Do film grains get messed up by too much exposure to x-ray?

[Sirius Glass]

Hand checking takes a little longer, but I have rarely been turned down.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

We have updated our advice.

http://goo.gl/EW3Laj

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Saganich]

I can confirm that never should you check film in your luggage. The process goes like this: Normal x-ray scan of luggage; Odd shaped thing seen in bag; Zoom onto odd structure; Increase resolution to reveal internal structure: resulting x-ray dose 5-10x check-in scan. From a physics perspective there are three reasons this isn't much of a problem; there isn't enough silver density for appreciable x-ray scatter; the mass attenuation of silver is low for typical x-ray intensities (around 100 keV) so not a lot of energy is absorbed; the amount of time the objects are exposed to x-rays is too short to compensate for the previous two issues. The salient factor regarding x-ray, film, and fogging is total time of exposure.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Dear All,

We have updated our advice.

http://goo.gl/EW3Laj

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Thank you

 

[flavio81]

Lima (on landing, Lima (shopping centre), Lima on the way to Cusco, then the same in reverse,

I live in Lima. You can request visual inspection. I did the same trip as you (Lima-Cusco-Lima) and my film never received any of those dirty X-rays.

Still, I agree it should be mostly harmless.

 

[RobC]

what I want know is why would security do hand inspections if as is so often claimed, the scanners for carry on luggagae don't cause a problem.
I can only assume that either they don't know if it causes a problem or they think it does.

 

[Sirius Glass]

what I want know is why would security do hand inspections if as is so often claimed, the scanners for carry on luggagae don't cause a problem.
I can only assume that either they don't know if it causes a problem or they think it does.

I do not trust that all carry-on x-rays and sometimes I carry ISO 800 or higher speed film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I wouldn't fly with any true high-speed films. But I have done densitometer readings on TMY400 after six domestic carry-on X-rays on a single trip. No effect or fog at all. So I'm not worried about slower films. I wouldn't put ANYTHING of value into checked baggage. Every trip something gets stolen, even if its only a box of chocolates. I don't bother with hand inspections anymore. No need. Lately the TSA agents seem to recognize even large format gear and film holders and don't tamper with it, or with MF film gear. They're more suspicious of electronics of any variety, including DSLR's and laptops. But I don't know what to expect if I ever travel to a third-world country like Texas or East Balookistan.

 

[wiltw]

I can confirm that never should you check film in your luggage. The process goes like this: Normal x-ray scan of luggage; Odd shaped thing seen in bag; Zoom onto odd structure; Increase resolution to reveal internal structure: resulting x-ray dose 5-10x check-in scan. From a physics perspective there are three reasons this isn't much of a problem; there isn't enough silver density for appreciable x-ray scatter; the mass attenuation of silver is low for typical x-ray intensities (around 100 keV) so not a lot of energy is absorbed; the amount of time the objects are exposed to x-rays is too short to compensate for the previous two issues. The salient factor regarding x-ray, film, and fogging is total time of exposure.

But you neglected to consider the fact that checked baggage goes thru CT scanners, and you should know that single CT is about 10X radiation dose of a simple normal X-ray that might be taken of a body part.

 

[removed account4]

what I want know is why would security do hand inspections if as is so often claimed, the scanners for carry on luggagae don't cause a problem.
I can only assume that either they don't know if it causes a problem or they think it does.

i think because even though we know it does nothing
and manufacturers say it does nothing
and the security peopel know it does nothing
people with film are paranoid because
we read all sorts of stuff
and can't sort any of it out
so we try to play it safe and ask for hand inspect ...
security are nice to do it for us even though they know it is a waste of effort.

 

[BrianShaw]

But you neglected to consider the fact that checked baggage goes thru CT scanners, and you should know that single CT is about 10X radiation dose of a simple normal X-ray that might be taken of a body part.

What saganich is describing is the newer checked baggage screening "technology" - two-phase screening: "regular x-ray" then CT upon detection of something requiring additional scrutiny. So in theory it is possible that film in checked baggage is screened but not subjected to CT... in theory. Putting film in checked baggage is still a crap shoot.

