SFO near-horror story

**Scott Davis** · 12-Jan-2015, 16:15

Just some food for thought, regarding X-rays in the carry-on scanner: your film gets exposed to a lot more radiation for a much longer period of time in the airplane at 35,000 feet than it does in the carry-on inspection scanner. Checked baggage scanners are an entirely different kettle of fish - they'll toast ISO 25 film given half a chance.

I quit worrying about film getting scanned by the carry-on after flying through Cambodia with HIE, and the only roll I lost was the brand new, never exposed roll still in the Kodak box that the security guy insisted on opening the cardboard box AND opening the canister... the canister labeled "OPEN ONLY IN TOTAL DARKNESS". On that trip, I went through scanners in Washington DC, Newark, NJ, Amsterdam, Singapore, Cambodia, Singapore, Amsterdam, and Newark. After 8 scans plus 48 hours of flying time total, with no film affected, I've decided to pull a Dr. Strangelove and learn to love the bomb.

**Drew Wiley** · 12-Jan-2015, 16:19

... only if the baggage handlers don't steal everything first....

**JMB** · 12-Jan-2015, 17:57

Generally, I keep supplies of film, paper, and developing chemicals in Europe and the USA in order to avoid the need to ask regularly for hand checks. LAX and Pudong, China airports are about the only two airports that I have been able to rely upon for problem free, friendly hand checks. When I am using these airports I will sometimes carry exposed or unexposed film or printing paper. But in all cases, I never let the materials out of my sight.

I adopted these practices after a roll of scanned Ilford FP4 fogged. Its hard to say whether the carry on scan was actually the cause, but its worth the trouble to me to make sure that a special image does not get ruined. I would imagine that the type of film developer used might be a factor and could explain different experiences with carry-on film scans. Also, I am not exactly sure that every carry-on scan gets the same level of radiation. Agents have told me that they have some discretion in dialing in the exposure. But frankly I have no idea whether this is true or not.

I am curious about the claim that film suffers more radiation exposure at 35,000 feet than it does during a carry-on scan. Can we hear more about this? I have heard security guys make this claim in the past, but I am skeptical. In any case, if this claim is true and if it is also true that carry-on scans can fog film, then the claim would not be an very good argument to accept carry-on scans; rather it should encourage us to make other arrangements altogether for transporting or obtaining film on or near location.

**MonkeyBrain** · 13-Jan-2015, 04:15

Originally Posted by JMB

I am curious about the claim that film suffers more radiation exposure at 35,000 feet than it does during a carry-on scan. Can we hear more about this? I have heard security guys make this claim in the past, but I am skeptical. In any case, if this claim is true and if it is also true that carry-on scans can fog film, then the claim would not be an very good argument to accept carry-on scans; rather it should encourage us to make other arrangements altogether for transporting or obtaining film on or near location.

Yeah, even if true, this just further convinces me that I should always try to avoid as many xray scans as possible as, if the damage is accumalitive (as evidence suggests), then a couple of extra scans on top of the rays the film is exposed to in flight could make all the difference. Basically, if flying with film, in-flight rays are unavoidable. Scanner rays, on the other hand, can sometimes be avoided. I'd rather play it safe and reduce the exposure.

Having said that, I travel all the time, film has often gone through 2 or 3 scans before I get to shoot it (but would be more like 5 or 6 scans if I didnt insist on hand inspections where possible), and the only time I've ever seen evidence of damage was on some Kodak Ektar that friends brought me from China, and I suspect I forgot to ask them to put it in their carry on, so that's entirely my fault.

Having said that, an inexperienced assistant once packed all my film in the checked luggage on a flight from London to Berlin, and it was fine.

Anyway, just to be safe, my philosophy is avoid xrays as much as possible, never put film in checked luggage, but dont stress too much if film does get put through the carry on scan, as more than likely nothing will happen to it.

**Drew Wiley** · 13-Jan-2015, 09:43

High speed films degrade from background radiation relatively quickly. That why they don't keep well even frozen. Cut through the atmosphere at higher altitude
and there's just more of it. But I can't think of any high-speed films we use in large format sheets. To what practical degree more typical films are affected has
been discussed over and over. But so far, I've never seen evidence of airport X-rays of carry-on bags having any effect on any film I travel with. I never put anything of value in checked luggage. If a security line is all backed up, I get the notion that asking for hand inspection is likely to get some agent pissed off and
maybe in a rush and careless - potentially a far bigger risk to your film and gear than just letting things go thru the X-ray machine.

**MrFujicaman** · 13-Jan-2015, 09:54

I fly out to Las Vegas at least once or twice a year and I mail my film to my motel via Priority Mail 3 days or so before I leave and I mail my exposed film and all but about 2 rolls the day before I leave. Las Vegas security is bad to get backed up and they have a very high turnover of TSA staff, so you have a good chance of getting someone that doesn't know TSA's rules.