.com/cgi-bin/get_file?pass=9985008&FAR/part_108/section_108.17.html
Tim Atherton
rec.photo.film+labs
From: "Bob Flood" [email protected]
[1] Re: High Speed film & Airports
Date: Sun Feb 07 1999
Braden Ellis wrote
>I always make them hand-check my film no matter what asa it is. It is your >right and most airports will agree to it.
THIS ONLY APPLIES INSIDE THE U.S.!!!! Don't try to "assert" such a right
outside the U.S. - you won't enjoy the reaction of the security staff. You
do have the right to insist on hand inspection within the U.S., but it
usually isn't necessary (within the U.S.).
The security xray machine that you put your carry-on stuff through in an
American airport now use a pulse technology where the xray beam flashes and
the image in displayed on a screen, not unlike a snapshot. This was done to
reduce the the occupational radiation exposure of the security staff, and it
worked. But it has had the side effect of reducing the exposure of things
put through the machine, including film. Even high speed film isn't likely
to show any visible effects from several runs through such machines.
HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T MEAN EVERYTHING IS WONDERFUL. There is a real danger
to your film - checked luggage inspections.
UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, CARRY YOUR FILM ONTO THE PLANE AND NEVER, NEVER,
NEVER PUT IT IN YOUR CHECKED LUGGAGE. Luggage that is checked will go
through an xray inspection quite different from the carry-on items. This
machine has a conveyer belt like other machines, but any item scanned in the
same manner as the carry-on stuff that looks suspicious or meets some
security system criterion for examination will receive a second scan. This
second scan is a true CAT scan that generates a three-dimensional image of
the contents of the bag without opening it. Nifty technology, but the amount
of radiation will do mischief you photographic film.
Sceurity xrays outside the U.S. vary greatly. At the major airports in
Eurpoe, Canada, and Japan, you can expect to encounter the same modern
hardware you see in the U.S.. But anywhere else, especially small, remote
airports, you will often find older xray machines that deliver higher doses
to the items going through. It's is always worthwhile to ASK VERY, VERY
POLITELY for hand inspection, and your chances of success increase greatly
if you help them by having the film out of the boxes and in clear zip-lock
plastic bags for them to look at. It stands to reason that they are more
likely to help you if you make it easy for them to do so. Nevertheless, in
some places (Heathrow comes to mind), the local policies on these
inspections will be rather rigid, and the guard at the gate isn't the one
responsible for declining your request for hand-inspection - s/he is just
the messenger.
And lead bags don't really help a whole lot and could hurt - if the operator
of the xray machine can't see what's inside the lead bag, s/he will just
turn up the xray intensity until s/he CAN see the contents, which results in
the same dose to the film whether in a lead bag or not, but can result in
higher doses to things outside the lead bag.
Have a good trip.
[Ed. note: while conditions can vary quickly at different airports - even
between shifts - you can't assume you will never have a problem -
example:]
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999
From: Jignesh Jhaveri [email protected]
Subject: [panoramic-l] X-RAY altert at GATWICK
At Gatwick, the military chaps insist on EVERYTHING going thru the
X-Ray machine, no matter what you say, and god help you if you have a
film bag (x-ray resistant), they rip it out and pass it thru, and
point to the big sign above "FILM SAFE". what a joke, my my 25 asa
Kodak Techincal Pan, 50 asa velvia and HIE infrared were all fogged
with streaks. I'm not even going to say anything about the higher
speed film which was RUINED. Be careful never fly out of GATWICK
(biggest mistake on that trip)
JJ
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999
From: Ron Klein [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: private inspection
Has anyone else in the group requested a private inspection as a way of getting through the airport gate security?
Too often I have been told to stand back while the security people poke through my very expensive equipment. These people are use to handling crap from K-Mart and cheapie 35mm cameras, but not Linhofs, Cirkuts, or other unusual gear. Needless to say, they really don’t care about your stuff either.
The best approach is to request a private inspection. A day before your flight, call the airline and tell them what you need. Each airport seems to have a different way of handling the problem and the airline will tell you how they deal with it. Do you think a diamond merchant with a small box of uncut diamonds is going to put his bag through x-ray? You are entitled to the same treatment even if it is only a box of Hershey bars for your kids. They airlines don’t like it, but they have to offer the same service since it is not up to them to decide the value of the contents of your bag. (weren't those vintage 1940 Hershey bars with the five cent price marked on them?)
In Seattle for example, the routine is that you go up to the security gate and tell the guards that you need a private inspection. They in turn call the airline to confirm the request. The airline has to provide the private room for the inspection. So you have to wait for a representative from the airline to show up and take you to the room. Airport security needs to provide a guard (sometimes two guards) to escort you to the room. As you can see this costs time and money and neither the airline or airport like doing this. The private inspection is just that. (No they don’t look at your private parts) At least you get a chance to talk to someone in a different environment than at a regular security gate. You don’t have to worry about a lens getting left out of the bag, and if you don’t get to handle the stuff yourself then at least you are on a one to one relationship with the inspector. Every time I’ve done it I was allowed to handle my own equipment. The big thing here is that you are conducting the search on your terms, not with a line of edgy people behind you that are late for their flights. Often time the security people are very interested in what you have, and will as camera questions like "What kind of 35mm camera should I buy?" After all, this is a break from the normal routine for them. If you have played your cards right, the last thing out of you bag is the film. It’s a good chance they will take your word for it and just give it a feel and let you go. If not, plead your case and offer to let them inspect the film with the lights out. I’ve never had a problem.
After the inspection, airport security must provide a guarded escort back to the security gate. You have to walk with a guard in front of you and a guard behind you. They don’t want anyone handing you something at this point! It's kinda cool, like you've been arrested or something. And that is all, once at the gate you’re free to go.
This has worked well for me, but it does require more prep time. You can’t show up with just a few minutes to go before boarding and demand a private inspection. Maybe if more photographers started requesting private search we could send a message that something must be done to deal with the film x-ray problem that is fair to all. I do worry that since the private inspection is expensive and time consuming, that the idiots will simply enact a "user fee" for the service. But that is another problem for another time.
It’s time to unite on this issue.
Sincerely
Ron Klein
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999
From: Thinh Le [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Airport xrays ( was: reversal film advice)
I've used the lead bags (FilmShield) in Europe and Asia to hold 400 and 3200
films and never had any problem or question. The machines still see the
rolls of film inside but the bags reduce the radiation "doses" to safer
levels.
TL
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (B. Adamson)
Re: x-rays vs. film??
Date: Tue Mar 23 1999
[email protected] wrote:
>Jamie-Andrea Yanak wrote: > >> There is some good information direct from Kodak regarding the newest >> explosive detection x-ray machine that is showing up at many airports. >> >> It DOES damage film, ALL film. >> >> Read more at: >> http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/xray.shtml >> >For those of you without access or sufficient motivation, here is the most >important paragraph in that document, which contradicts several posts in >the newsgroups: > > "While the CTX-5000SP is not typically used today to inspect > carry-on luggage, the FAA has indicated that this technology will be > implemented in the future, where practicable. Several reports of it > being used for carry-on inspection have already surfaced."
As I said before, there is a great deal of confusion about this. If you
search the Kodak site for x-ray, you get a variety of documents. The one
titled X-Ray fog says nothing about film being recently damaged through
carry-on inspection. There are conflicting dates for the document
(November 1998 and February 1999). The above mentioned page is under
Professional Motion Imaging Technical Tips (gosh, did you guys check all
the x-ray docs?). This document does appear to be dated March 1999. Later
in the document is this information:
"The design uses a CT (Computed Tomography) type of scan to identify
potential explosive threats. This device was initially designed for
checked baggage but is now being used to spot check carry-on luggage in
some airports."
Who has reported damage from carry-on? Does the above mean that the unit
is being tested randomly at carry-on points without notice to passengers?
It doesn't sound as though they have actually been installed for regular
use at carry-on checkpoints, but that may happen soon.
There is another article in the latest Pop Photo about this. They
apparently hadn't gotten any reports about carry-on damage at press time.
Also, apparently the FAA isn't saying much. They contacted the major
shippers about whether their packages are being x-rayed and reported their
answers. They also report that Sima's new film shield protects against
the new devices up to ISO 400. But isn't this just going to make security
more suspicious of the package? The damage comes when they turn up the
scanners on contents they can't identify. In Heathrow, last December,
they required that my camera bag go through carry-on x-ray, then they took
it aside, checked the contents and opened canisters, and sent my camera
through x-ray again. I can't think what I could have done to avoid that
except ship back film, if I had known which shipper I could trust not to
x-ray.
In the US, I always ask for, and get, handchecks. So, the point is still
to not put film in checked baggage, but to put it in carry-on and ask for
a handcheck. In some other countries, we may just be out-of-luck, unless
enough pressure is exerted on airports to provide some alternative for
photographers. For example, trasvel agents and photo tour operators aren't
going to have many takers to visit a country if the film is going to be
fried on the way home. I mean, I'm all for safety, and I am perfectly
willing to arrive early to go through a special checkpoint.
--
Remove the dots after b and a for valid e-mail address.
Photos and links on my web page at http://www.netcom.com/~badamson/
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: x-rays vs. film??
Date: 26 Mar 1999
> She started to >go through every canister one at a time until a rumpus from the lengthening >queue behind me persuaded her that about twelve would be enoug>>
Try this.
1. Remove film from plastic cannister to speed up the process.
or
2. Put it thru the X-ray in a lead lined bag. After it goes thru, it will
be opened and hand checked. They will not run the film thru the X-ray.
This is great in countries that do not routinely allow hand inspection.
Peter Burian
OUTDOOR & NATURE Photography magazine
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: xraying of carry-on bags - was Re: Getting through security
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999
Additionally to what Robert has said to respond to this, there's
Invision's own site:
http://www.invision-tech.com/products/
specifically the QScan QR 160 advanced Explosive Detection System which
is designed to scan carry on bags:
"The QScan QR 160 is an advanced Explosive Detection System
(EDS) designed to operate on its own or to add explosives detection
capability to carry-on bag screening check-points at airports and
other secure facilities. The QR 160 is a compact, lightweight,
completely automatic system that provides excellent detection of high
power explosives regardless of their configuration. QScan technology
has the lowest false alarm rates in the industry and scans at high
throughput. A simple pass/fail decision alerts an operator if suspect
materials are present.
The QR 160 detects explosives using an advanced yet mechanically
simple technology called quadrupole resonance (QR) analysis. The
technique is related to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) used in
hospitals. However, it does not require a magnet, instead it uses low
intensity tuned radio wave pulses to probe for the molecular structure
of the target materials. The signals emitted by each type of explosive
are unique and easily distinguishable from harmless substances.
QScan technology is characterized by its extremely low nuisance
alarm rates (less than 3%).
With its speed and precision, the QScan QR 160 is proving itself to be
an operational and cost effective addition to security operations. "
Now I've looked on their site and I have not yet seen any news
items that say they have a contract to supply these yet. I can't
say it hasn't happened, but I find no concrete evidence that this
is so. However, I don't think they'd build these things if they
weren't pretty confident of selling them to SOMEBODY. They say
there are 140 CTX5000's deployed worldwide and 21 more CTX5500's
just purchased by the FAA, but no purchases of the 160 yet that
they are talking about. Granted all the photo magazine/Kodak
tests were probably with the 5000, but the 160 sounds like the
same technology.
They do have something about film safety. Try looking at:
http://www.invision-tech.com/press/
They say in part:
"Recently, the FAA in cooperation with the photographic film
manufacturers completed a thorough study on film safety in CTX
5000 automated explosives detection systems. This study confirms
that CTX can, under certain conditions, damage undeveloped film of
any speed whether positive (slides) or negative, color or black and
white. Please note that CTX technology will not damage developed or
printed films. We do not believe that lead bags for film will be effective
with CTX technology. Note that CTX does not affect magnetic media,
or computers ."
also...
"Based on several years of operational feedback, reported instances of
film damage remain rare for the following reasons:
1.Most people hand carry film and camera equipment.
2.In order to damage film, CTX needs to place a slice directly
through the film canister. Only a few slices are usually taken so
the chance of one being placed through film is low.
3.Damage is visible to professionals but is less apparent to casual
photographers."
Now they're emphasizing that checked luggage is at risk because they're
talking about their 5000/5500 type scanners. They don't specifically
address whether their smaller 160 unit is the same exact technology, or
if it's power levels makes any material difference in risk to film. They
go on to emphasize that their priority is passenger safety over film
safety.
I sympathize with this, but since the reason I travel is to take pictures,
if I couldn't get film to the location, then there would be no need to
take the trip, but that's me.
[Ed. note: related topic - carryon weight limits...]
From: Richard Stum (Kinesis) [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Limited Carry-on Bags
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999
Peter,
I haven't seen the April issue of Pop Photo, but our Web site
has a listing of airline carriers and the restrictions for carry-on
baggage. It can be found at:
http://www.kinesisgear.com/survey.html
As a side note, when I travel domestically I always carry one
or two regular shoulder bags + a modular belt system with a
significant amout of gear on my waist. My belt system is black
and my jacket is also black, which helps make the belt seem
less signifcant. So far I have never been harassed. But then I
haven't tried this on an international flight.
Richard Stum
Kinesis Photo Gear
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: x-ray machines - THE SCOOP
Date: 2 Apr 1999
The most detailed description of the new CT scan X-ray systems is at
pima.net/Xray-rpt.htm
This is the photo industry site.
They got a lot of cooperation from FAA in testing film in the new systems
used
for CHECKED bags. It does damage film.
The current systems used for CARRY-ON do NOT damage film. "PIMA also tested
normal carry-on X-ray scanners and found films showed no appreciable fog even
after 50 scans."
NOTE: Kodak says the dangerous CTX machines may be used for CARRY ON bags too
in future. So far, this has NOT been confirmed by PIMA.
This is why no photo magazine has taken this issue on. PIMA is the industry
watch dog and they have not indicated that this is likely to happen. I will
discuss with them next week.
Peter Burian, Editor
OUTDOOR & NATURE Photography magazine
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: x-ray machines -- THE SCOOP
Date: 2 Apr 1999
Sorry, the correct URL is
www.pima.net/Xray_rpt.htm
The report addresses only the new systems used for CHECKED luggage and
does not
mention the older systems used for CARRY ON.
A previous PIMA report confirmed that the conventional X-rays used for
CARRY ON
bags at this time are safe for film.
Peter Burian
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (Chrome)
Subject: Re: film and airport x-ray
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999
I received a letter from Kodak a little after that date that disputes what
you say. For years Kodak said that airport x-rays wouldn't harm your film
but as higher speed films became more popular incidences of ruined film
became numerous. They warned to have your film hand inspected and that
there were many confirmed incidences of damaged film from going through
standard airport x-rays.
Also you will find inside the packaging for the 'Film Shield' brand lead bags
that x-ray machines used for the Concord and Cathay Airlines are so strong
that even their lead bags couldn't protect your film! They have been
inserting that warning in their products since the early 80's.
Play it safe and have them hand inspect your un-exposed and exposed film.
Don't forget video tape also!
Bob
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (Chrome)
Subject: Re: xraying of carry-on bags - was Re: Getting through security
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999
"WBraun" [email protected] wrote:
>France does not allow it. After i told that handcheck is no problem in the >US the women told me "we are in France, not in the US". At Paris/CDG they >were repeatedly the most unfriendly peole at any airport i ever met >wolfgang
I met a poor guy who was returning home from Paris and disputed with the
French authorities about x-raying his vacations pictures, well they dragged
him into a room and did a strip search of him! Don't mess with the French.
Bob Jensen
From: [email protected] (BHilton665)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Film and airport X-ray
Date: 8 Apr 1999
>From: [email protected] (AndiPantz) >I know that there's always talk of airport x-rays harming film. I was just >wondering if anyone has ever had any actual problems from the x-rays?
I heard National Geographic has lots of samples of film ruined by x-rays.
Also heard that a few months back Sir David Attenborough lost an entire shoot
when the film was part of checked-in luggage and blasted with x-rays.
They had
to return at great expense and re-shoot the entire show.
We travel a lot and always put the film in clear plastic bags,
substituting the
clear Fuji canisters for the Kodak ones after we shoot the Kodak (shoot a
mixture of film types) and in the past 6 months have had no problems
getting it
hand-inspected in 3 cities in Mexico, one in Panama, one in Venezuela and
several US airports. The only place I had problems was Australia, for some
reason, and even there they hand-checked it after grumbling in Cairns and
Sydney.
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: film and airport x-ray THE SCOOP
Date: 8 Apr 1999
I had a very long talk with PIMA today, the industry watch dog on X-rays. It
was their tests that confirmed that modern X-ray systems do NOT damage film.
They have seen a few examples of damage from third world countries, but
that is all.
The new CTX machines used for CHECKED baggage do damage film. The new
thicker lead bags will help but will cause logistical problems. If the
operator cannot see the contents, he will page the passenger. The person
will have to come down, open the suitcase, show the film, etc.
This is fine, but only if you arrive at the airport 2 hours ahead of the
flight - to make sure there is time for all of the above.
PIMA says the FAA said they would not use CTX on CARRY ON bags. But they
don't know what other countries plan to do.
The CTX machines do look very different - larger and like a tunnel, not the
usual boxy affair.
Peter Burian
From: [email protected] (Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: film and airport x-ray THE SCOOP
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999
[email protected] (PBurian) wrote:
>>Why not a list of the offending airports and >>countries? Don't you think millions in lost tourist dollars could effect a >>positive change - but like they say in New York.... "Who Knew?"...>>>>> >Who do you suggest should visit 150 countries and all their airports with a >tech team to measure the dosage of their X-rays? The FAA tells them what they >do know, but that is only from major countries like France, Italy, not Russia, >Iraq, Bosnia, etc. >OK, you tell Iraq you will not vacation there until they guarantee their >machines are safe. Or in Belgrade.
OK - here's one anecdote / data point to start your list of X-ray
horror stories from 2nd - 3rd world countries.
Flying from Hong Kong to Chengdu (Szechuan P, PRC) and back on China
SW Airlines several years ago on a biz trip, I saw my bags (with about
15-20 rolls of 100 & 400 speed print film) go down what looked like an
ancient but simple conveyer belt behind the counter at the old Hong
Kong airport.
Nothing to worry about. Well, at least not until the conveyer
stopped, two giganic lead doors slid down on wire cables out of this
giant box above the conveyor, and a not-so-gentle hum could be heard
for a few seconds. The lead doors must have been at least 2 inches
thick!
At the small and relatively primative Chengdu airport, on the way out,
the x-ray machine was actually looked a lot more modern than the one
in Hong Kong.
When I got the film processed, what I saw could have been an
experiment from Madame Curie's lab - light streaks, wierdly distorted
shadows of odds and ends that must have been near the film, etc.
Often the same shadow appeared numberous times throughout the roll.
Just about every roll was affected. The photographic images were
visible, but were essentially ruined (even for snapshot level use).
I can look back and smile now, but I certainly was not smiling at the
time.
To support the judgement that US and other modern airports have been
relatively film-safe, I've never again had this problem in all the
flights I've taken either b4 or after my Hong Kong experience.
Regards,
Tom
Washington, DC
PS - I'm a physicist and have worked in optics and lasers for 25
years, and I have no doubt that what I saw was x-ray damage (eg,
relatively sharp edges on the anomalous shadows, camera was ok - next
roll came back fine, film never got too hot or out of my hands xcept
for these flights, never had any trouble (either b4 of after this
incident) with the lab I used to process the film, etc. etc.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (Chrome)
Subject: Re: film and airport x-ray THE SCOOP
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999
Peter, you're not listening, as usual. While manager of one of the
largest professional photo stores in Los Angeles area I received a letter,
a year AFTER the PIMA test you quote from, stating that Kodak had many
CONFIRMED incidences of film being damaged from US x-ray machine. Not
special CTX units but standard machines in use for years. They obviously
found the PIMA tests were far from complete.
If you feel confident in your statement then by all means have your
vacation film x-rayed and I wish you good luck (really) but I'll still
recommend to all who will listen to play it safe and take the simple
precaution of having their films hand inspected.
Good luck on your vacation.
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999
From: "Glenn Stewart (Arizona)" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Airport X-rays and film (ND V4 #'s 345,6,7) [v04.n348/22]
All,
There are generally two types of x-ray machines in use at airports, and in
addition, there are metal detection devices.
The metal detectors will not detect plastic. This is an advantage to
photographers. Details in a few paragraphs.
The two X-ray machines are:
1) Low power, for checking carry-on baggage. Will damage ALL film, given
enough passes through the machine. X-ray damage accumulates. Each pass
through the machine adds to the damage. Slower films will not show signs of
damage until they've been through the machine many times. There are warning
signs at US airports stating that films faster than 800 ISO should not be
exposed to this X-ray. In the US it is your RIGHT (so stated on the signs
near the inspection point) to have your film hand-inspected. This right
exists in the US ONLY.
2) High-power, variable intensity. This machine is new, and is used for
inspecting checked-in baggage. It WILL damage ALL films. Kodak has
published warnings about it. They have a page on their web site describing
its use and giving examples of the type of damage one can expect from
having film exposed to it. Their advice is to NEVER put film in your
checked-in baggage.
The best solution I've found is to reduce all my film materials to plastic.
For 35mm, I take my commercially packaged film (metal cassette) into my
darkroom and transfer it into plastic cassettes that are used for loading
bulk film. These are then replaced into the snap-top canisters that come
inside the film box.
My 120 roll film is removed from the plastic/foil packages that come inside
the box/pro-pack and place them into canisters I make by mating two 35mm
canisters (details on request).
All my film is reduced to plastic. I can now (I've already tried it,
sucessfully) carry all my film in my pockets and walk through the metal
detector. No alarm, no X-ray, no obnoxious rent-a-cops. This should work
world-wide.
Best regards,
Stew
- --
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart
From: "Joanna Oliver" [email protected]
Newsgroups:
rec.travel.misc,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc,rec.travel.africa
Subject: Re: Question: ASA 1000 film through airport X-ray
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999
>London Heathrow airport have publicly undertaken (reported several times in >Amateur Photographer) to hand inspect film if requested.
I do some work for film manufactureres who are very concerned about this
issue and I spoke to Heathrow and Gatwick security for a piece we wrote for
a photo magazine. Heathrow said absolutly no way will they hand inspect -
all film must pass through the x-ray which they say is safe.
They also said that if you make a big fuss you are likley to be removed for
endangering other peoples safety! After all it takes long enough to get
through security at Heathrow anyway without standing behind someone holding
up the line.
Gatwick said they might hand inspect in exceptional circumstances but would
normally insist on an x-ray.
Joanna
rec.photo.film+labs
From: [email protected] (Roman Kielich)
[1] Re: Question: ASA 1000 film through airport xray
Date: Sat May 01 1999
you are definitely WRONG.
even singe pass through carry-on luggage check (Xray) does have an
effect on Dmin and a shape of a characteristic curve of a negative
film. It was tested by PIMA task force and the report published late
last year. However, untrained observer may not notice damages. It is
measurable by an instrument.
Kodak recommends hand inspection for all films above ISO800.
Do some search before you mislead others on the Net.
the finding was-
...experiment#1 failed to show any X-ray damage to the film by way of
visual inspection. Slight fogging did occur, but was determined only
by sophisticated scientific instruments. The amount of fog was
consistent with inspection systems for checked baggage currently in
place and operating under the FAA guidelines of less than 1 mR per
inspection. The amount of fog varied with the speed of the film and
the number of passes through the X-ray system. It would not be
noticeable by the average consumer.
end of quote
the problem is with the number of passes and your ability to see
fogged images. It also is less pronounced on very detailed motives.
do experiment and go from Australia to few places in Europe and back,
have ISO 800 films and put them through "safe" x-ray machines. after
return, process them and print.
You will see in your own eyes.
Regards,
Roman
From: "y c" [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: hand inspection at heathrow
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999
hi,
I read your posts regarding hand inspection at heathrow dated 14 April 1999 which are archived at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/xrays.html#photo I'm from Singapore and I just departed from UK via Heathrow on 8 April 1999.
Following advice in photo magazines, I put all my film in a ziploc bag first before going up to the queue.The person on duty said that hand inspection was no problem, but i would have to wait a few minutes for his supervisor to do the hand inspection. They even apologised for the delay. So I simply stepped out of the line and waited one side. A few minutes later, the supervisor came, took a glance at the ziploc bag without opening it up, and waved me through.
I've had similar good service at LAX as well. I suppose if you annoy the security staff by only starting to take out the film at the checkout (which will cause delays) they'll get annoyed at you.
YC
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: film and airport x-ray THE SCOOP
Date: 8 Apr 1999
As I have said a dozen times, PIMA cannot monitor every X-ray system used in
every country. All they can say is that they have not seen film damaged by
X-rays used for CARRY ON bags, except from third world countries and one
problem in Kodiak, Alaska.
I do not make this stuff up. I always refer back to the tests done by
PIMA and
their reccomendations.
You say the FAA is installing these dangerous CTX machines for CARRY ON bags.
So far, the FAA has told PIMA that they are NOT. Again, if that changes, PIMA
will warn their members and add that to their web site
www.pima.net/Xray_rpt.htm
PIMA has no hidden agenda. The film manufacturers want customers to be happy
with their pictures. If something will ruin that, they want people to know
that.
If you have any doubt, see the info on their web site re: the CTX and
newer L3 systems.
Peter Burian
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: film and airport x-ray THE SCOOP
Date: 8 Apr 1999
>To support the judgement that US and other modern airports have been >relatively film-safe, I've never again had this problem in all the >flights I've taken either b4 or after my Hong Kong experience. >>>>>
Tom: I have had my film scanned in four airports in Brazil, in Costa Rica,
France and Italy recently, and I too have not had any fogging. Hand
inspection
is not a right in those countries.
But as PIMA said, they cannot vouch for the X-ray systems used for CARRY ON
bags in all countries.
Peter Burian
From: [email protected] (Andrew Koenig)
Subject: Re: film and airport x-ray THE SCOOP
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999
Steve Bougerolle [email protected] wrote:
> My experience in dozens of poor countries around the world is that > they're usually a lot more obliging than some of the security people in > rich countries. The only two places I've ever failed to get a hand check > are England and Zimbabwe, and England was by far the worst. There the > rude turd just grabbed my bag and tossed it on the belt, ignoring me > completely.
The only places in Europe that I have been able to get a hand check are
Munich, Copenhagen and Malm�. Malm� is a kind of conceptual airport,
because no airplanes leave from there. Nevertheless, there is an SAS
ticket counter, baggage check, etc.; and after checking your bags,
you get on a boat that takes you across the sound to Copenhagen,
where you board an airplane without additional security formalities.
In Munich, although they did hand-check my film, they very nearly did
not allow me to board the airplane anyway, because the laptop computer
I was carrying at the time was not a model on their list. That meant
that they could not verify what the machine was supposed to weigh!
Fortunately, a supervisor decided to let me through anyway. I believe
that if the supervisor had not, I would have had to leave the laptop
behind.
Although they were willing to hand-check film in Copenhagen, the guard
who did so opened every single sealed film box, all the while engaging
in a profoundly insulting anti-American tirade.
I have also been successful in having film hand-checked in Oslo, but
that's outside the EU.
--
Andrew Koenig
[email protected]
http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (Chrome)
Subject: Re: film and airport x-ray THE SCOOP
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999
I've always suggested to people to take the film out of the box (saves on
space in luggage also) and carry it in a big zip-lock bag. Makes the
inspection process much faster (and I love those translucent Fuji
containers).
I carry two such bags, one marked for un-exposed film and the other for
exposed, I figure it also offers an additional level of protection against
water and sand. I always carry a small hand towel in my bag and a plastic
sheet large enough to cover me and my bag in case of rain. Of the two I
think
that sand is the worst to guard against. In places like China and Africa
there is sand so fine it gets into everything. When I travel to places like
that I put everything in plastic bags (even underwear) and I'm usually the
most comfortable person there (read not scratching all the time) and don't
have to send in my equipment for cleaning immediately upon return.
One last thing I always carry a couple of 'Moisture Muncher's' in my bags to
help keep down any growth of mold or mildew in my gear.
Bob J.
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: film and airport x-ray THE SCOOP
Date: 10 Apr 1999
I have now interviewed Kodak, Invision (CTX manufacturer) and PIMA.
I have also reviewed their web sites and that of Sima corp.
Nothing has changed. Just one insight. Invision has not sold a single CTX
machine for CARRY ON bag use. At $1 million per unit, they doubt they ever
will.
They have not even had a request for a quote for a system for such use.
Kodak re confirmed that X-ray systems used on CARRY ON bags do not damage
film,
except perhaps for some old machines in under developed countries.
Peter Burian
From Nikon Digest Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999
From: "Colin Povey" [email protected]
Subject: Traveling with film via Air [v04.n351/2]
I just got back from vacation through Italy, France, Denmark and Sweden
and because of Kosovo I can tell you that films are put through a hard
time at airports. In Paris I had to go through X-rays 3 times in half and
hour !
snip
Yes, carrying film through airports is getting harder and harder.
National Geographic shooters ship their film via Fed Ex in boxes marked
"Photographic Film. DO NOT X-RAY. OK to open for Inspection."
They also split their film in half, and send half one day, and half the
next, just in case.
Everyone traveling by air should check out this site for recommendations
before leaving home: http://www.f-stop.org/
Colin
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999
From: "Guillaume Dargaud" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bad time for films in airports... A conclusion [v04.n352/21]
Hi and thanks to all who responded to this thread I started on Monday.
I wanted to summarize to answers:
- - Do not put films in checked luggage. The more powerfull X-ray and new
neutron machines will *destroy* any kind of
film. This has been confirmed by Kodak and Paris airport (among others).
- - X-ray for carry on luggage is OK for low sensitivity films, a couple of
times (indeed my velvias passed about 10
X-rays with no damage). It is more dangerous for sensitive films (nobody
knows
how much more dangerous).
