That's okay. I just thought you may have thought it was just the usual carry-on scanning question.
Airport Scanner Question
-
A
- Thread starter bvy
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Mamiya RZ67 120 film back
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale Kodak 125PX Plus-X 35mm Film Lot (And More)
- Started by chuckroast
-
For Sale Large format Kodak 1443 Aerochrome color infrared film
- Started by MCB18
-
For Trade FT: My NEW 49mm IR 720 filter for your 52mm IR 720 filter.
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale FS: Mamiya RB-67 / RZ-67 Caps!
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
Although... this could change things... who knows... depends a lot upon what is in those EU EDS CB standards...
https://americansecuritytoday.com/l3-clearscan-first-pass-new-eu-c3-carryon-baggage-certification/
Last edited:
OP
OP
Now that I'm on a real computer, here's the complete response I got from Excess Baggage on Saturday:
Thank you for your email, the contents of which we note. The equipment that we use is standard for security checkpoints worldwide. We believe that the x-ray level used to screen baggage is not significant.
The use of such x-ray screening equipment is mandatory as per the Aviation & Maritime Security Act 1990, and European Union EC 300/2008 regulations. All of our outlets, in the UK, Ireland, Spain, and elsewhere use similar equipment. This equipment is also used at many airports by airport security to screen hand luggage. The operation of our equipment is closely monitored by the authorities.
We have asked the manufacturer to comment on your query, however as it is the weekend, we are unlikely to receive a detailed response until Monday at the earliest. Our sales representative however has checked with his technical department, and they state that standard photographic film should be safe for 8 to 10 passes through an x-ray machine. Many years ago, we used to receive similar enquiries from passengers. Your’s is the first such query that we have received for some considerable time. We would therefore refer you to commentary on the Internet for further information, for example at:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/myths-about-airport-x-rays.118050/
We do assure you of our close attention. Thank you for using our service.
Thank you for your email, the contents of which we note. The equipment that we use is standard for security checkpoints worldwide. We believe that the x-ray level used to screen baggage is not significant.
The use of such x-ray screening equipment is mandatory as per the Aviation & Maritime Security Act 1990, and European Union EC 300/2008 regulations. All of our outlets, in the UK, Ireland, Spain, and elsewhere use similar equipment. This equipment is also used at many airports by airport security to screen hand luggage. The operation of our equipment is closely monitored by the authorities.
We have asked the manufacturer to comment on your query, however as it is the weekend, we are unlikely to receive a detailed response until Monday at the earliest. Our sales representative however has checked with his technical department, and they state that standard photographic film should be safe for 8 to 10 passes through an x-ray machine. Many years ago, we used to receive similar enquiries from passengers. Your’s is the first such query that we have received for some considerable time. We would therefore refer you to commentary on the Internet for further information, for example at:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/myths-about-airport-x-rays.118050/
We do assure you of our close attention. Thank you for using our service.
A rather valid reponse, but an almost ludicrous reference for further information.
"Many years ago, we used to receive similar enquiries from passengers. Your’s is the first such query that we have received for some considerable time."
That is what I fear. If neither users nor manufacturers are any longer bothered with film safety, there might come machines in the future that are no longer film safe.
That is what I fear. If neither users nor manufacturers are any longer bothered with film safety, there might come machines in the future that are no longer film safe.
They do remain "bothered" about film safety - both users and manufacturers, at least here in the civilized world... you're just not addressing the evidence presented earlier. Please stop fearing. But in the future, if CT becomes used in carry-on baggage screening some additional information from the manufacturers (or the certification authorities) will be needed to know if they are film safe.
Your assumption is based on one scanner manufacturer that still hints at film safety.
The reply from that scanner service operator shows that indeed they know about that issue and are inclined to please the inquirer, the same time their surprise of being approached (there was no obvious reason to hint at that) can be seen as them regarding being concenerd about film safety as no longer a substantiated issue.
What are you referring to with "civilized world"?
I checked at manufacturers from all over the world, if you are hinting at that.
The reply from that scanner service operator shows that indeed they know about that issue and are inclined to please the inquirer, the same time their surprise of being approached (there was no obvious reason to hint at that) can be seen as them regarding being concenerd about film safety as no longer a substantiated issue.
What are you referring to with "civilized world"?
I checked at manufacturers from all over the world, if you are hinting at that.
