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]

There is greater chance of problems occurring from the radiation that hits the film during the flight.

I read somewhere quite a while ago that the University of Melbourne tested films and found that they start to get affected after around 60 passes through the x-ray machine (asa dependent), but a long haul flight (Melbourne to London, for example) will show some fogging due to radiation at altitude.

As to whether this is true, cumulative and/or visible, I have no idea (galactic and solar radiations are not in doubt). However, I would think that your greater risk is from excessive heat on the film whilst traveling.

[photobymike]

I use film shield lead bags for radiation protection. The security people usually dont mind manual searching my carry on camera bag

[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!

[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.

[jloen]

Yes, it's the Wild West in some foreign countries.

I recall that I was required to get a full chest X-Ray done to work in my field (geology) in an African Country. At the 1950's era-like hospital the tech asked me if they could "shoot a few more", a strange question considering the potentially dangerous effects of multiple chest X-Rays. But as far as they were concerned it was just a photograph and didn't hurt you, because you obviously walked away all right. They probably sold them on the side to medical schools for beer money. Again, it's like the Wild West, there's little understanding of what's really happening and pretty much anything goes depending on the people in charge.

Same thing at airport security lines. Some years ago (1991) at the Istanbul airport the official wanted me to demonstrate shooting a picture to prove that the camera was not a gun. So I shot off a frame of Velvia. Of course he was not paying attention and so I had to waste a second shot while he was watching. That was a long time ago (I remember how annoyed I was) and I'm sure it's much worse now.

A question that I have is, can Rollei Infrared 400 be run through the X-Ray machine? Is there anything about infrared film that makes it more risky to X-Ray? Obviously it's much easier to fog in general.
Just wondering, flying later this week. Thanks for any suggestions.

[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.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

There was also a report just in the last week of an FAA (or was it NIH?) study that indicated many airport scanners are emitting higher levels of radiation than specified.

I don't wish to submit film to scans, especially considering it's unnecessary if you request a hand search instead (true at least in the USA. Fuji Quickloads make this really easy and straightforward, incidentally.).

Xray damage to film is cumulative. It's perhaps been zapped already if you ordered it via mail-order. No need to add to this unnecessarily, whenever possible. Some of my boxes of film may linger for awhile before being used; I also don't want to be tracking which sheets have had how many doses.

[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.

[BetterSense]

Xray damage to film is cumulative.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that without evidence. There is a certain threshold below which film won't respond.

[rdenney]

I don't wish to submit film to scans, especially considering it's unnecessary if you request a hand search instead (true at least in the USA. Fuji Quickloads make this really easy and straightforward, incidentally.).

I'm finding that it is more and more difficult to get a reasonable hand-inspection done.

And Quickloads are history, despite that I still have a freezer full of it.

Lead bags will require them to pull the bag aside for a separate search, pull out the bag, inspect it, and often run its contents through the scanner again. Or they'll back up the belt and look at the carry-on bag again, before pulling it aside. Many airports through which I have traveled will not let anything get past security without having been scanned.

The rules say you can ask for a hand inspection. I didn't see the part where they agreed to conduct one that doesn't require opening boxes of sheet film and lead bags. We've heard stories on this forum of hand inspections resulting in opened boxes.

I just run it through the scanner and don't worry about it.

I do try to avoid the full-body scan if possible, because I fly very frequently and don't want to accumulate more doses than necessary.

And I'm usually the guy most likely to challenge stupidity in the security line (stupidity that does not conform to policy). But I would really rather not make a scene or slow the line down--the people behind me don't need it and neither do I.

Rick "who doesn't have the choice to not fly" Denney

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Agreed to most of your points, Rick. I'd certainly like to see Q/L and especially R/L come back, but since there's little likelihood of that, I stockpiled a bunch of Q/L and they don't get scanned. Last time I flew I shipped my boxed film and Grafmatics ahead. I do have the choice to drive or fly most of the places I go in the West for LF photography-- and drive wherever I can.

BetterSense, don't take my word for it; Kodak warns that Xrays are cumulative on film and to avoid scanners when shooting professionally

[BrianShaw]

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.


You replicated research done years ago to establish the TSA and film company guidelines. That research (conducted by the I3A industry consortium) was assuming "standard" equipment commonly found at airports. Also assumed good maintenance and calibration.

Replication of scientific research is a good thing.

I have done likewise but as a passenger, not a researcher. My standard process has been to just put it through the machjine and not raise a fuss... and I've been doing that successfully for several decades.

[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".

[Jim Michael]

Let's say you're sitting out on the long tail of the film's exposure curve and taking some shots at night. Your exposure is three hours. Do you think you could do that in 3 one hour exposures or do you have to do the whole three hours at once? How about a hundred 1.8 minute exposures or one thousand .18 min exposures? Why should X-ray exposure be any different?

I've measured the radiation output on two separate government x-ray machines and the dose worked out to about the same you'll get at altitude in an airliner flying at 30,000 feet for 5 hours (which I've also measured). I wouldn't worry about it - unless a large number of exposures is involved and/or hight speed film, or I'm flying somewhere where there is a risk of older less sensitive technology being in use. Thanks to the OP for the independent test. Someone referenced another test some time ago that spanned several films speeds which might be worth a google search.

Don't discount the possiblity there is superior technology in use elsewhere and the dose might actually be lower than with machines in use in the USA. Often health concerns in other countries are much higher than here and they're willing to pony up a few extra bucks for better equipment.





I don't think there's any reason to believe that without evidence. There is a certain threshold below which film won't respond.

[BrianShaw]

The rules say you can ask for a hand inspection. I didn't see the part where they agreed to conduct one.

Rick, I generally put the period earlier in the sentence!

[Christopher Hansen]

I found the airport security folks in many countries refused to hand inspect my film. This has happened to me in Australia, China, and Germany. Luckily, in none of those cases did my film get fogged by the x-ray machine.

[612tom]

A question that I have is, can Rollei Infrared 400 be run through the X-Ray machine? Is there anything about infrared film that makes it more risky to X-Ray? Obviously it's much easier to fog in general.
Just wondering, flying later this week. Thanks for any suggestions.

Can't speak for the Rollei IR, but I have a box of Efke IR that's been following me around a bit for a while with no ill effects.

Here in Oz and NZ all luggage on international flights gets scanned on entry (quarantine) as well as departure, so that doubles up the scans you're going to get.

This particular box of Efke IR was bought in the US and posted to me in Oz, so I dont know if it got scanned in that journey (never know what gets scanned and what doesnt in the post), but with me its done:

MEL-SYD (1)
SYD-BNE (1)
BNE-MEL (1)

MEL-ZQN (1 departure + 1 arrival)
ZQN-WLG (1)
WLG-NPE (1)
NPE-AKL (1)
AKL-MEL (1 departure + 1 arrival)

All just left in hand luggage and sent through the scanners each time - didn't bother requesting a hand inspection at all.

So that's no less than 10 times and it still absolutley fine - one WIP image attached.

I had Provia, Velvia, and Delta100 with me at the same time and it's also all coming out fine.

Hope that helps...

[jloen]

Hey, sounds good. I shot 6 4x5 sheets of Efke IR today, testing for exposure. It's got to be one of the slowest films I've ever used (EI about 1 according to my tests), so perhaps that helps out against X-ray fogging.
Rollei IR is a lot more like normal B&W film, with regrettably weak IR effects, in my experience at least.
Thanks for the post.

[Jim Michael]

The IR films my wife has been experimenting with she typically shoots around ISO 8, but that's with one of those 820nm cutoff filters. Without the filter the film is quite a bit faster, like 200. For x-ray risk mitigation I would use the unfiltered speed. Really, I'm not aware of many choices for the chemicals in the light sensitive layers and effort these days seems to be concentrated on grain shape, so it would seem unlikely you can make an emulsion that is sensitive in the visible region and/or IR, yet insensitive in the higher energy wavelengths. I'd love to hear about an example of one.

[rguinter]

The IR films my wife has been experimenting with she typically shoots around ISO 8, but that's with one of those 820nm cutoff filters. Without the filter the film is quite a bit faster, like 200. For x-ray risk mitigation I would use the unfiltered speed. Really, I'm not aware of many choices for the chemicals in the light sensitive layers and effort these days seems to be concentrated on grain shape, so it would seem unlikely you can make an emulsion that is sensitive in the visible region and/or IR, yet insensitive in the higher energy wavelengths. I'd love to hear about an example of one.

Yes x-rays are much higher energy and much lower wavelength than visible & IR being typically less than 1 nm.

This is about 3 orders of magnitude shorter wavelength than visible which starts around 400 nm.

Admitedly I never did any reading about x-ray films but I'm wondering what might be in their emulsions to make them sensitive way down at those wavelengths.

And conversely, in tune with this thread, I'm wondering too if any of the emulsions we use for visible and IR photos have any significant sensitivity in that range and why that might be so.

Bob G.

[Michael Batchelor]

Yes x-rays are much higher energy and much lower wavelength than visible & IR being typically less than 1 nm.

This is about 3 orders of magnitude shorter wavelength than visible which starts around 400 nm.

Admitedly I never did any reading about x-ray films but I'm wondering what might be in their emulsions to make them sensitive way down at those wavelengths.

And conversely, in tune with this thread, I'm wondering too if any of the emulsions we use for visible and IR photos have any significant sensitivity in that range and why that might be so.

Bob G.

While the X-rays can naturally ionize the halides, most medical X-ray procedures use a special film holder that has a screen which fluoresces in the presence of X-rays and helps expose the film. This cuts the patient dose considerably.

Some screens are blue, and some are green, hence the blue and green X-ray film.

Industrial X-rays, like pipe welds, do not use these screens. In fact, I bought five 8x10 "X-ray film holders" from a guy for twenty bucks a few years ago - yeah, $4/each. They were Fidelity Elites! But to him they were just film holders that didn't fit his jig properly, and he couldn't fathom why I wanted them.

[John NYC]

I don't think there's any reason to believe that without evidence. There is a certain threshold below which film won't respond.

Kodak clearly seems to think so...

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

"If you're going to be traveling through multiple X-ray examinations (more than 5 times), request a hand search of your carry-on baggage."

[John NYC]

Yesteday when traveling, I had six rolls of unexposed 120 film in my carry-on bags. When my bag was in the machine, the bag just ahead of me was stopped for a "bag check," meaning the operator had to have a supervisor come look at the x-ray. There was no one available for more than five minutes. In the meantime, the operator kept jogging the conveyor belt back and forth looking at the x-ray, zooming in, etc. All the while my own bag was visibly on the screen and being x-rayed, I am guessing continuously for that time since the pictures move smoothly as the belt moves and not in "snapshots."

I had two rolls of Ilford Pan F 50, two rolls of Ilford HP5, one roll of Fuji 400H and one roll of the new Portra 400.

Recently I took some 120 shots in Montreal and a couple of my Portra 400 rolls had some strange brown-grey spots, so now, I am going to test this newly x-ray exposed roll of Porta and see if there are any issues, though it will be a few weeks until I get back in town and can get the film developed.

[GPS]

..

Recently I took some 120 shots in Montreal and a couple of my Portra 400 rolls had some strange brown-grey spots, so now, I am going to test this newly x-ray exposed roll of Porta and see if there are any issues, though it will be a few weeks until I get back in town and can get the film developed.

I guess, the whole of this LF community will be speechless and breathless while waiting...:rolleyes:

[Scott Davis]

Thinking of the effect on IR film, I had some Kodak HIE in 35mm that I took with me to Cambodia. I made my level best to get everything hand-inspected on the way there, and made it from DC to New York to Amsterdam to Singapore with hand inspections. Going to Cambodia from Singapore, the security boy insisted on sending my bag through the scanner. Leaving Cambodia, I was stymied by the security boy who couldn't comprehend an unopened box of film and made me open a box and then open the canister inside. The rest of the film went through the scanners there, and then again in Singapore, Amsterdam and New York on the return trip.

Result? No negative impact. So, any IR film available today is going to be even more unaffected by the carry-on scanners because it is not nearly as sensitive as HIE was. If HIE can make it through a Cambodian x-ray machine at a small regional airport, anything else will do fine in most major airports in the developed world.

Checked baggage is an entirely different animal, though - I had some Fuji NPS 160 that I had loaded in my 4x5 holders previously. Not thinking, I put them in my checked suitcase so I didn't have to carry the holders in my carry-on and possibly have to deal with the screener wanting to open them. When I got home and had the film souped, the ones on the bottom of the stack closest to the scanner were badly fogged in a strange pattern.

[John NYC]

I guess, the whole of this LF community will be speechless and breathless while waiting...:rolleyes:

No one makes you read this stuff.

[John NYC]

Recently I took some 120 shots in Montreal and a couple of my Portra 400 rolls had some strange brown-grey spots, so now, I am going to test this newly x-ray exposed roll of Porta and see if there are any issues, though it will be a few weeks until I get back in town and can get the film developed.

Follow up: I shot and dev'ed the Portra 400, the HP5 and the Pan F that went through the long wait time in the scanner in NYC. Only the Pan F roll seems to have been *potentially* damaged, as there are some banding issues in the negs unlike anything I've seen from dev mistakes before.

[BrianShaw]

Hey John, that sounds morelike CAT damage than what one might get from a carry-on baggage scanner, like Rapiscan equipment.

BTW, some of your assumption in earlier post, "All the while my own bag was visibly on the screen and being x-rayed, I am guessing continuously for that time since the pictures move smoothly as the belt moves and not in "snapshots.", isn't completely accurate. Possible, but not completely accurate in the absolute. The Rapiscan and other scanners have a red light on them that illuminates when radiation is being used to image the bag. Often that can't be seen while standing in line being jostled etc, but it is surprisingly off more than it is on. The images captured can indeed be viewed snapshot (still) and manipulated using image enhancement/manipulation software techniques without additional radiation exposure.

[Steve Goldstein]

John, out of Portra400, HP5, and PanF, the one I'd least expect to be affected would be the PanF because it's so much slower. Have you tried another roll from that batch that didn't go through the scanner? Perhaps the problem occurred earlier.

I've personally had no problem with FP4+ and TMY2 that have gone through carry-on X-ray at least 6 times in both 120 and 4x5 formats.

[cyrus]

Look guys, I think we can put this to rest. Anecdotally, I've been through every sort of scanner at every sort of airport in every sort of hitthole third-world country, and have never ever ever never ever never had any fogging problems (we're talking about the scanner that is used on carry-ons and not the scanners used on checked baggage.) In fact I am not aware of a single post by anyone on any photo forum which has made a believable case that the airport scanner fogged their film. Lets just put this to rest.

[BrianShaw]

I agree, cyrus, and add that there is empirical data by a reputable scientific body that trumps all of our anecdotal stories or self-conducted experience. Also, there is factory data on the inner workings and capabilities of airport screening scanners if one goes looking for it. Although I stay away from the third-world, I too have traveled US and second-world extensively with film of all sizes and many speeds (400 and below) TOTALLY without incident -- either in terms of fogging, banding, or disagreable TSA (or "foreign" equivelent) personnel.

But that said... you repeatedly suggesting "put it to rest" is wasted breath (or keystrokes, really). People LOVE this topic and LOVE to have opinions on it, whether based in fact, fiction, or fantasy. :)

[cyrus]

But that said... you repeatedly suggesting "put it to rest" is wasted breath (or keystrokes, really). People LOVE this topic and LOVE to have opinions on it, whether based in fact, fiction, or fantasy. :)

So, how long do you think film will last? Isn't digital so much better than film? :p

[BrianShaw]

I think film will last 17.8 more years. Then the discussion of xray damage will end. ;)

[IanG]

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

No many US airports have older less safe scanners, so you can't trust all foreign countries.

However ironically many poorer countries usually have much more up to date film safe scanners, mainly as they have newer airports etc and have been forced to upgrade to meet International standards.

Some airports scan ALL luggage on arrival, Lima, Peru for instance but this is for agricultural reasons to safeguard their unique biodiversity and prevent illegal food/plant imports spreading diseases.

Ian

[John NYC]

I agree, cyrus, and add that there is empirical data by a reputable scientific body that trumps all of our anecdotal stories or self-conducted experience. Also, there is factory data on the inner workings and capabilities of airport screening scanners if one goes looking for it. Although I stay away from the third-world, I too have traveled US and second-world extensively with film of all sizes and many speeds (400 and below) TOTALLY without incident -- either in terms of fogging, banding, or disagreable TSA (or "foreign" equivelent) personnel.