- - Hand inspection can be *required* by the passenger in the US (see
below). I
other countries ??? If they refuse, call a
cop.
- - - arriving in advance and being polite helps.
- - - having the films out of their containers is required in advance
- - - having some 3200 asa helps justifying the manual check (they
usually know
the difference).
- - - putting the films in advance (and in a darkroom) into plastic
containers
allow you to keep them in your pockets
under the magnetic detector.
- - - big airports are the worst (Paris and Chicago are named most often for
refusal of hand inspection).
- - - in the US keep a copy of the following with you:
Note: This document contains FAR Part 108 including Amendment 108-17 as
published in the Federal Register on September 24, 1998.
PART 108--AIRPLANE OPERATOR SECURITY
Sec. 108.17 Use of X-ray systems.
(e) No certificate holder may use an X-ray system to inspect carry-on or
checked articles unless a sign is posted in a
conspicuous place at the screening station and on the X-ray system which
notifies passengers that such items are being
inspected by an X-ray and advises them to remove all X-ray, scientific, and
high-speed film from carry-on and checked
articles before inspection. This sign shall also advise passengers that they
may request that an inspection be made of
their photographic equipment and film packages without exposure to an X-ray
system. If the X-ray system exposes any
carry-on or checked articles to more than 1 milliroentgen during the
inspection, the certificate holder shall post a
sign which advises passengers to remove film of all kinds from their articles
before inspection. If requested by
passengers, their photographic equipment and film packages shall be inspected
without exposure to an X-ray system.
[Doc. No. 108, 46 FR 3786, Jan. 15, 1981, as amended by Amdt. 108-1, 50 FR
25656, June 20, 1985; Doc. No. 26522, Amdt. Nos. 107-6 and 108-10, 56 FR
41425, Aug. 20, 1991; Doc. No. 26268, Amdt. No. 108-11, 56 FR 48373, Sept.
24, 1991]
---
Oh, and for the persons who raised the question of my origin, well, I'm
French,
I live in Italy and I work in...
Antarctica !
Now I remember something. While in Antarctica in 93, we had a lot of medical
problems (appendicitis, broken hand...).
Since the only doctor had to delegate, I was in charge of the X-ray. I
used to
process them in the darkroom of the
'photo club'. Which gave me the idea of trying to make pictures on the X-ray
films, under the enlarger. I works fine,
just like sheet film, but it is *very* sensitive (I had to close to f22 and
1/2s of exposure for a large 30x40cm film).
And one more difference, it has emulsion on *both* sides.
Guillaume Dargaud
CNR/IFA
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999
From: [email protected] (kay rideout)
Subject: airport x-rays [v04.n353/15]
Regarding Bill Erfurth's comment that Agfa data shows that hundreds of
airport x-ray exposures are required to fog film, I think he is mistaken.
I could find no such data on any of Agfa's websites, but I could find the
following on Kodak's website:
"Except for the new types of inspection units described earlier, most
inspection units in use today are relatively safe for films with an ISO
speed or Exposure Index (EI) of 400 or lower. However, multiple exposures
without reorientation of the film, cumulative doses of more than five
exposures, and malfunctioning inspection units can cause fog. Films with an
ISO speed or EI higher than 400 require added precautions because they are
much more sensitive to x-ray exposure. Even with "film-safe" x-ray units,
you should limit exposure to one inspection. For films with a speed of 1000
or higher, request visual inspection if allowed by local regulations or
law. "
Play it safe, ask for visual inspection.
Bruce Rideout
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999
From: "Colin Povey" [email protected]
Subject: Film and Traveling [v04.n355/19]
In digest 349, Spiegler asked:
I would like to hear a competent and/or prof answer to this question:
are
the x-ray checking of hand luggage at airports dangerous to undeveloped
films, yes or no ?
snip...
There is an organization dedicated to warning photographers and working
with security people on this issue. Their URL is: http://www.f-stop.org/
In short, the situation is not good, and has recently gotten worse,
since they now X-Ray checked baggage at some airports. While some people
complain about US security personnel, in the USA you have the legal
right to have film hand inspected. Just as with others in this list,
courtesy, asking nicely, and putting no pressure on the security people
(I always try and get at the end of the line) have prevented me from
having problems.
Of course, I did one time run into a security person who insisted that
the X-Ray would cause no harm to my film, but was sure that the metal
detector would ruin it!
I have also learned recently that National Geographic generally ships
their film to the from the photographer via Federal Express in a box
marked "Photographic Film - DO NOT X-RAY - OK to Open for Inspection".
They also split ship their film (1/2 on one day, and 1/2 the next day)
to help ensure something gets through undamaged.
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999
From: Jose Verastegui [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Amsterdam. No mercy.
This month I had to go to Spain but I had to go to Amsterdam (Schifol)
first. I had a lot of new and exposed film. I carried it with me. Before
boarding we were subject to an inspection. After seeing this new equipment
I requested hand inspection of my film. There was no mercy. They enjoyed
doing it. More than fifty percent of my film was dead after a few
seconds. I talked to the boss there (an older man that knows nothing about
photography, funny because they said I am the one that doesn't know
anything). He claimed his equipment doesn't harm film. The whole security
staff in this gate lied. I requested the name of this person but we have
no way to identify them. Cowards. They don't have any visible name or
number or batch, etc. It is frustrating. The only way to avoid this is
not using this airport. Don't use this three letter airline which name
starts with K and ends with M. Or this other airline Martin-something. They
threatened me when I requested for the name of this person that spoiled my
rolls. They pretended I was suspicious. I told them "Yes, I am suspicious of
being mad because you just x-rayed my film with this new machine, you
lied to
me and said nothing would happened to it". At that moment I was not sure
but I
had the feeling after seeing that machine. And it did happened.
It is horrible. I called this airline company to complain and they said
"security in the airport is for you. You should be happy that we take such
security
measures. It is for your safety!". The said they are not liable for anything.
By the way, it is not only the unused film the one that gets spoiled,
it is
also the exposed one. Sadly.
So that's why I said if you can avoid this airport and these airlines, do
it.
LookSmart
or keep looking.ng would happened to it". At that moment I was not sure
but I http://www.looksmart.com
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999
From: "L. J. Powell" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Airport X-rays -- some real data!!
....
I have to disagree. It is NOT "well known that airport security will
increase th x-ray strength". In fact, the operators of the machines are not
allowed to adjust the strength of the x-ray. What they can, and often will
adjust, is the contrast of the image that they can see - something not
unlike adjusting the contrast of the picture on a TV.
From: [email protected] (Helge Nareid)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Have you seen damages of X-RAy ?
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999
>Michal Szymanski wrote: >> >> Hi! >> Have you seen effect of X-Ray after airport checking (especialy on >> proffesional films) ?? >> All custom-officer usualy says do not affraid the radiation is very low >> !!
I have seen it - about 15 years ago I worked on quality control in a large
photofinishing lab, and I saw 2 or 3 films with X-ray damage. Even at that
time it was exceedingly rare, and only happened in out-of-the-way airports
outside Western Europe or the USA (unfortunately, I can't remember which).
>I've just returned from a trip to Europe where the airport security were >very adamant about sending EVERYTHING through the carry-on baggage x-ray >machine (i.e. no hand inspections).
I recently flew from Aberdeen to Paris return via Amsterdam, and one roll
of 1600ASA colour negative film passed through no less than 5 X-ray scans
(one in Aberdeen, 3 in Amsterdam, and 1 in Paris). There was no sign
whatsoever of X-ray damage, and as I've indicated above, I recognize it
when I see it.
The UK, at least, will not allow hand inspection of photographic films.
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Airports & Film, ad naseum
Date: 1 Jun 1999
Here's a copy of a letter I picked up at the Luxembourg airport a couple
days ago. It is on EG&G Astrophysics letterhead (they're out of Bucks,
England) and they are the producers of many of the x-ray machines used for
hand baggage at European airports.
"To Whom It May Concern:
In response to your request on x-ray effects on film and magnetic medium
please be advised:
FILM
Because the effects of x-ray's [sic] are accumulative, the guidelines
regarding the maximum number of times any given speed film can be
inspected without damage are as follows: Up to ASA/ISO 400, the film can
be inspected up to fifty times without damage (0.1 mR per inspection times
50 inspections equals 5.0 mR). Film with speed ratings between ASA/ISO
400 and ASA/ISO 1600 can beinspected up to fifteen times without damage
(0.1 mR per inspection times 15 inspections equals 1.5 mR). These are
figures that were developed and are accepted by the National Association
of Photographic Manaufacturers (NAPM) and all producers including Eastman
Kodak.
This information may be confirmed by contacting:
Director, National Association of Photographic Manufacturers
550 Mamaroneck Avenue
Harrison, NYT 10528
Telephone (914) 698-7603
or
Kodak Information Center
Department 841
R2 Riverwood
Rochester, NY 14650
Telephone (800) 242-2424
One further word of explanation, however, the Federal Aviation
Administration does not recommend x-ray inspection for film with speed
ratings or ASA/ISO 1000 or higher but, rather that this film should be
hand inspected. The reason for this is the fact that some older equipment
is still in use at domestic airports. This equipment uses up to 1.0 mR
per inspection and high speed film could be damaged if inspected in these
units.
It is easier for FAA to recommend a blanket hand search for bags
containing high speed film than to pinpoint the older equipment which was
still in service and which could possibly damage it."
END of statement.
I hope this can set the record straight in this regard.
From: [email protected] (A. Server)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Airports & Film, ad naseum
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999
...(see above post)...
As usual, a couple of nits. You mix together a letter from an
European airport from a British manufacturer of (some) X-Ray machines
with a statement from the (U.S.) FAA. I don't think that they add up.
The FAA seems to instruct its minions to be pretty agreeable with
respect to hand inspections. Use them. On the other hand, I have
never been offered or received on request such a search in the UK. So
it is not clear to me of what value the knowledge that certain films
can be damaged easily and others more slowly does if I have no
recourse but to have them X-rayed repeatedly. Other places that, in
my experience, do not bend an inch are Singapore and Israel. I
understand the hard nosed attitude in Israel better than in Singapore.
But thanks for the info anyway.
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Airports & Film, ad naseum
Date: 2 Jun 1999
Unfortunately, I quite agree. The Europeans (well, actually, nearly every
security force outside of the US) have some pretty tough security guards
who are paranoid enough to imagine that every 35mm film cassette is packed
full of plastique explosive! They will absolutely REFUSE to hand inspect
film even when presented in clear ziplock bags without film cans. Of
course, they refuse to sign anything but are willing to share with you the
EG&G letter.
Again, I would still like to hear from the many travelers who have alleged
to have suffered from x-ray damage. I'd like to hear the particulars.
In the meantime, I'm going to have my best friend, an international 747
Captain carry a roll or two of film with him throughout the world and
return it to me for processing. I'll be interested in seeing what
accumulated x-ray effects he picks up by hitting as many airports as
professional flightcrews do.
From: David~M [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Have you seen damages of X-RAy ?
Date: 5 Jun 1999
From: David~M [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Have you seen damages of X-RAy ?
Date: 5 Jun 1999
PLD wrote:
> Michal -- > > The Kodak website has an extensive description of recent developments in > airport X-Ray inspection technology and concludes that there is a definite risk > for higher speed films. Images of film damaged by airport X-Ray exposure are > included.
In Europe, there are huge notices in the airpoprts about this.
In fact I believe there are many lawsuits flying around over the failure
of the airports to condider this problem when installing the new
machines.
From: [email protected] (Mark Fineman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Have you seen damages of X-RAy ?
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999
See:
Popular Photography, June 1999 (volume 63, number 6)
pages 32 and page 222, column 3.
Looks bad:
High damage now and expect things to get worse.
Checked baggage worse than carry on.
1 1/3 stop damage to ISO 800 film after one pass in
one of the X-ray machines.
See the article for more details and pictures.
From the Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999
From: Tina Manley [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] X-ray Film Question
you wrote:
>Regarding all the posts about airport checking, etc., shipping via FedEx or >UPS would seem to be an option for anyone not wanting to risk their >images. . .question is, are the FedEx, etc. packages subjected to similar >X-rays?
FedEX refuses to say whether their packages are submitted to x-ray (for
security reasons), but they will say that it is highly unlikely that
packages will be x-rayed. The only problem is that it is very
expensive. I sent a small box of film to Honduras as a test. It got there
fine with no damage but cost over $100 for next week delivery! FedEx and
UPS do not go all of the places I do. I wish there was an easier
way. This time I carried twice as much film as I thought I would need and
left half of it in a refrigerator in Honduras. Now I just have to hope
that it's still there when I return and that the electricity has not been
off for extended periods of time!
Leically,
Tina
Tina Manley
http://www.tinamanley.com
From The Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999
From: "Paul Schiemer" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Airport X-ray Test
Interesting test performed by the British Journal of Photography.
I did a test here locally, at one of the busiest airports in the World,
using my unexposed film.
I ran a roll through, as it sat in my bag on the conveyor belt.
Just one pass, in one end and out the other.
Later that afternoon I processed both that roll and an unexposed roll from
the same batch Pro Pack; in the same tub, using exactly the same developer
and chemistry times.
The X-rayed roll tested 'darker' with a photographic densitometer than the
'normal' roll. By darker I mean it was 'fogged'. By a certain percentage
point that I've now forgotten (enough, as I remember, to equal about a half
stop exposure).
I didn't test all films, just my main film (the one I use all the time).
Wasn't sponsored by any company or publication, just had a need to know.
Mostly because I'd heard both sides of the argument; it does and it doesn't
affect film. I'd also read some reports that vacillated between the two
poles. Best way to know, for sure, was to test it personally.
Last year I was forced, almost at gunpoint, to run a small bag of film
through an X-ray machine in a fourth world country. That batch was smoked
(by at least two stops!). Lucky for me I had a bunch of good stock stashed
in a duffel going through baggage check (where they don't bother X-raying!)
I won't let my film (either exposed or unexposed) go through the X-ray
machines. I carry a purple Crown Royal bag with draw string (have as many
as four to choose from, different sizes), hang that on the side of my camera
bag- hand it over for hand checking as I go through the metal detector-
never a problem, they're more than happy to comply.
And anyway, I get to enjoy the Crown Royal in the process of acquiring
the bags. It's a good trade off.
From the Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999
From: Ted Grant [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Airport X-ray Test
Paul Schiemer wrote:
>I won't let my film (either exposed or unexposed) go through the X-ray >machines. I carry a purple Crown Royal bag with draw string (have as many >as four to choose from, different sizes), hang that on the side of my camera >bag- hand it over for hand checking as I go through the metal detector- >never a problem, they're more than happy to comply.
hello Paul,
Have you tried this going through Finland airports? Helsinki? They are
very "unfriendly" when you ask for hand check and make no bones about their
equipment operating in a "no damage to film mode!"
I almost missed my flight to New York because I wanted exposed film hand
checked. After a six week shoot in Russia I wasn't about to have it
totalled by anyone. They even had a special person come along, take me into
a very small room where I was questioned at length why I didn't want the
film x-rayed, what was on it and said their machines were the safest in the
world for film.