 

[BrianShaw]

i think because even though we know it does nothing
and manufacturers say it does nothing
and the security peopel know it does nothing
people with film are paranoid because
we read all sorts of stuff
and can't sort any of it out
so we try to play it safe and ask for hand inspect ...
security are nice to do it for us even though they know it is a waste of effort.

TSA does not want to trample on our civil rights by denying that option. I, personally, have wanted to trample the civil rights of knuckleheads in front of me demanding hand screening and all sorts of other "unique requests".

 

[Sirius Glass]

TSA does not want to trample on our civil rights by denying that option. I, personally, have wanted to trample the civil rights of knuckleheads in front of me demanding hand screening and all sorts of other "unique requests".

When I am in the TSA line, I am not the knucklehead! You are the knucklehead!

 

[alanrockwood]

I recently made a flight between two European countries. I checked my bag, having forgotten that I had several rolls of film in the luggage. There was no apparent X-ray damage to the film.

 

[Ian Grant]

I recently made a flight between two European countries. I checked my bag, having forgotten that I had several rolls of film in the luggage. There was no apparent X-ray damage to the film.

At some airports the checked in baggage gets scanned on similar machines to the carry on luggage and only gets diverted for more invasive scans if anything suspicious/ambiguous is spotted needing further investigation. Theses deeper scans are done in shielded areas to protect operatives form accumulative x-ray dosage.

It's not so long ago that airport carry-on scanners had radiation warning stickers and were only operated by men and women past child bearing age, making the machines safer for operatives also made them safer for films.

In many countries postal packages are checked using similar scanners.

Ian

 

[BrianShaw]

At some airports the checked in baggage gets scanned on similar machines to the carry on luggage and only gets diverted for more invasive scans if anything suspicious/ambiguous is spotted needing further investigation. Theses deeper scans are done in shielded areas to protect operatives form accumulative x-ray dosage.

It's not so long ago that airport carry-on scanners had radiation warning stickers and were only operated by men and women past child bearing age, making the machines safer for operatives also made them safer for films.

In many countries postal packages are checked using similar scanners.

Ian

I'm not aware that this was ever true... at least not in the US or any other civilized country I've traveled to since the 1970s. Are you sure?

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm not aware that this was ever true... at least not in the US or any other civilized country I've traveled to since the 1970s. Are you sure?

I'm sure of it but I'm talking of around 20 years ago, the risks were extremely small as the levels were relatively low, it was the possible cumulative effects on the operators they were concerned with.

Ian

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm sure of it but I'm talking of around 20 years ago, the risks were extremely small as the levels were relatively low, it was the possible cumulative effects on the operators they were concerned with.

Ian

Hi Ian, Interesting; I'd surely like to understand your knowledge as I've worked this area occasionally over the 25 years with FAA and the screening device manufacturers, and seem to have completely different impressions than do you. The US manufacturers of screening equipment have designed in accordance with rather stringent occupational health and safety regulations since the beginning. Radiation has been carefully dosed, regulated and contained by the equipment enclosures themselves. I'm not aware of any radiation controls implemented by shielded airport facility designs, but I may not be fully informed of that aspect. I know of no open radiation scanning equipment ever in commercial usage for airport screening applications... as is seen in dental and medical applications. I didn't look very much but I can't find any documentation on the internet that really reviews the history of package scanning technologies, etc. that indicates personnel radiation exposer in the past or present. I am aware that dosimeters on screening personnel have been in use but my understanding is that that is "in an abundance of caution" and more inspired by lawyers than anyone else. There has been, as you probably know, considerable discussion and research on backscatter body scanners... and rightfully so. But truthfully, I believe your statements on this are so out-of-date as to be almost dangerous to keep repeating. Unless that is really still the case in some third-world environments and, if so, that should be stated. My experience and knowledge is, admittedly, only first-world. But, perhaps, this is not the best place to carry on such discussion.

As far as film safety goes... we see completely eye-to-eye!