But that said... you repeatedly suggesting "put it to rest" is wasted breath (or keystrokes, really). People LOVE this topic and LOVE to have opinions on it, whether based in fact, fiction, or fantasy. :)

Kodak seems to disagree with you, but whatever.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=764197&postcount=27

I think I pointed out quite clearly with the emphasis in my post that I cannot be certain this is what caused it, but the banding is curved and across some of the negs but not all on the roll. It really does look like what is on the Kodak site at the very bottom of the page, but very minor in comparison. None of the other rolls from my same purchase batch have had this. Same lab that delivers almost perfect negs every time.

[John NYC]

Look guys, I think we can put this to rest. Anecdotally, I've been through every sort of scanner at every sort of airport in every sort of hitthole third-world country, and have never ever ever never ever never had any fogging problems (we're talking about the scanner that is used on carry-ons and not the scanners used on checked baggage.) In fact I am not aware of a single post by anyone on any photo forum which has made a believable case that the airport scanner fogged their film. Lets just put this to rest.

That's just ridiculous logic: you've never experienced it and you don't believe anyone else who says that have experienced it, ergo, it must be false.

[cyrus]

Not scientifically proven false, but close enough. Exactly how many times would i have to haul my film through airport scanners with no fogging, and how many more similar threads must read to conclude that it is in all reasonable probability false?

[John NYC]

Not scientifically proven false, but close enough. Exactly how many times would i have to haul my film through airport scanners with no fogging, and how many more similar threads must read to conclude that it is in all reasonable probability false?

How many times do you have to buy lottery tickets and not win to prove definitively that no one wins?

Have you ever had the same situation as me happen to you? Where the guy was jogging the image back and forth for 10 minutes? Or did all your film go through in a half second like the 500 other times mine has with no problems in my life?

I think you get my point. I'm not saying it happens all the time. I am positing that under this specific circumstance, it *might* have happened.

There is a very scientific way of determining the answer to this, but it would involve the cooperation of people good at conducting scientific experiments and the TSA.

Or, maybe the Myth Busters show will do it for us one day... that would be entertaining.

[IanG]

Kodak's information is out of date for modern carry on baggage scanning where all new machines have been film safe for yeras now. As someone who travels extensively with film I've never had a problem and my films get scanned many multiples of times. Sometimes more than 20.

Ian

[Frank Petronio]

I always sell my film in the classifieds after the first fifty scans.

[GPS]

How many times do you have to buy lottery tickets and not win to prove definitively that no one wins?

Have you ever had the same situation as me happen to you? Where the guy was jogging the image back and forth for 10 minutes? Or did all your film go through in a half second like the 500 other times mine has with no problems in my life?

I think you get my point. I'm not saying it happens all the time. I am positing that under this specific circumstance, it *might* have happened.

There is a very scientific way of determining the answer to this, but it would involve the cooperation of people good at conducting scientific experiments and the TSA.

Or, maybe the Myth Busters show will do it for us one day... that would be entertaining.

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.

[rdenney]

Kodak seems to disagree with you, but whatever.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=764197&postcount=27

I think I pointed out quite clearly with the emphasis in my post that I cannot be certain this is what caused it, but the banding is curved and across some of the negs but not all on the roll. It really does look like what is on the Kodak site at the very bottom of the page, but very minor in comparison. None of the other rolls from my same purchase batch have had this. Same lab that delivers almost perfect negs every time.

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:


Airport Baggage Scanning Equipment Can Jeopardize Your Unprocessed Film

Because your pictures are important to you, this information is presented as an alert to travelers carrying unprocessed film. New FAA-certified (Federal Aviation Administration) explosive detection systems are being used in U.S. airports to scan (x-ray) checked baggage. This stronger scanning equipment is also being used in many non-US airports. The new equipment will fog any unprocessed film that passes through the scanner.

Rick "who can read" Denney

[BrianShaw]

That Kodak report clearly states that it applies only to the scanners used for checked bags, not the scanners used in the security line. (snip) Rick "who can read" Denney

I can read too, but should have been more specific about what exact research report I was referring to before assumptions were made. Rick is correct... that Kodak report is specific to CT-based scanners for checked baggage. I was referring to the I3A report on Rapiscan scanners for carry-on baggage. The I3A report isn't real easy to access but it is available and is both scientific and conducted by an authoritative scientific collaborative organization using proper scientific method. Some have criticised it based on age of findings, but nobody has yet provided any convincing conclusion based on either scientific or engineering basis that the results are still not valid. I suspect (yes, suspect) that the newer equipment and techniques may actually pose less risk than that used for the I3A study based on technology improvements and general industry sensitivity to the film fogging issue.

[BrianShaw]

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

The report is free.

Peace, out.

[BrianShaw]

I always sell my film in the classifieds after the first fifty scans.

I bought some damaged film, but not from you. I look forward to winning the photography contest in the county fair with my cool-looking swirly images!

When you sell, Frank, make sure you mention that it is "art film" and worth lots of money.

[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.

[BrianShaw]

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.

I can't speak for the others so let me speak for myself. I NEVER said "impossible", but I did say "unlikely".

I've understand the "bag check" scenario completely. Been there many times, and been behind people in that situation many times too. Generally, IN MY EXPERIENCE, the screeners sit there with their thumbs up their @$$ while repeatedly screaming "bag check" rather than diddling with their machine.

I, too, a long time ago asked for hand checks and have been refused -- in both US and foriegn countries. Given little or no option I started putting film through the scanners and not worrying about it. Never had a problem, but I generally shoot <200 ASA film and seldom accrue more than 4 screenings on that film. If I have film that has been screened 4 times but not exposed, I don't take it with me on air travel or I throw it out. (Maybe I should start selling it like Petrino does. ;) )

Good luck to you in your future travels.

[rdenney]

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.

If that's what you got from what I said, then your ability to read receives a further challenge.

The Kodak report applies only to the scanners used for checked bags. As I said, the conclusion I draw from it is to carry film through the security line and never put it in checked bags. I thought this was settled knowledge in any case.

The question is why you refute a discussion about the scanners in the security line with a report about the (very different) scanners used for checked bags?

Rick "who never puts film in checked baggage--ever" Denney

[Jim Michael]

It's really very simple. X-ray exposure, like any exposure, is cumulative. At some number of trips through a scanner a threshold will be crossed and density will be registered in the film. There may be other factors at play influencing exposure, such as the orientation of the film WRT the source, objects in the path that are capable of attenuating X-radiation, etc. Any other prior exposure counts too.

[E. von Hoegh]

I'd like to know the precise amount of X-ray exposure at each airport, so I can arrive in Europe with my B&W film properly pre-exposed. I want the maximum shadow detail in my photos of cathedral interiors at night.

[GPS]

Make it 2x SF-NY, +1N

[John NYC]

If that's what you got from what I said, then your ability to read receives a further challenge.

The Kodak report applies only to the scanners used for checked bags. As I said, the conclusion I draw from it is to carry film through the security line and never put it in checked bags. I thought this was settled knowledge in any case.

The question is why you refute a discussion about the scanners in the security line with a report about the (very different) scanners used for checked bags?

Rick "who never puts film in checked baggage--ever" Denney

Honestly, Rick, I think you need to re-read what the Kodak report says. It is written poorly I agree, but I believe you are misunderstanding it. Also read the report that Brian Shaw posted.

Specifically this...

"Based on the testing completed at the TSA Training Center in Atlantic City, I3A recommends a limit of five passes through the carry-on baggage security checkpoint systems for all color negative and reversal film, including single-use cameras, up to and including ISO 800 speed film. "

[John NYC]

It's really very simple. X-ray exposure, like any exposure, is cumulative. At some number of trips through a scanner a threshold will be crossed and density will be registered in the film. There may be other factors at play influencing exposure, such as the orientation of the film WRT the source, objects in the path that are capable of attenuating X-radiation, etc. Any other prior exposure counts too.

This is exactly right. But don't confuse everyone here with actual science. :-)

[IanG]

This is exactly right. But don't confuse everyone here with actual science. :-)


It's too simple. The carry on luggage scanners are so safe even fertile women are are allowed to use them, no special screens. They don't even need dosemeters, taht just about says it all.

Film safe machines emit no X-ray or other emissions that will harm a film or human, it's that simple.

Ian

[rdenney]

Honestly, Rick, I think you need to re-read what the Kodak report says. It is written poorly I agree, but I believe you are misunderstanding it. Also read the report that Brian Shaw posted.

Well, you're right. "Bettersense" had refuted the notion of cumulative exposure, and that recommendation in the Kodak report certainly does imply that cumulative exposure is possible. My apologies.

And you are right that it is poorly written. There is nothing in that article that provides a basis for that recommendation, given that the equipment they said they evaluated was for checked baggage, and not what is used for carry-on baggage. And before the recommendation you were referring to, they say "X-ray equipment used to inspect carry-on baggage uses a very low level of x-radiation that will not cause noticeable damage to most films."

But you did compare your symptoms to what was in that report, even though their symptoms were caused by the very different equipment used for checked baggage. I was taking things too much in context.

That does not, however, mean that the scenario you noted caused your problem. That said, I have observed truly horrid and often ludicrous behavior by TSA screeners. The notion of a machine operator running it back and forth through the machines just for the purpose of staving off boredom would not surprise me.

Rick "who goes through those security lines just about every week" Denney

[rdenney]

It's too simple. The carry on luggage scanners are so safe even fertile women are are allowed to use them, no special screens. They don't even need dosemeters, taht just about says it all.

I haven't noticed many pregnant women being asked to hop up on the belt and take a ride through the carry-on baggage scanner. The exposure outside the machine and the exposure inside the machine cannot possibly be the same.

Rick "who has never had a problem except with transparency film rated at ISO1000" Denney

[rguinter]

Look guys, I think we can put this to rest. Anecdotally, I've been through every sort of scanner at every sort of airport in every sort of hitthole third-world country, and have never ever ever never ever never had any fogging problems (we're talking about the scanner that is used on carry-ons and not the scanners used on checked baggage.) In fact I am not aware of a single post by anyone on any photo forum which has made a believable case that the airport scanner fogged their film. Lets just put this to rest.

I'm one of those guys that simply hates the thought of film being x-rayed at all, ever! And I've posted many times in earlier threads about this personal aversion of mine... and my exasperating experiences at security checkpoints trying to keep my films free of x-ray exposures.

But lately the hassle of flying (period) and the constant ramping-up of airport security has gotten so intense that I despise the thought of having to fly anywhere anymore. And I simply gave up the extra hassle of asking for hand scanning about 10 flights ago. I found it had gotten worse (even) than arguing with an ex-wife about some interpretation of legal language in a divorce agreement.

So since then I've had sheets of Ektar 100, Portra 100, Provia, Velvia100, Efke IR820, Aura, TMY, TMX, Kodak HSI, and all sorts of rolls of 120 film including custom spooled Aerochrome B&W and color infrareds go through the carry-on scanners multiple times. Some as much as 8-times before being used and processed.

And so far (thankfully) I've noticed no adverse effects with these (mostly) slower films.

So I'm keeping my fingers crossed that things continue to work out that way for me. And like "Meatloaf" I'm praying for the end of time so I can end my time flying for business. I'm frankly sick of the airline hassles and rotten service and look forward to days of leisurely (retirement) travel on the ground.

By the way. I always take a separate plastic tub for films and put them in there with nothing more sinister looking than eyeglasses, car keys, pens, and coins. I keep shoes, undies, laptops, and all the camera gear and whirlygig photo accessories far downstream of the film tub.

BG

[Alex Hollmann]

All of my 400 ASA B&W 120 size film was fogged after my trip to Israel, South Africa, and Egypt last summer. I've never had a problem with that same type of film being fogged when flying through multiple destinations in Europe and South Africa together in a single trip (have done that about 4 or 5 times), so I presume it was Israeli or Egyptian security and scanners that did it. The Israeli security people at Ben Gurion were very, very suspicious of me (never, never arrive late for an El Al flight even if you're leaving Israel) and put my hand luggage through the scanner multiple times (what kind of scanner, I don't know - I did tell them about the film and express my concerns but I wasn't in much of a position to insist on anything if I wanted to catch my flight) several times. They then told me that I could fly with my camera gear - but that my hard drive and computer would either have to stay in Israel or be sent after me on a separate flight. Both countries at their respective Sinai border crossing posts put all my bags through a scanner - no separate checking of hand luggage seemed possible, and communication was difficult. Perhaps those scanners did the film in, or perhaps it was a combination of all of these.

[Ronan87]

Interesting... I'm more worried about baggage handlers, obstrosive searches and ridiculous air fee's than scanners fogging my film.

On that note, I've never met anyone that had his film fogged due to airport scanners.

[Lachlan 717]

I'll repeat (again) what I was told about radiation and film based on a University of Melbourne investigation:

*Fogging will occur after approx. 60 passes;
*Cosmic radiation, especially on long haul flights, impacts film far more than Xray machines.

In addition, I'd like to point something else out that seems somewhat common in the posts where fogging has occurred: the listed destinations all seem to be hot. Can those with fogging confirm that their film didn't get cooked along the way?

(For what it's worth, I now travel with a lead film pouch to minimise cosmic radiation. No issue so far, and I fly at least weekly).

[John NYC]

I'll repeat (again) what I was told about radiation and film based on a University of Melbourne investigation:

*Fogging will occur after approx. 60 passes;



Can you find the paper on this? It disagrees with the study that Brian Shaw posted, where it talks about five passes.

[James Morris]

I've had some 400H 120 film affected by what I believe was a carry-on xray. Bought the film in Japan, flew to Malaysia and then Australia. So it seems to have happened in either Japan or Malaysia.

The effect was a sparse patten of bright dots in diagonal lines across the film, similar to examples of actual xray damage published by Kodak.

I was also carrying several other kinds of film which were not affected: Neopan 1600 (exposed but not developed), Tmax 400 (ditto) and Ektar 100 (unexposed).

[Jim Michael]

(For what it's worth, I now travel with a lead film pouch to minimise cosmic radiation. No issue so far, and I fly at least weekly).

Not much unfortunately. Next time I fly I'll try to remember to take the meter and a lead bag and do a reading.

[Lachlan 717]

Not much unfortunately. Next time I fly I'll try to remember to take the meter and a lead bag and do a reading.

Here's the rub for me: I know that the Pb bag will prevent most damage. I don't know what will happen without it. As such, I'll stick to using it regardless of what comes up here.

[Lachlan 717]

Can you find the paper on this? It disagrees with the study that Brian Shaw posted, where it talks about five passes.

I'll try to, John. Not sure if it'll quell the doubters here, though. Like Clint Eastwood said in the 1988 classic, The Dead Pool: "Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one".

[BrianShaw]

Lachlan, I too will be very interested in seeing the study you refer to. I'm curious about their assumptions and experimental protocol, and how it may have differed than I3A.

[Lachlan 717]

Lachlan, I too will be very interested in seeing the study you refer to. I'm curious about their assumptions and experimental protocol, and how it may have differed than I3A.

I was told about this by one of the Screening staff, so it all could be a crock. However, I'll try to find something on it.

Regardless, the lead bag is now standard packing for me.

[chiphotography]

I don't trust any of them. It's interesting how they changed the policy on second level screening for children. Tells me they realize they weren't doing things in an ethical manner.

[BrianShaw]

http://oas.uco.edu/05/paper/Bragg.pdf

I intended to post this during the height of the discussion. Better late than never. A nice replication study!

[John NYC]

http://oas.uco.edu/05/paper/Bragg.pdf

I intended to post this during the height of the discussion. Better late than never. A nice replication study!

Nice work! Kid will go far!

One obvious study design flaw is not testing machines at a wide variety of airports on multiple occasions at random. If a machine is badly miscalibrated, I could imagine the passes before damage could be fewer than 11.

[BrianShaw]

Nice work! Kid will go far!

One obvious study design flaw is not testing machines at a wide variety of airports on multiple occasions at random. If a machine is badly miscalibrated, I could imagine the passes before damage could be fewer than 11.

That's not a flaw, but a feature. ;) All of the studies I've read have the same characteristic. I think they are relying on standards and design/calibration controls to ensure that the machines used are representative. I don't know what controls are in place in the field to ensure calibration, etc but I would hope that they are fairly rigorous in most countries. But that is specualtion on my part so I may or may not be correct.

[Alex Hollmann]

In addition, I'd like to point something else out that seems somewhat common in the posts where fogging has occurred: the listed destinations all seem to be hot. Can those with fogging confirm that their film didn't get cooked along the way?
.

Hot places, yes, but the fogging patterns on my film were consistent with characteristic patterns found on film in documented and deliberate cases of Xray fogging. I've been in extremely hot places before with B&W film and had no problems. The difference on this trip was the number of times the film was subjected to scanning and probably the type of scanner, which may have been a specially heavy-duty one and not a standard one used for hand luggage.