After some time explaining the importance of the film content and some very
close inspection of the loose rolls of film in zip lock freezer bags, by a
couple of other officers they let me go on board.
I was also told that I should be prepared the next time for the film to go
through their machines or not get on the plane!
So how would you handle this kind of situation when you say,
I won't
let my film (either exposed or unexposed) go through the X-ray machines.
Maybe do what I did, "cry a lot!" :)
ted
Ted Grant
This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.
http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999
From: Urban Fredriksson [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Airport X-ray test
Don't forget that the flight itself will subject the film
to radiation. I think it's about 2.5 mrem for a 10 h flight,
compared to about 0.2 mrem for a pass through a "film safe"
x-ray machine.
- --
Urban Fredriksson [email protected]
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999
From: "Paul Schiemer" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] X-ray Film Question
Ted Grant wrote:
> So how would you handle this kind of situation when you say,<<<<<>I won't > let my film (either exposed or unexposed) go through the X-ray machines.?
Hi Ted,
Did run into an insurmountable problem trying to get on board in Tibet.
There is no sense of humor in the Chinese soldiers' repertoire.
Their English was okay, but they demanded I put the bag through (kept
pointing to a little sign on the crude looking box "Film Safe", chambering
their weapons at the same time.)
Wasn't about to argue the merits of fogged base with ignorant and heavily
armed people, had only five rolls of TriX in the bag- so what the hey, I let
them run it. It got smoked by two stops (at least!)
Saw someone mention the Brits Xray everything; on my most recent trip I
did as normal and handed my cloth bag to the person by the metal detector
(along with my watch & my pocket change). She said, "What's this then?" I
said 'film, I'd like it hand checked please.' I stepped through, we moved
to the side, near a small table, she opened the bag, looked inside, and let
me go on.
In Turkey once I was taken into one of those side rooms (not the secondary
inspection ones) because I didn't want my film Xrayed. I talked with the
officer for about a minute, the bag on the table between us. He said I
wouldn't be getting on the plane if I didn't let the film go through the
machine. I said, "I cannot allow these exposed frames depicting your
beautiful country the slightest chance of being damaged. Therefore I must
make other arrangements for departure."
He studied me for a bit, smiled, wrote something in Turkish in my passport,
and escorted me directly to the gate.
The coupe de grace occurred at Washington National; this nasty woman
(with a
capital "B") was adamant about running the film through. I told her it
couldn't be safe for any speed film (because she asked if my film was
'fast'). I then reasoned 'I have a job to do, I'm a photographer; and film
is the key to my business. You wouldn't see me asking you to NOT use your
Xray or wand, right? You've got a job to do, so please hand check my film.'
Her boss stepped over, took the cloth bag from her, and checked each and
every roll (!)
This second woman said, as she inspected, "Well, I hope you have plenty of
time to make your plane." Which may be a key; I arrive early in
anticipation of delays such as this.
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: protection from xray
Date: 28 Jul 1999
The Sept, issue of OUTDOOR PHOTOGRAPHER will have a long article on this
topic, extensively researched, with tons of tips.
Should be out in a few weeks.
Peter Burian (I wrote it)
From The Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Back from Israel/airport x-ray
Regarding Mr. Wajsman's comments about his trip to Israel and x-ray
scanners at airports. I recently flew back to the US from Germany via
Frankfurt.
I usually put all my film in clear fuji plastic containers and use a 9 x 12
clear plastic bag which holds 30 rolls. In the US and at most other
checkpoints I just bring out these clear bags and ask for a hand
inspection. I have two 9 x 12 lead lined bags (made of the same stuff as
medical lead x-ray aprons) which the plastic bags fit into and I brought
them on the trip figuring I would run into situations where I might not be
able to get a "hand" film inspection.
For the trip through Frankfurt I was a bit intimidated with the security so
just used the lead bags and did not ask for a hand chack. I was able to
pass through the metal detector before the film bag had made it through the
scanner so I was able to watch and see how the lead bag image came up. At
first it did look like a blob of black but then the tech apparently
rescanned it and I suspect by using a bit of subtraction technology was
able to refine the image to essentially see through the bag.
I could clearly see the image change and one could easily tell the outline
of the plastic containers and the film cassettes. The lead bag was
rendered almost transparent. I really doubt that the tech can
significantly change the x-ray intensity as that would cause a variation in
radiation fall off and could poise a risk to the health of the security
personel (who are around it all the time) but given what can be done with
medical digital subtraction in obtaining medical images I wondered if that
technology had made it to security scanners. If so that would be nice as it
can provide a very high resolution image without a significant increase in
radiation. Any thoughts? BTW, film (all 400 asa) did fine.
Robert
Robert H. Ardinger, Jr., M.D.
From: "Paul Tauger" [email protected]
Newsgroups:
rec.travel.usa-canada,rec.travel.europe,rec.travel.air,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: X-Rays and Film Fogging -- The Last Word FAQ
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999
....
>The film companies of course will say this because they do not want to be blamed >for any fogging.
I guess this proves the old adage, "no good deed goes unpunished." I
started this thread because there was so much misinformation and
contradictory anecdotal evidence bandied around that I though perhaps I
could cut the bandwidth a little with some "straight from the horse's mouth"
information.
FYI, all three of the film companies participated in extensive testing of
airport x-ray machines (both carryon scanners and checked-baggage machines),
which resulted in verifiable, objective measures of the potential for
fogging. This isn't a case of film companies playing CYA, but of reporting
accurate scientifically-derived data so as to spare their customers the
annoyance of having photographs compromised. PLEASE, just read the original
post and click on the URLs that are listed in it. THEN, if you want, you
can tell everyone how suspect you think the film companies are.
>However, hand inspection certainly ain't gonna hurt. I >usually travel with 400 and have run them through as many as seven or eight >x-rays (including in some pretty dodgy airports) without effect. However, if I >was doing professional shooting my conduct would probably be different. > >A friend who is a professional photojourno has ALL film hand-checked. But then, >she makes a living with this 8-). I just hack...
From: "Andrew Taylor" [email protected]
Subject: Re: X-Rays and Film Fogging -- The Last Word FAQ
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999
I saved the post, so here it is;
On a regular basis, someone will post asking whether it is safe to pass
photographic film through the x-ray scanners at airports. Rather than
continually running the opinion gauntlet of pro and con anecdotal
responses, I've quoted some excerpts of reports by Fuji, Kodak and Agfa, who
manufacture almost all of the film travellers would be likely to use. Click
on the URLs of each manufacturer to read the complete reports.
The manufacturers recommendations can be summarized as follows:
1. NEVER pack film in checked luggage. High-intensity scanners in use at
some airports WILL fog film.
2. Cumulative exposure to carry-on x-ray scanners can fog film of any
speed. Faster film (ISO 400 or greater) is particularly susceptible.
3. To be safe, do the following:
a. Open the boxes, take film out of the canisters, and place in a
clear plastic bag.
b. Ask for a hand inspection.
or
a. Limit exposure to x-rays by having the film processed locally.
Here's what the manufacturers say:
From the Fuji website:
www.fujifilm.com
"Excessive exposure to X-rays or heat can ruin or degrade the quality of
your pictures. . . Most U.S.A. Airport Systems are fairly safe, but if your
pictures are very important or if you will be passing through many airports,
it is safer to have your film hand inspected. Airport systems in foreign
countries often have higher doses of X-rays than U.S.A airports. Be extra
cautious when traveling overseas. "
"NOTE: . . . Most X-ray and heat damaged film produce pictures, but they
lack brilliance. If you truly want the best pictures possible, avoid X-rays
and use care in storing your film."
From the Kodak website:
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis98/c
is98.shtml
"Until recently, x-ray inspection units used for airport security have been
relatively safe for films. However, as airports step up their security
measures, some have introduced a new type of inspection unit that has a
greater potential to fog film. To date, these units are not widespread, but
we expect them to become increasingly common. "
"This new equipment is intended for checked luggage, although it is possible
that boarding-gate security checkpoints will use it in the future. Because
your checked luggage may be subjected to these new units, we suggest that
you hand-carry your film and request visual inspection."
"Airport x-ray inspection equipment is the most common source encountered by
most photographers. Except for the new types of inspection units described
earlier, most inspection units in use today are relatively safe for films
with an ISO speed or Exposure Index (EI) of 400 or lower. However, multiple
exposures without reorientation of the film, cumulative doses of more than
five exposures, and malfunctioning inspection units can cause fog. Films
with an ISO speed or EI higher than 400 require added precautions because
they are much more sensitive to x-ray exposure. Even with 'film-safe' x-ray
units, you should limit exposure to one inspection. For films with a speed
of 1000 or higher, request visual inspection if allowed by local regulations
or law."
"At airport inspection stations, be sure to look for posted advisories on
potential effects on film. Requesting visual inspection of photographic
materials is still the best preventive measure, when it's allowed. For easy
inspection, carry the film in a clear plastic bag. "
From the AGFA website:
http://www.agfaphoto.com/news/x_ray.html
"All the reputable film manufacturers put together a test package of their
main types of film, from 100 ASA to 1000 ASA, and in the 35 mm, APS and 120
rollfilm versions. "
"The new luggage checker damages every film from 100 ASA onwards. They are
fogged, and images of objects, for instance keys in the beam in front of the
film, appear on the film. "
"If your trip takes you through airports with the new luggage checkers, you
should definitely put your films in your hand luggage. This is exposed to
the X-rays either not all or only moderately."
"Films in surrendered luggage will be fogged or spoilt by images of other
items you have packed."
"Examples of airports which are already using the new systems are: New York
(John F. Kennedy), Miami, London, Amsterdam."
--R
Andrew Taylor. MSN-MHM (UK Member Services)
Expedia Europe/Africa Senior Assistant http://expedia.msn.com
.....
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] airline travel
Larry,
You got this almost right.
No scanner used in USA airports has any control by the operator to increase
X-ray output. They can change the look of the screen, but that's all.
Scanners used for carry-on luggage are low power. They will not hurt most
film, even with three or four passes. Using X-ray proof bags just invites
them to demand hand search since the bag shows up as a black blob and could
contain anything!
As an experiment I recently put some Ilford Delta 3200 through airport
scanners in the USA four times and then processed it. There was no
visible fog level
difference between this film and samples which had not gone through X-ray.
Roger Hicks has done the same thing in Europe where there is no right to hand
inspection and had similar results. Third world countries are another matter
since they usually have old equipment and rarely have it calibrated.
It used to be that you were safe putting your film in checked baggage.
This is
no longer true. The new CAT type scanners in some airports are used ONLY
on checked baggage, and WILL ruin film, even if in a lead bag. These are
computer controlled and the computer makes the choice to hit anything not
easily identified with the high power scan. So lead bags just make it more
likely that the film will be zapped. These are in a few UK and USA airports
only at the present time.
When travelling domestically in the USA I no longer hassle with a hand
inspection of film. It just slows things down. When I travel overseas I
generally ship my film to myself at my hotel using Fedex and their
"DO NOT X-RAY" packlaging. I've had no problems.
Bob (who has been researching this topic for years)
...
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999
From: Andre Calciu [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] airline travel
this reminds me of a trip i took in 1991 to ukraine and moldova, two
formerly soviet republics. the luggage scanner had LEAD DOORS and a
warning to stay away from it while in use. the operator had to look down
into a scope to see the luggage contents. all film was zapped badly,
except the one roll that was in my camera. out of that roll, only the part
in the can was ok, the rest had been zapped, too.
andre
From: [email protected] (Asnapshot)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: X-Ray Machines at Airports Pose Fog Danger
Date: 10 Nov 1999
About 2 yrs ago I traveled from New Jersey to Hawaii and then to New
Mexico and back to New Jersey. This was before any reports came out on the
new x-ray machines. I had put all my exposed film in my check in luggage
not knowing that these new machines were in place. Needless to say the
majority of my photos were greatly damaged by this. Most of the film was
Kodak 400. Never again do I put film in the check in luggage. I'm known
for carrying as much 100 rolls in my carryon in film shield bags. Gail
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000
From: Alex & Etsuko Chan [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Flying tips and tripod
I have my fair share of travelling for I've been working in the airline
industry for the past 23 years. So, I do have some advice for our fellow
travelling photographers.
There is not clear-cut rules or regulations concerning carryon baggage. It
varies depending on the airlines (even same airline in different country),
on the different airport and different country. Some security personnel
know very little about camera and film ( nor do they care). The security
at Hong Kong told me that their x-ray will not harm my ISO 1600 film (
wrong). I had all my films in a clear plastic zip-lock bag and I walked
through the metal scanner with them ( to their protest ) and then
subjected myself to the metal scanner wand for a complete search ( but my
film was safe ). The most important thing to remember is that the ultimate
word comes from the airline representative ( that's me ). Approach the
airline counter with a friendly altitude, be reasonable ( trying to take a
steamer trunk with your camera gear as carryon baggage is just not going
to do ). Most of the time, they will bend the 'rules' a little if you are
polite. I often lessen my carryon load by putting sturdier items ( tripod
) inside my checked bag. Be careful with film, as most checked baggage are
x-ray for inspection. This is even more so in areas outside of North
America, their dosage tended to be higher. Also watch for the cumulative
effect of the x-ray. Once or twice may be OK, but if you fly 10 flights on
a trip.........
Lead line bag in checked bag would result with the
operator turning up the intensity of the x-ray for a better look,
therefore, don't use them. The best way, is to use a clear plastic zip
lock and have it ready in your hand before you get to the security check
point. The flight attendant could also refuse your ' reasonable size
camera bag. The trick is, board first !!!!! He/she is unlikely to turn
your bag away if there is available storage space. Use whatever means you
have to get on the aircraft first. Your frequent traveller's card, tell
them you are not felling well, or hurt your foot or something along that
line so you can use the preboard. Find a space on the overhead compartment
and let the other worrying about their oversize bag(s).
Enough said, I welcome any comment. I am sure there are other airline
people out there that will share their experiences.
I have been looking for some time now, for a light weight travel tripod (
maybe that is a contraction in terms ). Anyway, welcome any suggestions.
Please email me at [email protected] . Two of my favourite, one is a
little metal tripod that I pick up in Japan, fold down to about 8 inches
and weight very little. I use a Velbon Ph 243 head on top. The only
problem is one of the metal leg tends to slip. The second one is a
Vivitar, table pod with a build clamp.
Happy flying,
Alex Chan
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999
From: Debb [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: camera bag
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off-topic new AGFA emulsion
My main concern is that travel with film will become even more of
a hassle with a more sensitive film. It is already bad with ISO 3200,
so imagine what it will be like with ISO 32000 !!! Any X-ray machine
will probably hopelessly fog this new stuff.
Bob
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999
From: "Paul Tauger" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.travel.usa-canada
Subject: Re: X-Rays and Film Fogging -- The Last Word FAQ
> "Paul Tauger" [email protected] wrote: >> On a regular basis, someone will post asking whether it is safe to >pass >> photographic film through the x-ray scanners at airports. Rather than >> continually running the opinion gauntlet of pro and con anecdotal >> responses, I've quoted some excerpts of reports by Fuji, Kodak and >Agfa, who >> manufacture almost all of the film travellers would be likely to >use. Click >> on the URLs of each manufacturer to read the complete reports. >> The manufacturers recommendations can be summarized as follows: >> >> 1. NEVER pack film in checked luggage. High-intensity scanners in >use at >> some airports WILL fog film. >> >> 2. Cumulative exposure to carry-on x-ray scanners can fog film of any >> speed. Faster film (ISO 400 or greater) is particularly susceptible. >> >> 3. To be safe, do the following: >> >> a. Open the boxes, take film out of the canisters, and place in a >> clear plastic bag. >> b. Ask for a hand inspection. >> >> or >> >> a. Limit exposure to x-rays by having the film processed locally. >> >[SNIP of a very informative piece of information] > >Dumb question - but, the effects are equally likely on exposed as well >as unexposed film? Or is it "safe" to x-ray unexposed?
According to, I think Kodak, exposed (but undeveloped) film was slightly
less susceptible to x-ray fogging and degradation. Once film has been
developed, of course, it is safe to x-ray it.
>Second dumb question - if there is a risk, how can the airport security >groups put up signs saying it is safe to have film x-rayed? I've seen >these signs at various airports around the world.
The signs are, technically, correct, in that a single pass through the
x-ray machine will have little effect. However, x-ray exposure is
cumulative -- the more times through the x-ray conveyor, the more likely
that fogging or other degradation will happen. When I travel, instead of
stocking up on film before I go, I try to buy film at each destination, to
minimize the total number of times any one roll will be exposed to x-rays.
I'm also curious about how old those signs might be -- slower films (100
and 200) are much less x-ray sensitive than their faster counterparts.
In the last couple of years 800 speed color emulsions have become the
standard (and Fuji even has a 1600-speed color film) and have also
improved in grain, contrast and sharpness, so that the effects of x-ray
exposure can become more noticeable.
Incidently, x-ray exposure shows itself not only as fogging (which will
happen in the most extreme case), but in a lowering of the film's inherent
contrast, i.e. pictures will look slightly washed out, with less saturated
color (also, I think, from Kodak's website). This may not be much of an
issue for casual photographers who are interested in taking snapshots of
their vacation which are 1-hour machine-processed at the local drug store,
as misadjustment, incorrect temperatures and chemcial contamination which
is common in many 1-hour photofinishers will result in more degraded
prints than the x-ray exposure. However, for amateurs that like to print
their own photographs, professional photographers, and even those casual
snapshooters who are lucky enough to have access to a good 1-hour lab (and
there are some out their -- I found an extraordinary one in Milan) the
results of x-ray degradation should be perceptible.
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999
From: Liz Leyden [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: x-rays vs. film??
> Jamie-Andrea Yanak wrote: > > > There is some good information direct from Kodak regarding the newest > > explosive detection x-ray machine that is showing up at many airports. > > > > It DOES damage film, ALL film.
Sorry I have just subscibed to this ng, so have come late to this thread.
In the UK, hand-searches are not usual, in fact they can be refused due to
pressure of passengers from behind.
I wonder what people are going to do when carrying a large amount of film,
together with their camera gear?
I am going on safari for 3 weeks later in the year. in the past, I have
carried all my camera gear and about half of my film (as much as will fit
into a camera bag of the maximum permissible dimensions) as hand baggage.
The last time I weighed this, it was nearly 13kg. The rest of my film I
have carried in my hold baggage.
I understand that the airlines, or at least BA with whom I will be
travelling, are tightening up on hand luggage weights and are insisting on
6kg. I obviously don't want to arrive in Africa and find my camera in
Australia. I also don't want to risk my film to the hold scanners.
Two years ago, a security officer seemed to think it was extremely
suspicious that I had about 70 rolls of film in my camera bag. My
explanation that I was going on safari in Kenya for three weeks did not
seem to be any sort of reasonable explanation, so I thought I'd better not
mention that I had about the same again in my hold baggage. She started
to go through every canister one at a time until a rumpus from the
lengthening queue behind me persuaded her that about twelve would be
enough checking.
Could others advise me what they do or intend to do?
BTW I am not a professional, just a very keen amateur.
Liz
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Getting through security
[email protected] wrote:
> B. Adamson wrote: > > ... Please note that the new X_rays are being used for CHECKED baggage. > All the articles specifically state this... U.S. carry-on X-ray > should not have any effect with a few passes on film up to ISO 800, > although what is the cutoff number of passes is up for debate.
Unfortunately, this might not be completely accurate. Kodak's web
site is saying it might also be used for carry-on baggage in
isolated locations now, and more often in the future. Additionally,
Invision's web site (the makers of the hated machines) have a new
product on their web site using this tomographic technology for
carry-on bags. Don't count on carry-on's being safe. Now, I'll say
right out I tend to be somewhat paranoid, but if you can hand-check,
I think it's a good idea.
Hey, I want to be proven wrong on this one, but so far I haven't
been able to get any kind of response from the FAA or my airline
on this topic, so maybe playing it safe is the right way to go.
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Getting through security
> The systems for CARRY ON luggage did not cause damage until 16 passes withISO > 100 film in the US and British tests.
Was this the Invision QScan QR 160, or some more convential xray machine?
It looks to me on invision's website that the technology is the same.
Kodak said the following in a Dec 17,1998 memo:
"While the CTX-5000SP is not typically used today to inspect carry-on
luggage, the FAA has indicated that this technology will be
implemented in the future, where practicable. Several reports of it
being used for carry-on inspection have already surfaced."
see http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/xray.shtml
The 5000sp was Invision's previous checked luggage version. Their new
model is the CTX 5500 DS. The differences seem to be speed and operator
interface rather technology or danger to film.
See http://www.invision-tech.com/products/
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999
From: "Paul Tauger" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.travel.usa-canada
Subject: X-Rays and Film Fogging -- The Last Word FAQ
On a regular basis, someone will post asking whether it is safe to pass
photographic film through the x-ray scanners at airports. Rather than
continually running the opinion gauntlet of pro and con anecdotal
responses, I've quoted some excerpts of reports by Fuji, Kodak and Agfa,
who
manufacture almost all of the film travellers would be likely to
use. Click
on the URLs of each manufacturer to read the complete reports.
The manufacturers recommendations can be summarized as follows:
1. NEVER pack film in checked luggage. High-intensity scanners in use at
some airports WILL fog film.
2. Cumulative exposure to carry-on x-ray scanners can fog film of any
speed. Faster film (ISO 400 or greater) is particularly susceptible.
3. To be safe, do the following:
a. Open the boxes, take film out of the canisters, and place in a
clear plastic bag.
b. Ask for a hand inspection.
or
a. Limit exposure to x-rays by having the film processed locally.
Here's what the manufacturers say:
From the Fuji website:
www.fujifilm.com
"Excessive exposure to X-rays or heat can ruin or degrade the quality of
your pictures. . . Most U.S.A. Airport Systems are fairly safe, but if
your pictures are very important or if you will be passing through many
airports, it is safer to have your film hand inspected. Airport systems in
foreign countries often have higher doses of X-rays than U.S.A airports.
Be extra cautious when traveling overseas. " "NOTE: . . . Most X-ray and
heat damaged film produce pictures, but they lack brilliance. If you truly
want the best pictures possible, avoid X-rays and use care in storing your
film."
From the Kodak website:
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis98/c
is98.shtml
"Until recently, x-ray inspection units used for airport security have
been relatively safe for films. However, as airports step up their
security measures, some have introduced a new type of inspection unit that
has a greater potential to fog film. To date, these units are not
widespread, but we expect them to become increasingly common. "
"This new equipment is intended for checked luggage, although it is
possible that boarding-gate security checkpoints will use it in the
future. Because your checked luggage may be subjected to these new units,
we suggest that you hand-carry your film and request visual inspection."
"Airport x-ray inspection equipment is the most common source encountered
by most photographers. Except for the new types of inspection units
described earlier, most inspection units in use today are relatively safe
for films with an ISO speed or Exposure Index (EI) of 400 or lower.
However, multiple exposures without reorientation of the film, cumulative
doses of more than five exposures, and malfunctioning inspection units can
cause fog. Films with an ISO speed or EI higher than 400 require added
precautions because they are much more sensitive to x-ray exposure. Even
with 'film-safe' x-ray units, you should limit exposure to one inspection.
For films with a speed of 1000 or higher, request visual inspection if
allowed by local regulations or law."
"At airport inspection stations, be sure to look for posted advisories on
potential effects on film. Requesting visual inspection of photographic
materials is still the best preventive measure, when it's allowed. For
easy inspection, carry the film in a clear plastic bag. "
From the AGFA website:
http://www.agfaphoto.com/news/x_ray.html
"All the reputable film manufacturers put together a test package of their
main types of film, from 100 ASA to 1000 ASA, and in the 35 mm, APS and
120 rollfilm versions. "
"The new luggage checker damages every film from 100 ASA onwards. They are
fogged, and images of objects, for instance keys in the beam in front of
the film, appear on the film. "
"If your trip takes you through airports with the new luggage checkers,
you should definitely put your films in your hand luggage. This is exposed
to the X-rays either not all or only moderately."
"Films in surrendered luggage will be fogged or spoilt by images of other
items you have packed."
"Examples of airports which are already using the new systems are: New
York (John F. Kennedy), Miami, London, Amsterdam."
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] X-Ray, airport controls and high-altitude radiation
>From: [email protected]
>Subject: [NIKON] X-Ray, airport controls and high-altitude radiation
>
>Hi Nikoneers,
>
>
>A security guard in Frankfurt - during he checking my film boxes with
>an portable analyzer (mass spectrometer?) to look for any traces of
>plastic explosives in the cans - told me, that I should worry more
>about the radiation absorbed by the films during the flight than the
>amount of dose they receive during the inspection.
>
>Well - any comments towards this? How do you protect your films
>during the flight?
>Happy shooting
>
>Dirk
I think I'm reasonably qualified to comment on this one. At the risk
of opening myself to some serious abuse, I will admit that my work
often places me in some fairly high radiation environments. We are
subject to a great deal of training on the effects and sources of
radiation before we are ever allowed to receive any radiation
exposure, and this is what I have been told many, many times:
A "typical" person living near sea level in North America recieves
300-400 millirems of radiation exposure per year from background
sources. This can vary quite a bit more depending on the altitude you
live at, the type of soil in your area, if your house is brick...
During a flight from coast to coast of the USA, a passenger will
recieve an exposure of THREE to FOUR millirem. Yes, that is roughly
one-one-hundredth the dose a typical North American picks up in a
year. Or, the same radiation dose a roll of film would get in three
days of sitting around at sea level.
I hardly think that's cause for concern.
Incidentally, the NRC limits workers in the USA to an occupational
exposure of 5000 millirem per year. I think I did hear somewhere that
the crews of the Concorde wear radiation dosimetry to monitor their
exposure, because of the altitude they fly at....but I can't confirm
that.
As for my condition, Alexander, John Albino, and a handful of other
Nikonians have met me, and I hope they will attest to the fact that I
don't have three eyes or an arm sticking out of my chest. I won't ask
that they go as far as to say I'm normal. ;-)
Regards
Victor Newman
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Antwort: [NIKON] X-Ray, airport controls and high-altitude
radiation
Hi Nikoneers,
after all these comments it seems to be sure that nobody of us will suffer
from immediate genetic or physical mutation during "normal" flights
(although I am not quite sure about the effect of hyperspace flights -
people behave different afterwards although they still look quite normal
to me...).
Nevertheless my original question concerned the films!
Victor put it into perspective with two numbers:
300 - 400 millirem normal dose a year from background radiation (it will
not matter whether film or person I guess...)
3 - 4 millirem addition by a short coast to coast trip in the US by plane
So - all we need to know now would be the dose delivered by an x-ray
scanner and you may calculate the storage time left for the film.... (once
you know the total dose a film could tolerate - this of course will depend
on its sensitivity to radiation which should be correlated to its speed).
As we know, we can store a film for a year .... :-) i.e. 350 millirem
without any effects. How many x-ray scans does this correspond to????
May be we can solve this topic... Does anybody know the dose delivered by
an airport scanner?
Happy shooting, Dirk
From Medium FOrmat Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000
From: Jeff Schraeder [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [medium-format] Travel Question
Mitch:
http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/searchKodak.cgi?searchText=airport+x-ray&x=19&y=4
This url has a lot of X-ray information for traveling
photogs
Jeff
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000
From: Colin J Donoghue [email protected]
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Has anyone here really had film damaged by airport X-rays?
JW wrote:
> In my trips to Europe and the far east I haven't had a problem. In India, > everything is XRayed and I spent 2 months there hopping from one end of the > country to the other - film availability (especially 120/220) and personal > hygiene is a bigger issue! > > Nothing wrong with getting a lead lined pouch for the 3200, however.
YES there IS!!
Lead bags are BAD NEWS for films. Consider that, for
example, each side of the bag needs 5 times the x-ray intensity to
see through it, then the intensity has to be turned up 25 times to see
through both sides of the bag. BUT, your film is sitting
inside the bag with only one side protecting it, so it's getting FIVE
TIMES
MORE radiation than it would if it was unprotected at the lower power.
The mistake made by the lead bag proponents is they don't allow for
variable power x-ray machines.
Colin.
From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: "Sal DiMarco,Jr." [email protected]
Subject: Interesting X-Ray report
LUGgers; LEGgers & LRFer,
This interesting little item about airport X-Rays showed up on the
Professional Photographer Newsletter of British Journal of Photography
E-mail list.
I thought some of you would find in interesting.
Happy Snaps,
Sal
---
Airport X-ray effects on film
After 18 months of exhaustive efforts, the British Photographers' Liaison
Committee (BPLC) issued its latest assessment of the effect on
photographic films of X-ray baggage screening equipment installed at
British Airports Authority (BAA) airports.
Tests reveal that most routine films that are exposed by average users can
safely be X-rayed by current BAA hand baggage inspection equipment.
Conversely, the report finds that all film types can be severely degraded
by hold-baggage inspection systems, and that the damage caused will be
obvious even to the least discerning users. BPLC therefore recommends that
unprocessed film, whether exposed or not, should never be stored in
hold-baggage.
The BPLC adds that its data showed that the situation is more complex in
detail, and that some films may exhibit a very slight, but detectable,
change after realistic levels of hand-baggage X-ray inspection. In view of
this, BPLC and BAA have agreed that professional photographers traveling
abroad on assignment will be granted hand-searches of their unprocessed
film.
(Read more in this week's printed issue of BJP) News review - February 2000 --- Please forward PPN to a friend and ask them to subscribe: http://www.bjphoto.co.uk/sign-in.shtml
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001
From: Alison Napier [email protected]
Subject: Airports, X-Rays and film
> Anyway, they are going to be taking hundreds of record pictures to bring > back and share with us here. I have been reading that the airport X-rays are > fierce now towards film in the baggage and so have recommended that they > purchase their film there and have it processed by the local lab before they > leave.
I recently travelled wearing a cheap cotton vest with huge pockets in
which I carried dozens of rolls of 120 film in dark bags. In this way I
was able to walk straight through the security each time with no worries
about Xray machines. I couldn't have done it with 35mm film of course,
because of the metal containers which would have set the detectors off.
> Apropos the X ray question - has anyone on the list had any experience > with the new machines and their film?
Yep... accidentally left a 35mm roll of film in my suitcase which was
X rayed by a CTX5000... the beginning of the film (i.e. the layer closest
to the outside) was completely and thoroughly fogged, but the rest of the
film was perfect. I lost only the first frame. I've heard it causes loss
of contrast, but I could really find no damage visible through a high
quality 8X loupe anyway. It was only 'back-up' film, but I won't do it
again, at least not on purpose.
Alison Napier
[email protected]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001
From: Roland Smith [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Film inspection at USA domestic airports
At website www.faa.gov/art/AFS/FARS/far-108.txt, the rules for x-ray of
film are indicated. Section 108.17 supports the removal of film from the
x-ray for hand inspection.
Roland Smith
[Ed. note: Oh NOOOOooooo!!!!]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] A favor if you please
> From: "Cousineau , Bernard" [email protected] > Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 > Subject: RE: [CONTAX] A favor if you please > > Bob, > > If you substitute "www" for "devs1", the link will work: > http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/xray4.shtml > > devs1 must be the name of their development server. > > Bernard
Thanks for pointing this out. I passed this back to Kodak.
If you look at the page you will see the disturbing news that film killing
X-ray machines will be used on carry-on baggage in the near future.
They're making it harder and harder on us photographers to travel with
film.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] film x-ray, was Re: A favor if you please
For the latest and most accurate information on x-rays and film
see this page on the Kodak web site:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/xray4.shtml
Now that they are planning to begin using the film destroying x-ray
machines on carry-on baggage, it is going to be a serious problem for
traveling photographers. In the USA we have the legally guaranteed right
to have hand inspection, but in most of the rest of the world there is no
such right and if you meet up with a hostile security person he/she can
simply ruin your film and you have no recourse. We may all be forced to
switch to digital for this reason!!
Bob
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001
From: "Daniel K. Lee" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Airport X-rays vs. Post Office
YEs, it was me...CDG securite' is unrelenting...they wouldn't even listen
to me regarding infrared film....it was all ruined...rude and
insensitive....Ii also had some things send from Amsterdam to U.S....it
was also fogged up.....
R Barr at [email protected] wrote:
> I believe it was here that I read that CDG Airport in Paris refused to hand > check film. Is this true? I recently mailed to the US from Belgium a box of > exposed film and was wondering if this is a wiser option. The box made it > home safely, I am told. Any info on Charles De Gaulle Airport X-ray > experiences would be appreciated. Or any postal info, for that matter. > > Thank you, > > R Barr
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001
From: "Daniel K. Lee" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Airport X-rays vs. Post Office
THe only thing they responded to not putting into the xray at CDG was the
3200 film....but they still hand inspected it and op[ened all---ALL 150
cannisters...
fun
...
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: X-ray effect on cameras? F3 in particular
Hi there!
To get back to the original question; I never heard of x-ray harmful to
cameras.
PS. I have found the "Film and x-ray" issue well covered @
http://www.poelking.de/englisch/werkstb/visuelle.htm and
http://www.bythom.com/galfilm.htm
Best regards
--
Lars Holst Hansen - [email protected]
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Fast film and Airport X-rays
> > >Can anyone comment on the effectiveness of the lead foil bags in > > >providing shielding... > foil wrapping would act as a "Faraday cage" to the X-rays, thereby > protecting the contents. It would (I think) at least attenuate the > X-rays by several dB, rendering them fairly harmless.
My comments in short:
I've read somewhere that wrapping film inside any kind of protective
film could, on the contrary, induce people involved in security
inspection of checked luggage to actually increase the radiation dose
to see what is inside an object which appears with an absolute
contrast and thus immediately attracts the eye as being suspect. But
basically a lead box does efficiently protect your film... with a few
caveats as explained below. The only methods to be sure is to actually
go through security checks with you film box and then process it to
check for possible fog.
-----------------
Now some details details for those interested in a modest tutorial on
X-ray abosorption: ;-);-);-)
Now the question of how many dB of attenuation for X rays is provided
by a certain thickness of material is fairly easy to compute. For each
X ray energy (or wavelength) each material attenuates by a certain
amount of dB per mm (exactly like an optical density). For metals,
roughly speaking the heavier it is, the more it absorbs in dB/mm ;
stack two foils, you double the number of dB exactly like stacking
optical densities. Commonly, lead is the most convenient metal (at
least before the general ban of lead for environmental reasons), being
both a good X-ray absorbent as well as being able to be fabricated in
foils suitable for wrapping. On the other hand, alumin(i)um being a
light metal absorbs virtually nothing if compared to lead. A
photographic case made of alumin(i)um, plastic and foam is as
transparent for "medical" X rays (i.e. roughly 20-50 keV energy range)
as glass is for visible light. Those who are familiar with Prochnow's
reports have seen X-ray images of Rolleiflexes taken by an enthusiatic
rolleiphile and radiologist doctor ; glass elements may appear more
opaque than alumin(i)um parts of the camera body. For all materials,
the dB/mm of absorbing power are tabulated in Physics handbooks
(people interested can ask me off list since I have such handbooks
handy). However the dependence versus the X ray energy is dramatic so
if you do not know which energy is used in a given inspection
equipment, you can't answer the question of dB/mm. And you do not know
either the minimum X-ray dose that fogs a given film. It is roughly
related with the amount of silver in the emulsion. But the shape of
the grains is probably important. I have no idea on how flat tabular
grains compare to conventional silver grains in terms of X-ray
sensitivity. A possible conjecture is that being thinner they would be
more transparent to X rays than conventional 'thick' grains, and thus
less sensitive.
Now the question of the total dose absorbed by films hidden behind a
protective foil is complex. In fact what you want as a security
employee is to get as quickly as possible a discriminating contrast
between metals (= guns) and harmless material ; unfortunately a trick
that has actually been reported in the press is to fabricate plastic
guns and bombs, transparent to X rays.
If you increase the X-ray exposure dose (seconds times X-ray flux), in
theory you may eventually get some details of what is behind an
absorbing object, but this of course is detrimental to the number of
pieces of luggage you can examine per hour. However I am sure that any
suspect piece of luggage is examined at various doses if not various
X-ray wavelengths.
But the contrast in the inspected image is not directly correlated to
the minimum dose required to get a visible image. The minimum dose is
imposed by the quality of the X-ray detector. Major improvements in
X-ray detectors and contrast enhancing methods in digital imaging had
in the past 10 years lowered the minimum X-ray dose required to
achieve a good image. So I was convinced that I could now leave film
safely in hand- or checked-luggage except in countries using older
X-ray technology (but yes as a KM-25 addict I hardly ever use films
over ISO 100/21...). Apparently this is no longer true. Probably to
fight all tricks found to hide prohibited objects in luggage, more
sophisticated X ray methods have been introduced and of course are not
documented to the public for security reasons.
Sorry for the long post but in the old times as a PhD student I was
involved in X-ray imaging. I hope this is more informative than boring
to the group ;-)
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 From: Don Roberts [email protected]> Subject: Re: Airport film is Xrayed :-( To: [email protected] I think repeated tests have shown that the carry on luggage x-rays do not harm film even after repeated passes. I have taken 400 ISO film to Mexico and it has been x-rayed three times on the way down, unexposed, and three times on the way back, exposed, and I cannot see any fogging or contrast change or speed loss etc. Your checked luggage is subjected to a different system and the airlines and Kodak and many other sources tell you that the checked luggage machine will probably leave noticeable marks on all film, fast or slow, exposed or unexposed. It still seems to be the best procedure to carry on film and don't worry about x-rays. Now that the airlines are starting to restrict the number of carry on items though, the problem will get worse. If you are taking a large amount of film you may want to arrange to ship it or mail it ahead and on the return. UPS has announce once that all packages will be opened and inspected; whether they will repack carefully is a matter of conjecture. For my part, if UPS is indeed doing that they will no longer have my business. I will go USPS or FedEx. "George S. Pearl" wrote: > Hi Harold, > Thanks! By the way, this past weekend I flew on Airtran from Florida to > Atlanta and they refused to even hand inspect the film or cameras loaded > with film. They could care less if it was professional equipment / film, and > you had a letter from George Bush..... Everything now must go into the radar > range. All of our film went into the black hole much to my resentment. Since > we have returned to Atlanta, we have processed the film and all images were > OK even though the film was ISO 400! I was very relieved when I saw the > prints. This film was only X-rayed one time, but if you went from airport to > airport in and out several times the exposure would add up. AFTER X-raying > the film, the helpful security people told me that I should have put the > film and cameras into my checked baggage if I didn't want it x-rayed. > Hummm...I thought they x-rayed that too?>! I will need to check further on > this problem. Does anyone know what's the true story now? > My best, > George S. Pearl, QPP, FEPIC, BCEP, BCQDE > web sites: > "http://www.alpslabs.com" > "http://wwwatlantapanorama.com" > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harold Wong" [email protected]> > To: "George Pearl" [email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 > Subject: Thanks. > > > I just wanted to thank you for speaking up for me a few weeks back when I > > posed the question of heightened airport security. Thanks. > > > > Harold > > > > -- Don Roberts * Bittersweet Productions * Iowa City, IA
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 From: James Young [email protected]> Subject: Re: Airport xrays To: [email protected] >Here's the latest (depressing) advice from Kodak: > >http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/xray4.shtml > >-- >Robert D Feinman, Ph. D. >Database Doctor >Photographer: http://robertdfeinman.com Robert's web link is a good one. The high energy xray machines for checked baggage will damage or completely ruin your film. Although they haven't been put in everywhere, it's getting more and more likely your bags will go through one. Don't transport film in checked baggage. I've heard of film crews that lost months of work when the machines were first installed. Pay attention to the kodak warning. Jamie
TO: Rollei Mailing List Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 Subject: [Rollei] Film safety warning From: Bob Shell [email protected] I just wanted to alert everyone that as of today some post offices will be "sanitizing" mail by irradiation from radioactive cobalt. Yes, this will kill any anthrax or any other bacteria on or in the mail, but it will also kill any unprocessed film in the mail. I know that some of you have mentioned mailing film like Agfa Scala to out of town labs for processing, so be warned that you can no longer do this through regular mail. So far there have been no similar announcements from Fedex or other courier services. Bob Shell
From: [email protected] (BHilton665) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 25 Oct 2001 Subject: Re: Going by airplane with film? >> Be carefull. Many carriers have weight restrictions (for example: >> Brithish Airways 6 kg for hand luggage, only one item allowed) >From: "Max Perl" [email protected] >I am travellig with BA from Copenhagen to London and from London to >Singapore. >I have estimated the weight to be about 8 kg. I hope to get along with it. >The backpack itself is 2,5 kg......a Nikon F4s + 180mm + 500 CM + A12 + CFI >50/4 and a couple of other lense for the F4 is not easy to get under 6 - 2.5 = >3,5 kg. A couple of tricks to bypass these rather severe weight requirements (one reason I'd never fly BA or Air New Zealand again :): 1) Wear the 35 mm camera and case around your neck with a short lens (if you have one); they shouldn't count that against your carryon allowance (or at least they haven't in the past). 2) Wear your photo vest and stuff your mid-size lenses in the pockets. Again, they shouldn't count that wear-on weight against your carry-on weight. I've carried a 400 f/5.6 in one front vest pocket, a 70-200 f/2.8 in another and a body with 100 macro around my neck while flying in the USA when I needed all the space in my bag for a 500 f/4 and other gear. I hear the same trick works overseas. 3) Also, you mentioned carrying 120 film ... if you take off the foil wrappers then you can carry it on your person while walking thru the metal detector since the spools are plastic. Of course you lose moisture protection and the Aussie said Darwin was humid ... I've been to Oz a couple of times, flying into Sydney and connecting to Cairns, and they always did a hand-check of my film for me but this was pre Sept 11. Fantastic place. Bill
From: [email protected] (Mikko Nahkola) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Going by airplane with film? Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 Eugene A. Pallat [email protected] wrote: >BHilton665 wrote: >> 3) Also, you mentioned carrying 120 film... if you take off the foil wrappers >> then you can carry it on your person while walking thru the metal detector >> since the spools are plastic. Of course you lose moisture protection and the >> Aussie said Darwin was humid ... >Those can be in plastic ZipLock bags to keep out moisture. Also a small >packet of silica gel would help. Yes, those will help. Another trick: grap 2 of those 35mm film plastic, what do you call these things, cans, lose the lids, and push one inside the other, and you get a 120-can. Not all of these will work, but I've found that the white Fuji can just fits inside the black Agfa. Or you could heat the cans in hot water. Found this in a Finnish book on useful tips for photographers. Tried myself and it works. -- Mikko Nahkola [email protected]
TO: Camera Fix Mailing List: From: Bob Shell [email protected] Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 Subject: [camera-fix] CFA warning LAS VEGAS--Jan. 7, 2002--The CompactFlash Association (CFA) announced today that semiconductors used in electronic systems, including CompactFlash(TM) and CF I/O cards, would be irreparably damaged if subjected to the irradiation process that was being used by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to sanitize the mail. Such damage will not only cause loss of data stored on the cards, but the cards will no longer be operable. To protect public health and ensure confidence in the US Mail system, the USPS in October began using electron beam irradiation systems to sanitize certain mail streams against anthrax and other possible biological agents. Testing has confirmed that these systems, which operate in the range of 55 kGy, damage not only semiconductors, but other goods as well, including pharmaceuticals, contact lenses, biological samples, and photographic film. The following statement appears on the USPS website: "The Postal Service is working with the mailing industry to develop procedures to ensure that sanitization of the mail will not damage sensitive items in the mail. Sanitization technology is currently being tested on a wide range of film products, digital and magnetic storage devices, laboratory samples, food and plant products, and "smart" credit cards with embedded chips to ensure that all business mail can be safely processed through the postal system." While it is possible that the USPS is no longer passing targeted mail streams though these e-beam systems, the CFA is alerting all users of CompactFlash cards of the inherent risk of damage to CompactFlash cards should they pass through an e-beam irradiation system. Other delivery services have no plans to use irradiation systems, but users should remain alert for any changes in the future. The CFA will continue to work with USPS and others to develop shipping procedures that will ensure the safety of CompactFlash and other semiconductors through the mail. While e-beam irradiation systems for the mail will damage CompactFlash cards, the x-ray scanners at airports will not. As has always been the case, passing CompactFlash cards through the carry-on or check-in baggage x-ray systems used at airports has no affect on CompactFlash cards. A CFA representative will be available to discuss these issues in CFA booth 16637 at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES 2002) in Las Vegas, Jan. 8-11, 2002. copyright =A92000 Privacy Policy
From: [email protected] (Wilt W) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 27 Oct 2001 Subject: Re: Airport X-Rays and Photographic Film Here's some info forwarded to me by an PPA member, if anyone is considering mailing their film home... Here is a cut and paste of an email I just received from the PPA: --- New Postal Service Equipment May Destroy Film Responding to the threat of additional anthrax attacks, the United States Postal Service has announced that it is installing irradiation equipment to sterilize mail. This security measure, which is reasonable in light of the current situation, has prompted questions from several members regarding the possibility of film being damaged or destroyed in the mail. The Postal Service has cited security concerns and is refusing to give specific details about the equipment. However, the Postal Service has said that the irradiation equipment will be similar to that used for food sterilization. Such food sterilization equipment either uses gamma rays or electrons, generated by the radioactive isotope Cobalt-60 and electricity respectively, to destroy bacteria. According to a NASA study obtained by PPA, these types of so-called "soft radiation," are also very efficient in transferring energy to photographic film. (NASA Contractor Report 188427, Sept. 1995) While the potential for film damage and fogging will likely depend on the settings and types of equipment used, Professional Photographers of America is urging caution on the part of all members who use the United States Postal Service to ship film. In the meantime, PPA is working diligently to obtain additional information regarding the situation. When additional information becomes available, PPA will notify its members immediately.
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 To: [email protected] From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected] Subject: [HUG] Re: DANGER mailing film!! you wrote: > > -Federal Express and United Parcel Service have not yet responded to PPA > > inquiries regarding the use of irradiation equipment. When that information > > is provided, PPA will notify its members. FedEx has informed us they do not own x-ray equipment nor do they intend, for the present, to consider irradiating parcels. -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 To: [email protected] From: David Seifert [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Safety Warning Now, here's a twist! Seems the USPS has contracted with Titan Corp. to provide a bunch of their Electron Beam Accelerator systems to sanitize the mails. No radioactive cobalt but X-radiation of unbelievable strength. Titan says this system will damage electronics passed through their box. Still bad for film but at least a lot of other shippers are in the same boat as photographers with this system. Best Regards, David Seifert [email protected] you wrote: >I just wanted to alert everyone that as of today some US post offices >will be "sanitizing" mail by irradiation from radioactive cobalt. >{snip} >Bob Shell
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Safety Warning From: Bob Shell [email protected] To: [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Safety Warning > > Isn't this all a bit of an over-reaction? The number of people who've actually > died is statistically irrelevant, to quote someone on the list. I don't > remember such measures in place when the IRA were sending letter bombs. Any > x-raying etc took place at the recipient's place (as it still does to this > day). The knock-on effect to the US economy could be horrendous if it was not > possible to ship electronics etc. I have to agree that it is an over-reaction. There are ways to decontaminate mail without destroying the contents. Those electron beam machines are probably made in some powerful Senator's back yard. That's the only reason the FAA went with film destroying x-ray units for checked baggage when there were film-safe ones that tested just as efficient. Politics as usual, I'm afraid. Bob
From: [email protected] Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 Subject: [HUG] Re: DANGER mailing film!! To: [email protected] Henry Posner/B&H photo wrote: "As far as I know the irradiation is bad for unexposed film and for exposed but undeveloped film. I have not heard or read that developed and fixed film would be effected. If you have other verifiable information, I'd appreciate the source." Here you go Henry, a link to a NY Times article with information about deployment of these http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/25/business/25MAIL.html There is a film effect mentioned in the eighth paragraph of that article: "Sterilization machinery would be harmless to everyday letters but in some cases could corrupt computer floppy disks and other electronic materials or discolor photographs. Depending on what machinery is used and how it is calibrated, some of these kinds of goods might have to be barred from normal mail service." I would also like to quote from a post from rec.photo.equipment.35mm (Dr. Heinz Anderle) which I thought was credible and describes the Titan Corporation electron beam process which US Postal has now contracted with for use across the country: "For the killing of anthrax spores an accelerated electron beam irradiator will most probably be used. Electron beams are quite safe to operate except for some x-ray bremsstrahlung when dense matter such as metal is hit by the electrons. The accelerated electrons will penetrate deep into light matter such as letters which can be stacked in shallow layers and transported on a conveyor belt past the irradiation source. The high-dose irradiation will not only destroy unexposed and exposed film, but it will also damage optical glass by a brown discoloration known also from lenses containing weakly radioactive glass. The brown discoloration caused by radiation-induced lattice defects can be bleached only partially by light and can also be partially reversed by heating (which is not recommended for lenses). I have written my Ph.D. thesis four years ago on the detection of food irradiation." So Henry, with the information provided how are you feeling about the Kodak, Fuji, A&I film processing mailers which rely on US Postal to return processed film? Doug from Tumwater
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 From: Steven Morton [email protected] Subject: Update on X-Ray Inspection and US Mail Sterilization To: [email protected] FYI The Kodak website has the latest update on the status of Airport X-Ray Security, US Mail Sterilization, and Motion Picture Films: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/xray4P.shtml Here are the notices for general film users: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/aboutKodak/xRayScanner.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/aboutKodak/sanitize.shtml
To: Rollei Mailing List: Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 Subject: [Rollei] Statement from Fuji on film safety From: Bob Shell [email protected] With all that has been said about film safety and the US Mail as well as carrying film while traveling, I thought everyone should see this statement from Fuji Photofilm USA. Bob Shell > > New Postal Service and Increased Airport Scanning Procedures Fog > Photographic Film > > In an effort to make the skies and United States mail safer after the tragic > events of September 11th, new and increased scanning procedures have been > put in place by both the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and the airline > industry. Unfortunately, these recent changes put photographic film at risk > of fogging and exposure. > In airports around the country, the use of baggage scanners to detect > explosive devices has been increased. Because of its silver content and > metal canisters, photographic film, especially large packages or bundles of > film, appears particularly suspect. Unfortunately, the scanners are fogging > undeveloped film left in checked baggage. Unlike the airport x-ray equipment > of the past, which had little or no effect on unprocessed film, the > International Imaging Industry Association, Inc. (I3A) has tested these > scanners at the request of the FAA and determined they have the potential to > fog both unprocessed color and black and white film. Processed film is > unaffected. > As of October 27th, the USPS has begun purchasing electron beam scanning > equipment for use in sterilizing mail and eliminating any possible exposure > to anthrax. This electron beam technology will fully expose undeveloped film > as if it were exposed to sunlight. At this time, we do not have complete > information regarding the extent to which these scanners will be used or > when the USPS will begin using them. As we receive additional information, > we will update this document to remain current with these events. > > While we applaud the FAA, airline industry and USPS in their efforts to > ensure that checked baggage and mail are safe, we also realize that your > pictures are very important to you and want to do all we can to see that > your photographic memories are preserved. We offer the following suggestions > to help you avoid damage to your film from airline scanners. We do not > currently have information regarding any safeguards that may be taken to > protect film sent via the USPS. > > * Make sure there is no unprocessed film in your checked baggage. > > * Carry your undeveloped film with you as carry-on baggage and ask for hand > inspection whenever possible. Place film in a separate mesh or clear plastic > bag for easy identification by airport security. > * When carrying large amounts of unprocessed film, contact the airline prior > to your flight to arrange for a special baggage inspection. When possible, > send your film via a cargo carrier that will certify that the film will not > be x-rayed. The FAA and I3A are currently working on guidelines with respect > to this situation. > * At some airports, passengers may be randomly selected from the carry-on > baggage check line and their carry-on luggage scanned as checked baggage. > Please be aware that this scan will fog film. If you are asked to step into > another line, remove your film from your carry-on baggage. > > * In time, security measures at airports may increase, and stronger scanners > may be used to scan even carry-on baggage. Be aware of the signs in the > airport; most carry-on baggage scanners, at this time, will be marked as > "Film Safe" if they will not damage your film.
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 Subject: Re: [Rollei] Statement from Fuji on film safety From: Bob Shell [email protected] To: [email protected] > From: "Fox, Robert" [email protected]> > Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 > To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Rollei] Statement from Fuji on film safety > > I'm headed to California twice in the next month (including a side-trip to > Catalina Island where I plan to shoot several rolls of medium format film), > and I will definitely follow Fuji's guidelines to protect the undeveloped > film. I can't imagine a worse situation than spending hours shooting and > having the film fogged by airport scanners. Think about this. When airports first installed the new film-killer x-ray machines they didn't tell anyone. A BBC film crew shooting for Nature left from Gatwick and spent three months in New Guinea filming. When they came back and had the film processed it had all been ruined by scanning at Gatwick!!! BBC raised hell, but only got a limp wristed apology, and the crew had to go back and try to recreate three months of work. For us still photographers it is relatively to hand carry sufficient film, but I don't know what professional film crews are doing these days. Bob
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 Subject: Re: [Rollei] Statement from Fuji on film safety From: Bob Shell [email protected] To: [email protected] In a word, NO. You'd need inches of lead to protect film from the new machines. They cut through lead bags like a hot knife through butter, and they always destroy film. There is currently no product on the market which will protect film from the new machines, and unlikely to ever be. Bob > From: Jay Kumarasamy [email protected] > Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Rollei] Statement from Fuji on film safety > > Bob, > > Thanks for posting this. I have a padded envelope (perhaps lined with lead.. > don't have it with me handy) that is used to carry film rolls in carry-on > baggage, and is designed for that. I wonder if that will protect the > new security equipments proposed at the airports.. > > - Jay
From: Bob Shell [email protected] Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [camera-fix] Film Safety Warning: Official statement from Kodak ---------- From: [email protected] Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Film Safety Warning Bob... fyi, attached is the statement you'll find on kodak.com re: the mail irradiation process. Statement for www.kodak.com " To protect public health and ensure confidence in the US Mail system, the United States Postal Service (USPS) is installing new equipment to sanitize certain items sent through the mail. While various sanitizing technologies can damage film and other sensitive materials, the USPS has issued the following statement: "The USPS is working with the mailing industry to develop procedures to ensure that sanitization of the mail will not damage sensitive items in the mail. Sanitization technology is currently being tested on a wide range of film products, digital and magnetic storage devices, laboratory samples, food and plant products, and "smart" credit cards with embedded chips to ensure that all business mail can be safely processed through the postal system." Therefore, based upon this statement and upon other information from USPS shared with Kodak and the photo industry, it appears that current photographic commerce in all its forms will be unaffected."
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120 film containers From: Bob Shell [email protected] To: [email protected] > From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected] > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 > To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Rollei] 120 film containers > > Butg aren't there X-Rays to worry about when it ships through the USPS or > FedEx? FedEx does not x-ray parcels. The USPS is not allowed, under postal privacy regulations, to x-ray mail. They have said they plan to implement electron beam sanitization of mail, but this was before about ten different high powered lobbying groups came down on them. Currently they are not doing this to mail except for mail addressed to Congress, the Pentagon, etc. They have said they are going to work with the DMA (Direct Marketing Association) to insure that photographic film, seeds, pharmaceuticals, etc., are not put through the electron beam machines when they begin using them.
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 To: [email protected] From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected] Subject: [HUG] Re: Flight security and film you wrote: >Is FedEx such a good idea. I think that some, if not all, FedEx parcels go >through the larger luggage X-ray machines. FedEx has advised us repeatedly that they neither x-ray nor irradiate parcels. -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 From: David Meiland [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] Travel & X Ray I recently flew domestically, and there was no hope of a hand check of anything. Lines at security were long and the inspectors were really thorough. Due to a security 'breach' they kicked everyone out of the terminal after I had gotten in, and I had to go through a second time, so my bag full of Velvia and Delta 100 got x-rayed twice. On the way home I stopped and the Fed-Ex office at the airport and sent my film back as a precaution. There was no sign of x-ray damage on the film, but in the future I'm going to Fed-Ex it both ways.
From rollei mailing list Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 From: Eric Goldstein [email protected] Subject: [Rollei] OT: AIRPORT X-RAY SECURITY and MOTION PICTURE FILM Passing this along from Kodak: AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY Please be aware that high-security x-ray machines (such as the CTX 5500) will fog and ruin all unprocessed film of any speed whether exposed or not. Travelers should politely insist on hand-inspection of their film. Carry a changing bag for use by the inspector and demonstrate how it is used with a can of fogged film as an example. However, there is no guarantee that your request will be granted by local inspectors who may insist on x-ray inspection. Hand inspection may not be permitted in some airports outside the U.S. 'DO NOT X-RAY' LABELS Click below for a template of "Do Not X-Ray" labels that can be downloaded for printing and viewing using Adobe Acrobat(r) Reader. click or browse to --> http://www.kodak.com/go/xraylabel
From rollei mailing list: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 From: Eric Goldstein [email protected] Subject: [Rollei] f-stop.org Came across this site dedicated to detailing the effects of the newer airport security scanners on photographic film. I have no affiliation with or knowledge of this organization; merely passing this along fyi... http://www.f-stop.org/
From: Chad Irby [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Airport Security effect on film--summary? Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 [email protected] (Bill Hilton) wrote: > >From: "DarrenH" [email protected] > > >My logic is that, if scanners harmed a single roll of film it would harm > >*every* roll of film of equal or higher ISO. I can't think of a reason why > >it would pick and choose film to harm. > > > This makes perfectly good sense IF you assume no machine is ever out of > calibration. ...or that the bags keep moving. I saw a security type stop while viewing a bag, turn, and talk to the guy standing next to him for a couple of minutes while the crowd cleared out around the machine. All the time, the bag was sitting there getting x-rayed... -- [email protected]
From: Chad Irby [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Airport Security effect on film--summary? Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 ... > Scanned items are given a very short xray exposure. The image is then > held on the screen by software. The xray exposure doesn't continue. Ummmm. Nope. Now, on some of the *newest* machines, this is true, but on most of them, if you watch, you'll see the bags continually moving across the screen. This pretty much kills that scenario. It's also much easier on the tubes that emit the x-rays to keep them in constant use, rather than intermittent. If you look carefully, you'll see that a lot of the operators only use one control - that moves the belt. You might also note that even some of the "software hold" machines are merely screen freezes, without cutting out the x-rays. -- [email protected]
from rollei mailing list: Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 From: Bob Shell [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Travelling with film/security carter at [email protected] wrote: > I'm planning on going to a photo workshop next month in Sicily. They say to > bring 30 rolls of film packed in ziplock bags and ask for a hand inspection. > Has anyone had any recent experience with checking film thru security? I have > heard stories of the security folks insisting on x-raying everything and > fogged film as a result. > > Carter > The problem is that an answer I give you today may not be accurate tomorrow. This situation is in constant flux. We now know of at least one airport, Milwaukee, using high power x-ray machines on carry-on items. They have big warning signs advising you to remove all film and have it hand inspected. As time goes on, it is likely that other airports will switch to these machines, which up to now have only been used on checked baggage. Basically, here is the situation. Never put film in checked baggage. It will very likely be ruined. Put all of your film in clear plastic bags which can easily be opened by security personnel. Kodak has special labels which I am advising people to use on these bags. You can download these as PDF files from Kodak's site and print them yourself. Eric Goldstein posted the URL a while back, but here it is again: http://www.kodak.com/go/xraylabel When requesting hand inspection be relaxed and calm. Do not be argumentative if the operator refuses, but ask to speak to that person's superior. FAA regulations, which have not been changed as of today, require them to give you a hand inspection if you request it. Be firm about this but polite. If you have problems with a particular individual, get that person's name and file a complaint. Come to the airport at least three hours before your flight time, if departing from a major airport. This will give you extra time if you do run into problems. If they absolutely will not do a hand inspection, go ahead and let your film go through the x-ray machine. The ones ordinarily used on carry-on luggage will not harm film most of the time. Bob
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 From: Matthew Smith [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Travelling with film/security FWIW, I always travel with film in lead bags, and the resulting dark spot on the X-ray screen has prompted the security people to open my carry-on 100% of the time post 9/11. [Before 9/11, either no one noticed a big dark spot on the screen, or if they did a simple 'lead film bag' would often cause them to wave me through] Frequently, when they see a film bag, they don't bother to open it, but most often they peer inside. No one has ever opened a film canister. Since September I've probably been through 20 different airports in the US, and maybe six in Europe, and the above has been my experience everywhere. I generally have a fair amount of slow film, but I also take some 1600 with me each time. Some rolls on the same trip end up going through the X-rays four or five times, and I've never had fogging trouble, even with the fast film, and even in cases where the lead bag wasn't used. Maybe I've been lucky. By the way, one security person told me that the foil fold-over type bags didn't work at all. She was glad to see that I was using a 'real bag' -- a Domke, and one other brand which I can't immediately recall, but which weighs A LOT. My advice: use a lead bag, get there early, be nice. None of these can hurt. -Matthew
From rollei mailing list Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 From: Bob Shell [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Travelling with film/security Matthew Smith at [email protected] wrote: > By the way, one security person told me that the foil fold-over type bags > didn't work at all. She was glad to see that I was using a 'real bag' -- a > Domke, and one other brand which I can't immediately recall, but which > weighs A LOT. She is right. The lead foil bags and wraps are a waste of time and money. They don't have enough lead to do much. I have lead bags from Minnesota Glove Company, the same company which makes the aprons x-ray technicians wear. They are absolutely opaque to x-ray, but heavy because they have serious amounts of lead in them. Sometimes I have been asked to open them, but most of the time not. Bob
from rollei mailing list: Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 From: "Thomas A. Frank" [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Travelling with film/security ... I've got one of the ones that supposedly protect against the CTX-5000, it's SIMA part 31829, the FilmShieldXPF. It seems very well made. It's very heavy. I haven't yet had a chance to test and see if it actually will protect to this level, so not luck there. If I find out anything, I'll be sure to let you all know. Tom Frank
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 From: Michael Briggs [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [Rollei] RE: Travelling with film/security Bob Shell wrote: > When requesting hand inspection be relaxed and calm. Do not be > argumentative if the operator refuses, but ask to speak to that person's > superior. FAA regulations, which have not been changed as of today, > require them to give you a hand inspection if you request it. Be firm > about this but polite. If you have problems with a particular individual, > get that person's name and file a complaint. My understanding is that the FAA regulations have been replaced, virtually unchanged, by regulations for the Transportation Security Administration, 49 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) - Chapter XII - Part 1544, section 211, "Use of X-ray Systems", which states, in part: (3) The signs required under this paragraph (e) must notify individuals that such items are being inspected by an X-ray and advise them to remove all X-ray, scientific, and high-speed film from accessible property and checked baggage before inspection. This sign must also advise individuals that they may request that an inspection be made of their photographic equipment and film packages without exposure to an X-ray system. If the X-ray system exposes any accessible property or checked baggage to more than one milliroentgen during the inspection, the sign must advise individuals to remove film of all kinds from their articles before inspection. (4) If requested by individuals, their photographic equipment and film packages must be inspected without exposure to an X-ray system. The link from a government website is: http://ecfrback.access.gpo.gov/otcgi/cfr/otfilter.cgi?DB=1&ACTION=View&QUERY=154 4.211&RGN=BSEC&OP=and&QUERY=49&RGN=BTI&QUERY=5811&RGN=BSECCT&SUBSET=SUBSET&FROM= 1&ITEM=1 If that link doesn't work, try http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_49/49cfr1544_main_00.html and click on 1544.211. My experience is that the inspectors strongly resist or even deny requests to have film inspected without through the x-ray machine, despite the clear words of regulation 1544.211(4). I have seen that the regulations are being followed for the new machines with higher x-ray fluxes (more than one milliroentgen) that will damage unprocessed films: I have always seen signs on these machines advising the removal of film. I am not a lawyer, so perhaps I have missed something. --Michael
From: "Mike" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Airport Security effect on film--summary? Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 If you visit the FAA site they are talking about the new generation of explosives detection equipment that will fog film. This is equipment that will be used along with X-ray equipment to screen carry on. "Andrew Koenig" [email protected] wrote > >> My logic is that, if scanners harmed a single roll of film it would > >> harm *every* roll of film of equal or higher ISO. I can't think of > >> a reason why it would pick and choose film to harm.
from nikon mailing list: From: [email protected] Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 Subject: [Nikon] Irradiated slides The current issue of the Smithsonian magazine has a picture of what happened to slides sent to them and went through the postal irradiation system in Lima, Ohio. Pretty scary! http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues02/apr02/lines.html
from leica mailing list: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 From: Jim Brick [email protected] Subject: [Leica] Re: XRAY ... Tina Manley wrote: >The Great Yellow Father (Kodak) says that it >won't; http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml > >Do you know something different? Don't tell me I'm going to have to ask >to have my Compact Flash cards passed around the x-ray machines!! > >US Mail sterilization procedures will fry digital, too! Kodak says all >imaging material must be shipped by a company that does not use the US >Postal service. >Tina Manley, ASMP >http://www.tinamanley.com >images available from http://www.pdiphotos.com Tina is correct. Go to http://www.compactflash.org/ and click on the headline "risk of irradiation" and read the PDF. It states that irradiation will fry CF but airport scanners will NOT damage compact flash devices. The Jan/Feb ASMP Bulletin page 14 says the same. http://www.compactflash.org/ is the Compact Flash Association. They are the folks that know. Jim
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 From: Ken Martin [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] A12 back--any protection against airport xray? Dave: I have traveled extensively over the last twenty-five years. Since 9-11 I have been on at least 40 commercial air trips. Most of those trips I have taken a film camera. Contrary to popular thought, most US airports will still allow you to hand inspect film (if you ask). Most of the checkers will tell you that the x-ray machines will not harm slow speed film. I believe they are correct, except I have been told by so called experts that the effect of these x-ray machines are cumulative. In other words, the film is OK once through the machine once but multiple passes will probably harm the film. I accidentally left a roll of film in one of my backs and passed through six airport screens on a recent overseas trip. I expected the film would be toast, however I had it developed and there was no sign of fogging. Never the less, if you explain to the screeners that you must go through multiple screenings to your destination and back home they will hand check your film. Be very polite, say please, and make sure you don't fit the profile for a terrorist and all should be well. Yes I know, I really did not answer your question. Let me try. Will metal protect your film from x-rays? Not unless it is lead and very thick. Ken Martin
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 From: Tom Christiansen [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] A12 back--any protection against airport xray? Hi, >I guess the title says it all, and it might be a dumb question but >unfortunately I have no concept of xrays, so... I'm wondering if an A12 >back is any protection against airport carry-on luggage scanners, being a >more or less sealed metal box. This might be useful if one were carrying a >small quantity of high speed or possibly infrared film. Well... There're two things that lead to some attenuation of the x-rays as they pass through a metal case. 1) Reflection. The metal case has a different impedance than the surrounding air, thus some of the x-ray power is reflected away from the metal case. 2) Attenuation. As the x-rays (or any other EM ray for that matter) pass through the metal case, the intensity of the rays decay exponentially through the metal. The rate of decay depends on the skin depth which depends on the frequency of the EM signal. However, any slot, hole, non-metal part will cause the EM wave to leak through the hole, thus, degrading the shield. Therefore: You might get a little more protection by leaving the film in the back. But I bet the screening machines will just increase the intensity of the x-rays if they "see" a non-transparent (metallic) object. So you end up frying the film anyway. Last time I flew (two weeks ago) I asked the screeners about this x-ray thing. They claim that their machines are safe for film ISO 800 and slower. My Velvia and E100VS also came back just fine. So... Ask nicely for a hand inspection. It'll make you fell better. But unless you carry high-speed film, the film will be unharmed by the x-rays. Tom
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 From: Jim Brick [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] A12 back--any protection against airport xray? Tom Christiansen wrote: >Therefore: You might get a little more protection by leaving the film in >the back. But I bet the screening machines will just increase the >intensity of the x-rays if they "see" a non-transparent (metallic) object. >So you end up frying the film anyway. The US machines are set and cannot be changed by the operator or automatically by internal software. The machines are calibrated, by a factory technician, for a certain level that is safe for stuff going through and people standing around. If an operator cannot see through something, they physically take it out of your bag and visually inspect it. When they stop the belt, the x-ray does not just keep pouring through. The x-ray stops. The operator is looking at the image on the screen which was captured, like a photograph, chest x-ray, etc. Like a digital camera scanning back, the x-ray is a narrow band with a narrow sensor on the opposite side. The image is formed as your stuff passes by the scanning sensor. When the belt stops, the x-ray stops. The image on the screen is stuff that has already passed by the sensor and cannot get any more x-ray unless you are asked to run it through again. Bottom line, the x-ray happens in a narrow band as stuff passes by. And stops when the belt stops. Jim
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 From: "Dr. Robert Young" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HUG] A12 back--any protection against airport xray? Airports aren't the only place using xrays now. Cruise ships now xray EVERYTHING you carry onto the ship, each time you get on. For a 7 day cruise, that could mean airports getting there + 4-5 boardings + airports on the way home. They said last time I cruised that the machines were not suppose to harm ASA 800 speed film, but I wondered about the "cumulative" factor on any spare film I carry. I started leaving the bulk of the film in the cabin and only going out with what I thought I could use in the time allowed. With ASA 160 and 400 there was no obvious problem.
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected] To: Hasselblad Digest [email protected] Subject: [HUG] how not to get x-rayed at US airports FYI: http://home.kc.rr.com/aaronphoto/xray.html -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: 18 Nov 2002 Subject: Re: Airport Security Screening - Updated US Rules >From: James Robinson [email protected] >I see the US Transportation Security Agency has put up a web page about >security screening and film. They specifically say that you can request >hand inspection of any unprocessed film at US airports, and recommend it >for: > >- film that is ISO 800 or higher >- film that you expect will be x-rayed more than 5 times >- film you want to push process >- sheet film >- pro film > >There are more - you can read about them at the following link: > >http://www.tsa.gov/trav_consumers/traveling_film.shtm > >Now, I wonder if the screeners will know about these rules. I was thru three airports last week with camera gear. My impression is that the new TSA guys are much better trained than the private security guys we used to have. I had a large photo bag filled with 3 bodies, 6 lenses, a ballhead, flash and wireless flash controller, L bracket, etc. They checked this via the xray machine and didn't even ask me to open it (the wireless flash controller ALWAYS brought a request to open the entire bag before). Also, they hand checked my film with no questions asked. I was impressed by their professionalism compared to what we used to have. Good job guys.
From: "Frank Miles" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Quick advise please Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 I am glad someone asked for people's experience on the matter of x-raying film. There are so many discussions with people complaining about not getting hand inspection of their film, yet I don't recall seeing any first hand accounts about film being damaged by airport x-raying. Over the past three years I have made several trips between North America and the Arabian Gulf, each time with at least one stop (and therefore x-raying) in Europe along the way. I have had no problems with film being affected by x-rays. I shoot primarily Provia (100) and Velvia (50) and do not ask for hand inspection. In other words, I let security at whatever airport x-ray my camera gear and film. The only question ever raised was in Toronto earlier this year when security wanted a look at my Pentax 67 (which the guy probably had never seen before). At the airports in Abu Dhabi and Kuwait, all baggage is x-rayed before you can get to the check-in counter, and there may be a second x-raying of hand luggage at the entry to the departure lounges. On my last trip I carried a loaded camera in my checked baggage as an experiment. After being x-rayed in Kuwait, it (presumably) passed through x-ray machines for baggage at London Heathrow and Amsterdam Schipol on my way to Toronto. To my eyes, the film was unaffected. In all fairness, I did not pass through any American airports on this trip, so it may not be a safe conclusion. Earlier this year, I put film (Reala 100?) through x-ray machines eight times (various airports) with no noticeable effects. I should point out that my only experience with American airports is at Jacksonville and Detroit, so I cannot speak for all airports in the States. My conclusion is that there is not a problem with slow to medium speed films that are x-rayed with hand baggage. My single experiment with film in checked baggage (which some people claim is subject to much higher levers of radiation) indicated the film was unaffected, but I would prefer to repeat the experiment many more times before preaching to the people this is a safe thing to do. I hope this helps. Frank Miles
From: "flycaster" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: National Geographic Rates Film 400% better than latest Nikon D1X Digital Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 "Mike Russell" [email protected] wrote ... {snip} > The solution is to carry your undeveloped film with you in your carry-on > luggage - the machines used to inspect hand luggage use less intense xrays > and will not harm film. You may want to re-think this. PopPhoto did a test a little while ago that revealed "visible" damage (8X loupe) to ISO 200 film after only four exposures to "low intensity" x-ray machines; the problem is, the effects are cummulative and are greatly increased once the film is exposed. Also, I have inserted a warning from Kodak below (http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/xray4P.shtml#p) 1. AIRPORT X-RAY SECURITY Security precautions at US airports have been significantly tightened following the tragic events of September 11th. Among precautions that travelers can expect will be the increased use of new, high-intensity x-ray scanners for checked baggage and hand-carried baggage. Passengers should be aware that these high-intensity x-ray machines will fog and ruin all unprocessed film of any speed, whether exposed or not. Kodak recommends that air travelers do not carry unexposed or unprocessed motion picture film. If it is unavoidable that film is carried, passengers should contact the airport in advance to request hand-inspection, allow additional check-in time for such procedures, and follow the advice given below. CHECKED BAGGAGE Any checked baggage may be subject to high-intensity x-ray scanning in a machine that is out of sight of travelers. Airline check-in agents rarely, if ever, warn travelers of this. Kodak is pressing for warning notices to be posted at check-in desks and for verbal warnings to be given to travelers. Never pack unprocessed film in baggage that will be checked. HAND-CARRIED BAGGAGE Carry-on baggage inspection conveyors using low intensity x-rays, used at security checkpoints in US airports, usually do not affect film. However, these machines may now be supplemented in some cases by high intensity machines that will fog all unprocessed film. Travelers should be wary of all scanners at foreign airports. Travelers should politely insist on hand-inspection of their film. Carry a changing bag for use by the inspector. Demonstrate how it is used, with a can of fogged film as an example. However, there is no guarantee that your request will be granted by local inspectors, who may insist on x-ray inspection. Hand inspection may not be permitted in some airports outside the US.
From nikon manual mailing list: Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 From: "Prasad Agrahar" [email protected] Subject: Now the Cameras and flashes come under suspicion Hi group Please see this news item - http://www.msnbc.com/news/948269.asp?vts=080420031930 and it has become difficult to carry camera equipment as carry on luggage. We used to worry about films all these days. FYI Prasad
End of Page