Airport Scanners - the age old question (finally somewhat settled)

[markinwaterloo]

As I am currently planning a trip to Europe with many flights and connections, I am lucky enough to have a friend working in airport security that has helped alleviate some of my concerns. After much research on the internet, no one seemed to have a definitive answer to the age old question: will the carry-on scanner at airport security ruin my film? We all know that a few times through the scanner won't harm most film, but as I will be going through a minimum of 8 scans - coupled with the rumours that effects are cumulative - I wanted to be sure.

As this is clearly a major concern, I asked my willing and able friend to scan a couple of Kodak 160NC rolls 12 times through the airport scanner. I just processed and scanned it in and there is no problem whatsoever.

While scientific method would have me scan multiple rolls in multiple airports, I am happy to say that I am pleased with the result and hope this information will be helpful to others.

Mark

[Noah A]

Thanks for sharing. I've always considered such a test but I never got around to it.

Enjoy your trip!

[Scott Walker]

Good to know, thanks

[vinny]

good, now if only other foreign airports have the same up-to-date scanners.

[Lachlan 717]

good, now if only other foreign airports have the same up-to-date scanners.

Where's there any evidence that a) this scanner was "up-to-date", and b) that "foreign airports" don't have them?

Seems like a statement of nationalistic, chest-beating crap to me, or are you just trolling?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Just make sure you have no film in your pockets or down your pants when you go through one of the new whole body scanners!

[Michael Batchelor]

Just make sure you have no film in your pockets or down your pants when you go through one of the new whole body scanners!

If you aren't going through the whole body scanners, and it's getting harder to predict, I find that sticking 120 film with it's plastic rolls in my shirt and pants pockets are never questioned.

Of course, the whole body scanner would alert like a retriever in a duck field if you try this.

12 passes without visible effect is good to know.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Where's there any evidence that a) this scanner was "up-to-date", and b) that "foreign airports" don't have them?

Seems like a statement of nationalistic, chest-beating crap to me, or are you just trolling?

I think Vinny was just getting at the fact that not all scanners are created equal. The OP had his buddy run the film 12 times through the same scanner. Great, we know that scanner doesn't affect the film. What about the 12 million or so other scanners out there? We all know that the vast majority of them have no effect (I've put film through countless times), but there's always the possibility that a few of them will emit far more radiation that could have an effect. It's the same deal with the whole body scanners, which have quite a few ethical issues associated with them as well.

[Lachlan 717]

I think Vinny was just getting at the fact that not all scanners are created equal. The OP had his buddy run the film 12 times through the same scanner. Great, we know that scanner doesn't affect the film. What about the 12 million or so other scanners out there? We all know that the vast majority of them have no effect (I've put film through countless times), but there's always the possibility that a few of them will emit far more radiation that could have an effect. It's the same deal with the whole body scanners, which have quite a few ethical issues associated with them as well.

What's that got to do with foreign scanners? I'm sure that London Heathrow has better machines than Des Moines.

[BrianShaw]

What's that got to do with foreign scanners?

Can you tell us who the manufacturer of "foriegn scanners" is? The American scanner makers, Rapiscan and others, put their specs, capabilities, and technical data online. I'd sure like to look up whatever is out there on the 'foreign scanners".