Airport X-Rays, Part II

**george jiri loun** · 1-May-2005, 11:29

Dave, the fact that once you had your film ruined by the x ray machine is irrelevant as you don't indicate any circumstances of the case. And so much was written about the safety of these machines that photographers know they can let the film go through. Literally millions of people let they cameras with film be screened every single day! So much for the safety. As for the rights of the hand inspection it is my understanding that this right exists but can be denied in case of necessity by the inspector.

**David Luttmann** · 1-May-2005, 11:52

George,

First of all, stop spreading misinformation. It is LAW that you are able to DEMAND hand inspection:

"What the Regulations Say

Federal regulations guarantee the right of travelers to have their film and photographic equipment manually checked instead of having it shoved in the X-ray machine. This right means that the screeners may only inspect the film manually, visually, with a magnetometer, with a chemical residue detector, or by requiring you to demonstrate that photographic equipment works. We are mostly interested in Title 49, Subtitle B, Volume 7, Chapter XII, Subchapter C, Part 1544, Subpart C of the Code of Federal Regulations, that is 49CFR1544.2xx

For carry-on luggage:
Section 211 Use of X-ray systems, Paragraph (e) Subparagraph (4):
49CFR1544.211(e)(4) states that "If requested by individuals, their photographic equipment and film packages must be inspected without exposure to an X-ray system."

SO you see, I CAN & WILL demand hand inspection of my film. If the burger cop doesn't like it, that's his problem. His supervisor will have to comply. My complaint from one flight has had a security official repremanded.

As to my having film ruined, it was damaged using the CTX5000 scanner, from multiple passes. So please, spare me the "it is safe" diatribe. Whether it is safe or not, is irrevallent. The rules are in place to have my film hand inspected whether or not the scanner is safe. I will continue to excercise my right. If you wish to take chances with once in a lifetime shots, so be it. But I don't have to, and neither does anyone else.

**Kevin Crisp** · 1-May-2005, 11:55

If the hijackers' tool of choice is a box cutter blade, maybe 1mm thick, how can any of us reasonably expect different treatment? Even if TSA had special absolutely dark rooms for sheet film inspection, how much time would it take to go through 25 + sheets to find a blade? I have not had a problem with film that has been 4 or 5X through the carry on machines. Other than asking for hand inspection of ready loads, I can't reasonably expect that I won't be asked to put loaded film holders or grafmatics through the machine. How many blades could I fit in a grafmatic or a regular film holder? Lots. I appreciate the frustration and dismay, but I can't fault the screeners I have encountered for doing what they have to do.

**Paul Kierstead** · 1-May-2005, 12:04

Ok, aside from whether or not the regulations makes sense, on the more practical side of things: Parcels (including FedEx I am willing to bet) are sometimes X-Rayed, particularly if a border is crossed, and everything I have read says the machines are of considerably higher power (they are designed to x-ray large packages and some distance from the operator) then the ones at check-in at the airport. Having an opaque bag in the parcel is likely to get the parcel rejected or opened. *I* would rate sending your film via parcel, especially "express", higher risk then carrying it with you.

Perhaps a "sensible" (that is, pragmatic about getting your film to the destination and back in good shape) thing is to carry it with you and request a hand check and -- failing that -- allow it to be x-rayed by the check in machines. Unless making a point is more important then your film.

**george jiri loun** · 1-May-2005, 13:42

You see Dave, it's actually not such a great advantage the rules you cite (and good for you that you have some laws on your side) - what does it help in many cases if you avoid one machine at your home airport when you cannot avoid it at the other airport? That's exactly what happened to Chris... But pay attention to the the text you cite - the inspector has right to inspect your film "visually" (and that's what he said to Chris too) - now what that means in case of a film that cannot be seen withour being ruined that's a problem that invites to some nasty discussions between the two. Then the multiple passes you mention are well acounted for in the official tests of these machines -yet they are declared safe. What I don't understand is that Chris felt encouraged by the fact that "lots of people had their film x rayed without problems" - didn't he know the results of the official tests that came to the same conclusion?? I've been knowing about these tests from British Journal of Photography, Shutterbug to name just a few and official web sites for a long time - I think it was even published on this forum or the other. Had he known these conclusions he would be calmer in front of the poor fellow, I suppose. After all, the guy was there just to make his journey safer.

**george jiri loun** · 1-May-2005, 14:44

Dave, the CTX 5000 airport security scanners for checked baggage are high dose scanneres that do dammage film. I think it was clear we're speaking here carry-on film. In case your film went through this scanner it was natural (literally) that it was damaged.

**george jiri loun** · 1-May-2005, 15:11

"every other airport I have been through in the world has used the swabbing machines to inspect boxes of sheet film" (Chris). I wonder if you have ever been to London airports - there they won't even let you think about a hand inspection of whatever film! And if you ask them for it they'll let you know very quickly who commands there...

**Jeff Conrad** · 1-May-2005, 15:23

<cite>... the inspector has right to inspect your film “visually”</cite>

The inspector has no right whatsoever to inspect film visually—that
quoted text is not part of the regulation. It would make little
sense to allow an inspector to destroy the film in order to save it ...

Although I agree that the name calling (admittedly, I well might succumb to
the same temptation after a similar experience) isn’t likely to win
points with Miss Manners, the inspector nonetheless was breaking the law.
The best approach, as several others have suggested, probably is to ask to
speak with a TSA supervisor. Dan’s suggestion to affix high-speed
stickers to the boxes also may have some merit—if you can’t
dazzle a dimwit with brilliance, communicate on his level and baffle him
with bullshit ...

<cite>Each airport has the latitude to screen passengers as they please.</cite>

Although, in effect, this seems to be how it is done, this isn’t at
all what the law says. If indeed it were, I’d be very surprised if a
court, even in today’s climate, did not hold that the law was void for
vagueness.

“It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for
vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. ... A vague law
impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and
juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant
dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” (<cite>Grayned
v. City of Rockford</cite> 408 U.S. 104 (1972))

I am as mindful as anyone else of the hazard to anyone else, and I
certainly have no desire to get blown out of the sky. I appreciate the
need for security, but I cannot agree with someone who thinks it is wrong
for a person to insist that the government obey the law. No one has said
it better than Brandeis:

“If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites
anarchy.” <cite>Olmstead v. U.S.</cite> 277 U.S. 438 (1928))

Whether it’s worth making an issue of hand inspection is up to the
individual photographer—one does need to choose one’s battles.
Nonetheless, I did a fairly crude test years ago with 35 mm Tri-X (with my
methods, an effective speed of about 250), and found a slight increase in
base density after six passes through the X-ray equipment of that time. I
always insist on hand inspection; so far, at least, haven’t had a
problem (I haven’t been through SEA since 9/11). I do try to avoid
flying with film and camera equipment whenever possible.

**george jiri loun** · 1-May-2005, 15:38

Jeff, it starts to be interesting from the factual point of view (finally). According to the text cited by Dave (it's not the actual text of the federal regulations but a copied text from a web site) the screeners have the right to inspect it "visually". Do you have the correct text of the law in front of you? Can you tell us what it actually says? Thanks.

**Capocheny** · 1-May-2005, 15:40

Chris,

It's really unfortunate that you were treated the way you were but I suppose that's the way the world is responding to all the turmoil that surrounds us. The sad fact is that the terrorists are winning the battle with the end result... and that is, the loss/restrictions of civil liberties for citizens from all over the world.

I have to agree with Michael on this one... FedEx your film in a leaded bag to your destination and send it home via the same method. Alternatively, buy your film on location (if available) via a prior arrangement with the distributor/rep, have it processed at a reliable lab that you know does good work, and you won't have to worry about exposure issues going through the X-ray machines. I'm assuming you travelled to another city in the US as I realize this wouldn't be as straight-forward/easy if you were going to another country. [If you ever need to do something like this in Vancouver, BC or Calgary, AB, Canada... please let me know and I'll be happy to give you a hand with this sort of arrangements.

]

At the end of the day... I'm glad everything worked out for you.

Dan,

I've read some of your other postings and thought you had made some valid arguments in the past... but, on this one, it's a dozzie:

"I would only hope I was on a plane where some raghead bastard was stupid enough to try & take it over with a boxcutter blade. Would give all us passengers a perfect excuse to kill and/or main anyone that damn dumb. Beat them to death with flotation cushons... pull out the drop down oxygen masks & use the line to choke them to death... whatever. No one will ever let a bunch of bums take over another plane like that. TSA and HomelandStupidity are as dumb as the French & Poles at the start of WWII. Prepared to fight the past, not changing and anticipating the future."

Nice diatribe, very inane... SURPRISE, DAN, TERRORISTS COME IN ALL SHAPES, SIZES, AND COLORS!

Not ALL of them are "RAGHEADS." [To use your prejudicial terminology]

MOST of these people are NOT terrorists and, if you look hard enough... I'm SURE there are some who are working hard to defend your nation against terrorism!

Please DO NOT respond to my comment... I'm sure most folks will agree that you've already said quite enough!

Thread: Airport X-Rays, Part II

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display