My assumption is based on the prevalent North American manufacturer. It is their entire line of "carry-on" scanner products which are certified in accordance with FAA regulations... and certainly respectful of film safety for that class of machine.
Sorry about the "civilized world" joke... not very funny in retrospect... but intended to indicate that I have no idea what happens in "3rd World" countries. I expect that EU has regulations as rigorous and film-respecting as the US but haven't done that research.
But, again, who are these other manufacturers that you surveyed? Did you have a chance to review their product specifications where both engineering factors as well as health-and-safety factors should be reported? As I showed a few posts ago, that information can be buried in the fine print.
Most of the screening equipment manufacturer and supplier web sites no longer talk about film safety (and some of the most authoritative web sites on airport screening film safety have long ago been taken down) because we film users are barely relevant anymore. It's like going to a Ford dealer and seeking parts for that 67 Ranchero... they might be able to provide some but they haven't been asked for parts in more than a decade (and some of the staff may not even know about Rancheros except from the history books).
Sorry about the "civilized world" joke... not very funny in retrospect... but intended to indicate that I have no idea what happens in "3rd World" countries. I expect that EU has regulations as rigorous and film-respecting as the US but haven't done that research.
But, again, who are these other manufacturers that you surveyed? Did you have a chance to review their product specifications where both engineering factors as well as health-and-safety factors should be reported? As I showed a few posts ago, that information can be buried in the fine print.
Most of the screening equipment manufacturer and supplier web sites no longer talk about film safety (and some of the most authoritative web sites on airport screening film safety have long ago been taken down) because we film users are barely relevant anymore. It's like going to a Ford dealer and seeking parts for that 67 Ranchero... they might be able to provide some but they haven't been asked for parts in more than a decade (and some of the staff may not even know about Rancheros except from the history books).
Interesting post from a Mike Dixon, a moderator on photo.net however, in which he says that his experience with D3200 and scanners was that he could detect on difference compared to hand inspection.
Was he just lucky or have we overestimated the likely damage to fast films from scanners?
pentaxuser
Exactly this is my point. Just because we seem no longer to be relevant to them. Thus there is a chance that future machines will no longer designed with film in mind.
Well, this thought might be better put in a thread on its own, and I admit I only looked at product descriptions and data sheets. I did no personal inquiry at any manufacturer.
I have traveled all over the world, to all types of countries, some modern many not so much. When I was shooting commercially my film was quite often put in the hold and was therefore scanned by back room baggage scanners. On some trips scans were done at least 12 times due to layovers, connections and just because. Back in the old days I use to package my film in lead bags sold for that use. After 9/11 those bags were no longer allowed but by baggage scanning technology had advance thankfully. I have never had any film effected by scanning either as hand luggage or behind the scenes scanning. I almost always had some 3200 ASA film packed for just in case scenarios. Almost never used it so much of the film had been scanned multiple times on multiple trips. As they say YMMV.
I assume you mean Delta 3200, not the Nikon D!git@l camera. High speed film (>800 ASA) has always been outside the bounds of the routine film safety scope. The chance of damage is much more likely on really-fast film on very few x-ray exposures. I'd give you the number but I'd have to dig out the data... which I did, but don't have time to tease out more than just some of the most basic data for Rapiscan "regular" X-ray machines from an international consortium study:
800 color neg - noticeable effect at 10 to 25 exposures
3200 B&W - noticeable fog between 5 and 10 exposures
Last edited:
CT's use the same type of x-ray, just usually quite a bit more...
From a regulatory view point the concern is the dose to a clandestine stowaway, and the limit seems to be somewhere in the 1-5mSv range. So I don't think we need to expect ever increasing x-ray doses for baggage scanning, even if nobody is concerned about film...
For checked baggage, I personally would worry more about losing it or it physically being destroyed than x-rays.
Finally, I would be interested in hearing a report from someone (anyone, really) who has first hand (!) experience with film degradation due to baggage scanning.
From a regulatory view point the concern is the dose to a clandestine stowaway, and the limit seems to be somewhere in the 1-5mSv range. So I don't think we need to expect ever increasing x-ray doses for baggage scanning, even if nobody is concerned about film...
For checked baggage, I personally would worry more about losing it or it physically being destroyed than x-rays.
Finally, I would be interested in hearing a report from someone (anyone, really) who has first hand (!) experience with film degradation due to baggage scanning.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |