Film fogged going through airport security.

[Oxleyroad]

As benjiboy indicated:

Air freight is not only checked for the safety of the flight, but to keep banned items from entering the country of destination.

Then I'm curious. How do you know this?

Ken

Here, down under even shipping containers are scanned, though if you dig through the customs website they say film is safe.

Just as Agx said border protection are looking for banned items as well. The attached link shows what they have seized.
http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page5428.asp

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

This has been shown in many documentaries.

And beside this, checking luggage and freight for content is a standard task of custom authorities as long as they exist.
As you live in the US, border controls may not be as common to you as to us Europeans.

Monroe, Washington, USA is a long way from Mobberley. Presumably it's a multi-transport link. Ships, planes, trains, trucks, pack mules, who knows? If my purchased film is being x-rayed at each transition loading point, where is the fog?

There's an old basketball gym rat saying: Ball don't lie...

I'm perfectly willing, anxious even, to become more educated on this point by others who know the real story. That's why I'm asking questions. But drawing conclusions after watching an entertainment-based television program carries less weight, at least with me, than the lack of additional film base plus fog density. At best the former is highly subjective, while the latter is highly objective.

Other possibilities? A non-invasive scanning technology using radiation wavelengths and/or strengths to which film (and photo paper) are invisible? Manual inspection of suitably pre-labeled packages and containers? A pre-cleared shipping program wherein the shipper follows a set of fixed security protocols and permanently seals a container at point of manufacture (and possibly also at retail sale), thus assuring safety during transit if the seals remain visibly intact?

So there are potentially other ways to assure security for radiation-sensitive legitimate shipped packages. And it's also possible that some of those ways may actually be currently in effect, but that fact not widely known or publicized for obvious reasons.

I'm just asking why, if everything is being x-rayed indiscriminately in all cargo shipping channels as others have concluded, that after traveling one-third of the way around the world my film has never arrived at my doorstep fogged.

Ball don't lie...

Ken

 

[winger]

Monroe, Washington, USA is a long way from Mobberley. Presumably it's a multi-transport link. Ships, planes, trains, trucks, pack mules, who knows? If my purchased film is being x-rayed at each transition loading point, where is the fog?

There's an old basketball gym rat saying: Ball don't lie...

I'm perfectly willing, anxious even, to become more educated on this point by others who know the real story. That's why I'm asking questions. But drawing conclusions after watching an entertainment-based television program carries less weight, at least with me, than the lack of additional film base plus fog density. At best the former is highly subjective, while the latter is highly objective.

Other possibilities? A non-invasive scanning technology using radiation wavelengths and/or strengths to which film (and photo paper) are invisible? Manual inspection of suitably pre-labeled packages and containers? A pre-cleared shipping program wherein the shipper follows a set of fixed security protocols and permanently seals a container at point of manufacture (and possibly also at retail sale), thus assuring safety during transit if the seals remain visibly intact?

So there are potentially other ways to assure security for radiation-sensitive legitimate shipped packages. And it's also possible that some of those ways may actually be currently in effect, but that fact not widely known or publicized for obvious reasons.

I'm just asking why, if everything is being x-rayed indiscriminately in all cargo shipping channels as others have concluded, that after traveling one-third of the way around the world my film has never arrived at my doorstep fogged.

Ball don't lie...

Ken

I don't have inside info, but I would suspect the bolded part. Also what I've been told at a large UPS hub is that if it's going on one of their planes or trucks, it doesn't get X-rayed. Things get scrutinized more when they share space on passenger transports. US Mail uses regular passenger planes a fair amount. Depending on the destination, it may get more screening (ie, letters sent to a congressman will get screened differently than those going to Joe Schmo).
Also with regard to the bolded part, think about how many containers get shipped through the various ports. It does take a certain amount of time to scan every single one, so, like TSA and passenger Pre-check, there almost has to be a system for getting some containers out of the line for scanning.

 

[BrianShaw]

... so, like TSA and passenger Pre-check, there almost has to be a system for getting some containers out of the line for scanning.

With passenger pre-check there is still 100% scanning of the passengers and their carry-on baggage. It is just a tad "kinder and gentler" -- no need to disrobe (physically or virtually).

I'm quite in agreement with you that no matter what certified protocols are in place there is likely a chance for more intensive spot-checking of containered goods.

 

[analoguey]

If govts decide people need no privacy and can be spied upon without cause, why's the optimism that they'd spare parcel goods the easy and widely available x-ray scanning?
Altruism towards goods?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Here is what Kodak had to say about Xray fog: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis98/cis98.pdf

 

[pbromaghin]

Thank you Professor. Those are exactly the patterns I saw after my last trip. It looks like some rolls were exposed at a right angle and some were more from end-on. I haven't processed all of the film yet and not all of them were affected.

Btw, I have always had film hand inspected and this time, based on reassurances from apuggers, was the first time I ever put it through the machine. It will be the last.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Here is what Kodak had to say about Xray fog...

I note there was a minor revision to that document in 2002, which also appears to be the final revision. Common sense might indicate that if anything security protocols would only have become more intrusive since then, not less. But of course there is no way to prove that.

Does the "98" in "CIS98" indicate the original year of publication?

Ken

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I note there was a minor revision to that document in 2002, which also appears to be the final revision. Common sense might indicate that if anything security protocols would only have become more intrusive since then, not less. But of course there is no way to prove that.

Does the "98" in "CIS98" indicate the original year of publication?

The CIS-98 is the publication number (CIS=Current Information Summary) and it was last revised in March 2002. That would have been about 6 months after 9/11.

Note one of the early paragraphs says: "Until recently, x-ray inspection units used for airport security have been relatively safe for films. However, as
airports step up their security measures, some have introduced a new type of inspection unit that has a greater potential to fog film. To date, these units are not widespread, but we expect them to become increasingly common."

 

[BrianShaw]

... a new type of inspection unit that has a greater potential to fog film. To date, these units are not widespread, but we expect them to become increasingly common."

And what might these new type of inspection units be?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

This is what the TSA has to say about film and X-rays in a 15 Jul 2014 publication at: Dead Link Removed

"Film. Pack undeveloped film in your carry-on bag. If you have film that is faster than 800-speed, tell a TSA officer who will manually inspect the film instead of placing it through the X-ray."

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes, that generic know-how is well understood.

I'm asking what is the new inspection technology or inspection device nomenclature.

These information are not state secrets so I don't know why Kodak/TSA is implying new technology when folks working in that field are not aware of such. If they are implying that CT technology may be employed on some location or on an increasingly more common basis on carry-on, well that would support the generic statement. If they are implying that TSA agents will be wearing those glasses that let perverts see through clothes... not so much.

If you don't know the answer, that is fine too.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Brian,

I thought it was significant that they were suggesting you not put film in your checked baggage. You can see the x-ray machines they use for checked baggage at many airports and they look much more powerful the the carry-on machines. In the 13 years since 9/11 there have been many inspection systems tried (for checked baggage, carry-on baggage and people), some of which were tried here in Rochester according to articles I've seen in the local paper over the years. There are probably several different systems in use to examine carried-on items, but it seems unlikely the TSA will give much information about them.

 

[BrianShaw]

Probably old news, I'm afraid. The checked baggage warning is more than a dozen years old and the "new technology" refers to CT technology, which has been in place for a dozen years. In the past 10 years that technology has actually become "less draconian" with the introduction of two-phase checked baggage screening. Because of that we hear stories fo folks putting film in checked baggage with no negative impacts as well as stories of xray/CT damage. All checked baggage gets checked but not everything is CT exposed.

The technology for carry-on screening has been relatively stable with the majority of improvements in the imaging aids, not increases in xray dosage.

The biggest change in aiport screening has been the milimeter wave body scan... which is what we've been hearing about in the media over the past few years. But that is body scanning and carrying film through that device isn't happening.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but what new inspection systems are you talking about? TSA has a lot of information available that was FOIA released; none of it has to do with film; it all is about millimeter wave body scan. The checked and carry-on scanner manufacturers all make technical data freely available. What, specifically, is the new technology or devices?

BTW, I'm not challenging you; I'm just trying to understand and clarify. The OP does not appear to have put film through with checked luggage so much of this discussion may not really be significant. Most of that equipment, incidentally, is developed here in SoCal.

 

[pentaxuser]

What seems clear to me is that if there is any suspicion that new terrorist devices can pass inspection with existing machines and the answer is to increase the power that affects film even down to ISO 50 film then the attitude from the "authorities" understandably will be "So be it"

Does any of the U.K. membership know whether hand inspection is an option? Clearly Ralph Lambrecht's experience with U.K. airport security suggests that hand inspection may not be an option but that may have been several years ago.

pentaxuser

 

[NJH]

It was not an option for me on a recent flight from Bristol to Ireland and back. I asked for hand inspection both ways and was refused both times, on the way back I had the film cans in a see through bag as well. That ended up naked on the conveyor and went through the x-ray machine. It was claimed that the machine is film safe and TBH I have all the film here after development, 4 rolls of Velvia 50 and 4 rolls of Neopan 400, the velvia was 7 months expired as well. I can't see any evidence at all of anything wrong with the film in terms of X-ray, I have frames on there from misloading and what has really annoyed me is loads of random marks from mishandling at the lab but one thing I am not worried about is carry on luggage x-ray machines when flying to and from the UK to local destinations. I may have to rethink the lab though but will try process only next and see if they can manage to give me scratch free negatives.

I made a mental note as well of the machines, can't remember the model number now but at both ends they had the same Smiths X-ray scanner.

 

[BradS]

Does any of the U.K. membership know whether hand inspection is an option? Clearly Ralph Lambrecht's experience with U.K. airport security suggests that hand inspection may not be an option but that may have been several years ago.

pentaxuser

No. Hand inspection is not an option anywhere in Europe in my experience. In some countries, even asking will get you plenty of verbal abuse, if not worse.

 

[Curt]

not outside the usa.

Exactly!

 

[Curt]

indeed. here in the US, simply asking politely...saying please, smiling and being patient (in short, not being an ass) will get you a long way with the TSA....even so, I quit asking many years ago and just put all my film through the machines with my carry on items. On one extended trip around europe, my film went through so many machines, I thought it would surely be ruined...but, have never, ever had any noticeble effects from the machines in the airports anywhere in the world. Not even with delta 3200.

Same experience here, Seattle to Schiphol to Venice to Florence to Rome to Alanta to Seattle. The same with other trips, multiple checks without problems. The film (120) goes in my shoulder bag and I don't think about it. The tripod goes in my check in without a problem. I carry film from ISO 50 to 400 depending. Remember that security is not a static event but one that has to change as we move along.

Could someone describe a "hand inspection?"

What is to be seen? A foil wrapper with some hard round thing inside? What's that prove?

I would like the future of scanning, if film is still around, to be able to tell what the roll is, if it is unexposed or exposed, how many frames there are, how many were exposed, and if the exposures were correct!

 

[BrianShaw]

Hand inspection involves visual inspection plus trace detection - which is wiping with a swab and puttin swab in a machine to measure trace amounts of "bad stuff".

 

[removed account4]

?

There's an old basketball gym rat saying: Ball don't lie...

....
Ball don't lie...

Ken

call fed ex, freestyle, ups, usps, b+h, adorama, and other large distributers and shippers
and actually gather some facts.
do a teensy bit of first hand research ... ?

if you contact the folks mentioned you might understand in actuality your film could have easily been scanned several times by low energy scanners which are kind to films and films dont register problems unless scanned many many times over and over again...
over sea cargo is scanned and checked at customs, by air cargo is scanned and xrayed more often. shipments made to locations outside the usa shippers are at the mercy of customs agents where it arrives.

regarding airport scanners, i had my film scanned just after 9/11 and the subway bombings in england many many times in one trip. it seemed every 50 feet at heathrow
there was another scanner
both ways and even iso 1600 (color films processed by fuji labs) were scanned maybe 15 times and it did not show issue, and i have posted this handfuls of times ... feel free to search my apug content

if you do a little first hand research, a few phone calls to shippers and distributersyou might see that ... yes ... sometimes ... ball do lie ....

 

[removed account4]

Exactly!

yup, verified a week and 3 days ago, basel airport swiss/french border ...
refused hand inspection and pointed to a note on the scanner that said it can handle all films high and low iso alike...
but logan airport 3 weeks earlier even in a mad rush hand inspected film without issue ...

 

[analoguey]

yup, verified a week and 3 days ago, basel airport swiss/french border ...
refused hand inspection and pointed to a note on the scanner that said it can handle all films high and low iso alike...
but logan airport 3 weeks earlier even in a mad rush hand inspected film without issue ...

I was told similarly in Varanasi, but I told the chap that 2 weeks of shooting Kumbh Mela and Varanasi might go waste and he then proceeded to kindly check them all by hand.
Other Intl airports here(India), I just had to ask for hand-checking and they would oblige. (They did all have this bemused expression of "Who shoots film now?")

Hand inspection involves visual inspection plus trace detection - which is wiping with a swab and puttin swab in a machine to measure trace amounts of "bad stuff".

In my experience, not just visual inspection.
The airport staff had a hand-held gadget which basically checked for chemical residue or such - and the staff waved it all over the film like a magic wand - pretty much over all the rolls. This gadget was quite similar to what I had seen used to check laptops at times.

 

[caimi]

I know this thread is about the relative safety of airport x-rays but I wouldn't bet on Walgreen's not being the culprit. I started using my local Walgreen's again for convenience and they destroyed two rolls out of eight. So I tried a different Walgreen's and they chewed up the second roll . I'm fortunate to have a local camera shop that gives me better quality, higher resolution and no fear of mishandling for less than Walgreen's charges. Unfortunately, it is 45 minutes from my house so the gas consumed to get there and back makes up for the lower developing price. But confidence that they will do a good job and not lose a roll of my film will keep me going back.

 

[BrianShaw]

...
In my experience, not just visual inspection.
The airport staff had a hand-held gadget which basically checked for chemical residue or such - and the staff waved it all over the film like a magic wand - pretty much over all the rolls. This gadget was quite similar to what I had seen used to check laptops at times.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. :confused: The generic and more accurate name for that process/technology is "explosives trace detection" (often shortened to just 'trace detection') rather than "hand-held magic wand gadget". Trace detection senses trace amounts of a chemical indicator of explosive materials. It's like the difference between the words "urinate" and "pee". Both really mean the same thing but one is more ...

A few years old, but: Dead Link Removed