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

[gbogatko]

On a trip to the Bahamas this year, I put film in the camera bag. It was scanned, scanned again, again, again (they weren't sure what the Mamiya 645 was). All the 800 speed stuff was fogged (I threw it away) and the HP5 was as well.

I'll be purchasing a lead-lined bag the next time.

[goamules]

It looks like the question was finally settled. The security scanning damaged at least one persons high speed film.

[IanG]

It looks like the question was finally settled. The security scanning damaged at least one persons high speed film.

Not really because it depends where the damage happened.

In the UK there's a committee that oversee's the safety of film at airports, made up of the film manufacturers, professional & amateur photographic organisations and airport security officials, they ensure scanners are safe for many multiple scans.

A major manufactuer of scanning equipment is US owned with factories in the US and UK, the products made in the US are mainly sold inside the US because unlike most countries the US has a very high numberof airports, the UK made machines go to Europe & the rest of the world they are made to meet the higher film safety standards.

US airports will allow hand checks of film, few if any in Europe will because they are 100% sure their equipment is film safe.

Ian

[cyrus]

If the chances of my film getting fogged is the same as me winning the lottery then yes I think it is quite reasonable to classify it as something that for all intents and purposes simply does not happen and is about the last thing in the world I would worry about. At that probability level I'd be far more concerned about the likelihood of my plane crashing! Again, we're talking about slow-medium film and the normal scanners used for carry-ons rather than high speed film or the scanners used on check-in luggage.

[John NYC]

That Kodak report clearly states that it applies only to the scanners used for checked bags, not the scanners used in the security line. They even put "checked" in boldface every time it appeared. The units they mention are not used for security-line screening. Don't put film in your checked bag--carry it with you. Here is what Kodak actually wrote in that 2003 notice:



Rick "who can read" Denney

Really? So you think they are saying it is ok to put it through the checked baggage scanner fewer than six times and only request a hand check for the sixth time? Because that's what your read of this implies.

[John NYC]

http://www.i3a.org/technologies/advocacy/itip-2/

The report is free.

Peace, out.

This report also says if it going to be scanned more than five times by rapid scan (not cargo scan) devices, you should request a hand check.

So, say the guy actually did hit the scan button on my bag over and over. You are still saying it is not possible for it to be damaged?

[John NYC]

On a trip to the Bahamas this year, I put film in the camera bag. It was scanned, scanned again, again, again (they weren't sure what the Mamiya 645 was). All the 800 speed stuff was fogged (I threw it away) and the HP5 was as well.

I'll be purchasing a lead-lined bag the next time.

I believe you, but no one here will!

[John NYC]

Your defensive logic is wrong. Unlike lottery the results of scanning are scientifically predictable.
Regarding "jogging" the image for 10 minutes you forgot to understand the post n. 33.
Re your "very scientific way of determining the answer" you forget that nobody will bother to redo tests because of your nonsensical logic - however much it would please your ego.
You're basically insisting on spreading a BS theory.

I don't feed trolls, but I do add them to my ignore list! Bye!

[BrianShaw]

This report also says if it going to be scanned more than five times by rapid scan (not cargo scan) devices, you should request a hand check.

So, say the guy actually did hit the scan button on my bag over and over. You are still saying it is not possible for it to be damaged?

JohnNYC, you seem to want to be excessively argumentative. I'm not "still saying" anything, especially in terms of absolute statements like the words you seek to put in my mouth.

Yes, according to the I3A study medium and fast speed film shows some fogging after repeated exposure to Rapiscan carry-on screening equipment. That is a fact and the I3A study has been independently replicated in controlled environment using sound scientific method with similar results.

If indeed the screener kept zapping your film it could reach that number of exposures. I, nor anyone else, said anything contrary to that except to point out that it is not necessarily true that the amount of time your bag was in the scanner, or what you seen on the screen, is indicative of how many "zaps" the film gets. To be clearer... the number of zaps is an unknown.

The curious part of your experience is that your slow film (50 ASA, right) is what you said had fogging yet your faster 160/400 film did not. That is counterintuitive but I can respect your experience. That is not my experience nor is is supportable by data -- unless your film got zapped, say, 100 times. In that extreme situation I would have expected ALL of your film to be fogged, not just the slow film.

I fly a lot and understand the scanning equipment. As much of a PIA as the screening process is, I have never experienced TSA or foriegn screening personnel who maliciously attempt to ruin a photographers film. Maybe I've just been lucky, but it has been a lot of luck over a long period of time.

The advice to request hand check if film is going to be exposed to > 5 screenings is the standard advise and includes room for "error". If you (or anyone else) worries about this potential problem then it is prudent to request hand checks.

Do whatever makes you feel right.

[John NYC]

JohnNYC, you seem to want to be excessively argumentative. I'm not "still saying" anything, especially in terms of absolute statements like the words you seek to put in my mouth.

Yes, according to the study medium and fast speed film shows some fogging after repeated exposure to Rapiscan carry-on screening equipment. That is a fact and the I3A study has been independently replicated in controlled environment using sound scientific method with similar results.

If indeed the screener kept zapping your film it could reach that number of exposures. I, nor anyone else, said anything contrary to that eccept to point out that it is not necessarily true that the amount of time your bag was in the scanner, or what you seen on the screen, is indicative of how many "zaps" the film gets. To be clearer... the number of zaps is an unknown.

The curious part of your experience is that your slow film (50 ASA, right) is what you said had fogging yet your faster 160/400 film did not. That is counterintuitive but I can respect your experience. That is not my experience nor is is supportable by data -- unless your film got zapped, say, 100 times. In that extreme situation I would have expected ALL of your film to be fogged, not just the slow film.

I fly a lot and understand the scanning equipment. As much of a PIA as the screening process is, I have never experienced TSA or foriegn screening personnel who maliciously attempt to ruin a photographers film. Maybe I've just been lucky, but it has been a lot of luck over a long period of time.

The advice to request hand check if film is going to be exposed to > 5 screenings is the standard advise and includes room for "error". If you (or anyone else) worries about this potential problem then it is prudent to request hand checks.

Do whatever makes you feel right.

I am not being argumentative, I am actually responding to the arguments people are making against my statements.

Since you are not saying it is impossible to have film damaged by the carry on scanners, I think you are in the minority here. And then you are also not really disagreeing with me, so I was mistaken to take your posts as those who are.

The only thing I can think about why that one roll was damaged is that they all were not in the same place in my bag. They were spread out in different pockets.

I don't think the person was being malicious. He was annoyed that no one was coming to do his "bag check" so he kept moving things around on the screen, moving it back and forth, re-looking at it again, all the while yelling "bag check" about 25 times to no avail. I actually think he was annoyed to not be able to continue to put other luggage through the screener while he waited, but it appears that is their protocol.

I will be requesting hand checks. I could tell you the story about when I did it and was refused in Austin and then reported the person to the supervisor... but then again, I don't want to start up a whole other problem on this thread.