Mike - I think if I saw a box that claimed it was something, and prominently marked to not x-ray... I would imediately be suspicious of it.
Sorry about my previous post... that was a nice list, but the formatting died.
Mike - I think if I saw a box that claimed it was something, and prominently marked to not x-ray... I would imediately be suspicious of it.
Sorry about my previous post... that was a nice list, but the formatting died.
I just got back from a trip where some of the film in my box of 100 T Max that started out as a 100 sheet box was xrayed for the tenth time, twice on this trip, twice on a trip earlier this year to the Smokies, four times on a trip to Ireland, and twice on a trip to the Southwest last year. I just developed the first 8 sheets exposed during this latest trip. Those are among the sheets that have now been x rayed 10 times and the negatives are fine. I don't ever ask for a hand inspection any more or bother to keep track of how many times a box has been xrayed, no reason to do it with 100 speed film.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
<cite>
It's the first part of his citation where it says "...screeners may only
inspect the film manually, visually..." (and we know now that this part is
not the text of the regulation contrary to the citation) that poses
problem.
</cite>
But where is this citation from? The only hit that Google turns up is
Aaron Parmet’s
X-ray page, which hardly is an official source of authority for anyone to do
anything.
<cite>
I bring up the word “lawyer”, he casually reaches in his front
pocket to hand me his business card and tells me he wants to make sure that
I have his name and title correct and personally leads me out of the
screening area. Boy, I sure showed him didn’t I?
</cite>
I got nearly the same line in San Jose for an entirely different issue, so
it’s obviously part of their training. They realize that someone
isn’t likely to invest $50,000 to $150,000 to press the point.
It’s quite possible that he really wasn’t the top guy (ever
been to a retail store where everyone had the title
“Manager”?), but I’m not sure how far you could push this
other than asking to speak with his boss, and asking for the boss’s
name and title if she purportedly wasn’t available. You probably
could start a small tape recorder, indicate that you’re recording the
conversation, and ask something to effect of, “Are you telling me
that you think you can ignore federal law?’ Of course, at some point
he might subject you to endless inspection so that you miss your flight, or
even try to have you arrested for interfering with an inspector (as
happened in Indiana to a French woman who got frustrated with wanding and
removed her blouse).
I guess the regulation doesn’t specifically state that the film must
be inspected without destroying it. With the visual inspection rationale,
an inspector could require that 35 mm or 120 film be removed from its
container for inspection. This simply is absurd, and courts usually avoid
interpretations that lead to absurd conclusions. Unfortunately, the cost
of calling the question is prohibitive. Perhaps the next thing is to call
someone at the TSA (if you ever can get through), specifically ask how the
regulation should be applied to non–X-ray inspection, and ask how one
should respond if given a line of BS such as Michael and I have been given.
The issue has come up often enough on photo fora that it would seem
reasonable to ask the question. Chances are, not much would come of the
conversation, but it would be interesting to see what happens. Or perhaps
it just isn’t worth the hassle.
You're right Jeff, Dave's citation was taken from Parmet's page. I also realised it when I searched for it. Never mind. As far as I'm concerned it's much easier for me to trust the tests rather than bother with the inspection staff. Thanks for your work.
Mark:
"the machine will then increase the dose to penetrate it & one cannot be certain whether the larger exposure will damage the film. "
It is unfirtunate that you spew off mistruths that will further confuse people on a very confusing subject. The operator simply cannot "increase the dose", no way, no how. They also can see in a lead bag and see that there is film inside. I know, I have seen it. Let's stick to the facts in a touchy arena as this. THEY CANNOT UP THE DOSAGE. Check your information.
Dan,
"Where were ALL the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 Mass Murder from? Above I posted from a nice news article or two about the problems on our border with Mexico and the article is years old. Yes, many of the folks from these areas are just fine. But what do you do with people who brag their kid blew himself up killing 'infidels'? You take them out first & stop the problem before it gets bigger."
"Every time we have an enemy in site, we dehumanize the bums. From 'Japs' to 'krauts' to 'gooks' to 'towelheads'. Too damn bad."
------------------------------------------------------------------
I won't provide a rebuttal on your follow-up comments but I will do one thing... I'll extend my sincere sympathies to you and your family!
And, I'm sure many other folks on this forum feel the same way as I do.
We now have a much better understanding of who you really are.
Have a nice life!
Life in the fast lane!
Since the flying world has grown fearful of everyone, I fully expect the screening process to become more severe and "film" and "hand inspection" will eventually go away everywhere.
I have for a number of years been shipping everything via FedEx to and from my destinations in the United States---film, camera, lenses, tripod, the works. FedEx picks it up at my office, and I ship it to their facility at the destination airport usually. Breeze through the flight, get my rental car, and drive to the FedEx terminal and grab my stuff.
It began when I was trying to move 15 to 20 hard cases of video equipment through airports. A kid (8?) suggested in a terminal that I should go "FedEx". I thought about it and new it was a good idea.
The rest is history. Costs a bit more, but with all those great airfare deals I get off the web, what's a little shipping... and it's tax deductable. As they say in those credit card ads...."Cost of peace of mind? PRICELESS!
steve
Steve Williams
Scooter in the Sticks
No George, it is unfortunate that you are making blanket statements based on biased sources.
The source of the problem was the rapid Federalization of the TSA Inspectors promoted by our stupid Congress post 9-11. Now we are saddled with thousands of stupid Federal employees with life-long jobs. They need to inspect your shoes and "visually inspect" your film and frisk little old ladies to justify their pathetic jobs.
It would be much easier to simply do a quick inspection like they did pre-9-11, and pull the dark swarthy males between 12-50 years old out of the line for further scutiny (myself included). It would also make sense to arm the pilots and put guards on the planes. And I especially like the idea of having the baggage inspectors fly on the flight they just finished inspecting.
We all feel strongly about our film, but some of the language in this thread is inappropriate. There is also much misinformation, such as implying that damage caused by a CTX machine means that the standard x-ray machines will also damage film.
The new scanning-type x-ray machines such as the CTX5000 mentioned by Dave are not normally used for inspecting carryon luggage.
They cause stronger x-ray exposures than the conventional x-ray machines and so a problem caused by a CTX machines doesn't mean that the standard x-ray machines will also cause problems.
The CTX machines use a scanning technology similar to CAT scanners to make a 3D image. This takes a larger x-ray exposure.
Everyone, including the manufacturer, agrees that this type of machine is likely to damage film, e.g., http://www.invision-tech.com/products/film.htm.
The CTX and imaging x-ray systems are commonly used for checked baggage, which is why unprocessed film should never be placed in checked baggage. In a few airports imaging x-ray machines are used for second stage inspection of carryon lugage.
All of the CTX machines that I have seen have carried prominent signs warning that film should be removed from the bags.
These signs are required in the US by law on all x-ray machines that can expose film to more than one milliroentgen
of radiation. http://www.invision-tech.com/products/ctx5500.htm has a photo showing what these machines look like. As Tim says, they are large and don't look like the older style of machine.
The US regulations on x-raying are available at a US government site: at 49 CFR - CHAPTER XII - PART 1544. I don't know if there are other regulations that override parts of this one, e.g., is there a law that says that inspectors have discretion to block any item that they deem dangerious or insufficiently inspected?
Kodak has an excellent document at http://www.kodak.com/global/en/servi.../tib5201.shtml with advice and examples of film damaged by scanning x-ray machines.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks