Taking vintage nitrate still film on a passenger plane?

[typicalaussiebloke]

G'day all.

I shoot vintage film as a hobby and have shot over a dozen B&W films of the 1930s and 40s. Anyways I am going down to Tasmania in a few days and plan to capture some vintage 19th century heritage buildings on some 1930s 116 films, the problem is though I am not sure if they are safety base or nitrate base. Also been trying to find info on taking nitrate still films on public transport, in my case an airplane and have came across a couple of sources that say yes you can take nitrate film on an aircraft and no you can't and I am confused. On this Kodak pdf http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/environment/kes/pubs/pdfs/H182.pdf on page 4 it says nitrate film can be transported in a passenger plane within it's specified limits, and this pdf article http://www.amianet.org/groups/committees/nitrate/documents/NitrateIGNov08.pdf on page 3 says nitrate can't be taken on any passenger plane under any circumstances. So I am confused!

I have attached a pic of the films I'm unsure of below, they include:
2 x AGFA Isochrom 116 films (expired 1932)
2 x Gevaert Superchrome 116 films (expired 1949)
Lumiere 116 film (expired 1934)
Kodak Verichrome 28 120 (expired 1949)
Kodak Verichrome 120 (expired 1952)

Can anyone here tell me if any of those are nitrate or safety base as I am not sure? If they are nitrate are they prohibited from being taken aboard a passenger plane and can get confiscated at the security check??? If I can't take them on a plane then I will of course leave them at home.

Any help on this will be much appreciated.

Cheers
Troy

 

[MartinP]

Ask the airline. If they have anyone on their helpdesk who knows what film is, it will only be to say "the scanner is fine for up to ISO400". When you say the materials are flammable and/or explosive then they will (as a safety orientated just-in-case position) refuse to take them.

Don't forget that the carry-on scanner colourises the image seen by the operator, depending on the image-processor's best guess at what the material is, and cellulose-nitrate is not a million miles from gun-cotton style explosive materials so your carry-on might well receive extra attention.

If you definitely want to use the materials then why not take a boat to Tasmania (presumably there are ferries for commercial traffic at least) after flying as near as possible and hiring a car, or just drive the whole way of course? Good luck with your project.

 

[pdeeh]

I did a bit of research into nitrate film after i acquired a couple of dozen rolls, and the amianet & kodak pdfs are really the best resources.

As you'll have found, it really is nasty stuff once it lights up and I'd guess that it will be covered by international air regs as a hazardous material. So maybe the best way is to contact the airline(s); I'm not as pessimistic as MartinP in finding someone who knows what's what - they'll have hazardous materials specialists somewhere.

Personally, I won't take rolls of nitrate stock anywhere they might cause a danger to anyone but myself.

 

[MDR]

Better don't also different countries have different rules regarding nitrate it is consider an explosive in some countries for example in Austria and Germany it fell under the "Sprengstoffgesetz" explosives act and there were/are very strict rules on how to handle cellulosenitrate film. Also contact the airline the IATA rules are more restrictive than the ICAO rules but even they are very strict about dangerous goods aboard planes. You can also contact the CASA which is responsible for civil aviation in Australia. phone: (within Australia) 131 757
ICAO Dangerous goods regulation: http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/Pages/default.aspx

Have a nice trip

 

[pdeeh]

good info, MDR

 

[gone]

Things have certainly changed. Back in the 80's I was boarding a flight at SFO and was suddenly surrounded by a lot of big guys in black suits when the X-ray machine scanned my duffel bag. Flashes were going off too. I asked what the trouble was, and they asked if I could unzip the bag and take the contents out. Inside were metal easels, about 50 tubes of paint, my brushes, and two gallon cans of turpentine, both of which had been opened. All they wanted to know about were the easels, which must have looked like gun barrels on the machine, and the paint tubes, which were made from tin and would not show the contents on the x-ray picture.

After asking a few questions they were happy, and I zipped the bag up and boarded the plane. I probably lit up a Camel on the plane too. The bag, complete w/ the turpentine cans, went right into cargo. I shudder to think what would happen these days. But then I don't fly anymore. Who needs to be treated like a terrorist? If I can't get somewhere by boat, bus, or train, I don't need to go there.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Troy,

Under NO circumstances should you transport any NITRATE film on an aircraft in hand or checked baggage.

Under UN Material Classification 132 Cat 4.1 it is classed as a flammable solid and requires highly specialist transportation.

Any film before 1951 'could' be nitrate : I would not even transport it in a car.


Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Ian Grant]

I'd be concerned about how the OP is storing the films anyway. I worked for a company who specialised in silver recovery from films and the company had taken over a competitor company who'd lost their factory due to a fire caused by Nitrate film. We did reprocess Nitrate film but it was handled with extreme care and there was a charge. I seem to remember we took quite a bit of Nitrate film from the National Film archive (UK) after it was coppied and also digitised.

I just looked an a 194o Kodak Professional catalogue and when a film is on Safety film base it's stated clearly. Pan X, Super X and Tri X sheet film were on safety base, however there's no mention of Safety base for Verichrome or other roll & 35mm films, Unless it states Safety film on the box it most probably won't be.

Ian

 

[typicalaussiebloke]

Okay after reading everyone's replies, I have decided I ain't taking those films with me, will reserve them for photographing local heritage buildings. I will take only film that says "Safety Film" on them.

 

[darkosaric]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qukz70OaYf0

 

[Nodda Duma]

A suggestion: If you know where you will be staying, ship the film ahead of time to your destination via regular mail or carrier. Call ahead so the hotel knows it's coming. You can even ship as a hazmat package. Then do the same back to your home when vacation is over.

Way more hazardous stuff than nitrate film is shipped all over all the time.

 

[pdeeh]

In the UK it's prohibited to send nitrate film by mail. I'd be surprised if it were not elsewhere

 

[Nodda Duma]

In the UK it's prohibited to send nitrate film by mail. I'd be surprised if it were not elsewhere

Prepare to be surprised. Nitrate film is simply classified as a class 4.1 flammable solid and--in the U.S. at least--can be shipped anywhere a class 4.1 hazardous material can be shipped. Both UPS and FedEx support those types of hazmat items.

UPS: Page 32 under celluloid.

https://www.ups.com/media/en/chemical_table_01012012.pdf

FedEx:

http://www.fedex.com/us/services/pdf/HazmatShippingGuide.pdf


O.P. could search to see if class 4.1 flammable solids can be shipped to Tasmania. Of course, this is likely academic due to shipping cost, but my point is that nitrate film isn't necessarily special or magical compared to other hazardous materials out there.

 

[pdeeh]

Fair enough. But should the rolls become involved in even a small conflagration they would be almost impossible to extinguish using normal means and produce a lot of extremely toxic fumes while they're about it. Not something I'd like to feel responsible for, even if I'd legally sent them.
Ym, as they say, mv

 

[removed account4]

like pdeeh said -- its not only that film is extremely flammable it gives off a toxic gas

http://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/573#.VXsnTmDFu4k

certain death !

 

[AgX]

The danger is with old, spooled film. As here decomposition may likely take place. In theory rollfilm should be less worse due to the paper enabling diffusion. Also short ends as in rollfilm can rather easily be examined in advance as for smell.

Much lesser danger is with loose sheets.

The danger inherent to all materials is the high flamabiltiy once ignited by outer source. But this can be quite easily controlled by way of packaging.

 

[typicalaussiebloke]

I have now sent an email enquiry to Virgin Australia airlines about nitrate films and will find out what they say.

 

[Arklatexian]

Taking vintage nkitrate still film on a passenger plane?

Okay after reading everyone's replies, I have decided I ain't taking those films with me, will reserve them for photographing local heritage buildings. I will take only film that says "Safety Film" on them.

Smart decision. I wouldn't want to be on the same plane with "nitrate" film even if it only carried freight. Remember you would be on the same plane with the film. (I would hope!)........Regards!

 

[typicalaussiebloke]

Why would you even ask a question like that? Wouldn't regular film do? Jeez and crackers.

APUGuser19 I don't appreciate being talked to like that. It never hurts to ask questions no matter how stupid they sound and the responses to my question have been mixed, some saying definite "NO" and some stating "MAYBE BUT ASK" backed with their information I feel compelled to ask the airlines themselves. I didn't specifically wanted to use nitrate, I just want to use really old orthochromatic film from the 30s and 40s and for all I know half of those could very well be safety base but I just don't know. Anyhow I am well prepared to just leave those films and use ones that say "safety film" only.

My understanding with nitrate film based off research is that nitrate roll films are of a smaller quantity in comparison to motion picture film hundreds to thousands of feet long are far less dangerous and not being known to spontaneously ignite like decayed nitrate motion film plus the backing paper diffuses the reactants. So given those factors plus the fact that all that film I bought through Ebay which gets the green light for air postage overseas to my location anyway. And also the fact there's people that would have old nitrate photo negatives of their family ancestors who would want to take them to other family members and have to travel by plane/train/bus etc. They like me would obviously ask the transport service if it's prohibited or not. So I thought it wouldn't be too unreasonable to ask the airline anyways.

Reason I want to use those films is that they have the great authentic vintage look for the heritage buildings I wanted to capture in Tassie, I've already shot some of those AGFA and Gevaert rolls they are great, here's a link to one of my 1932 AGFA albums https://www.flickr.com/photos/51853869@N08/sets/72157649354640905 .

Anyhow I don't care anymore now if I can't take them films, am fine with using 50s/60s B&W safety films instead and perhaps my 1946 Kodak Flurographic 35mm film which is labeled "safety film".

 

[removed account4]

APUGuser19 I don't appreciate being talked to like that. It never hurts to ask questions no matter how stupid they sound and the responses to my question have been mixed, some saying definite "NO" and some stating "MAYBE BUT ASK" backed with their information I feel compelled to ask the airlines themselves. I didn't specifically wanted to use nitrate, I just want to use really old orthochromatic film from the 30s and 40s and for all I know half of those could very well be safety base but I just don't know. Anyhow I am well prepared to just leave those films and use ones that say "safety film" only.

My understanding with nitrate film based off research is that nitrate roll films are of a smaller quantity in comparison to motion picture film hundreds to thousands of feet long are far less dangerous and not being known to spontaneously ignite like decayed nitrate motion film plus the backing paper diffuses the reactants. So given those factors plus the fact that all that film I bought through Ebay which gets the green light for air postage overseas to my location anyway. And also the fact there's people that would have old nitrate photo negatives of their family ancestors who would want to take them to other family members and have to travel by plane/train/bus etc. They like me would obviously ask the transport service if it's prohibited or not. So I thought it wouldn't be too unreasonable to ask the airline anyways.

Reason I want to use those films is that they have the great authentic vintage look for the heritage buildings I wanted to capture in Tassie, I've already shot some of those AGFA and Gevaert rolls they are great, here's a link to one of my 1932 AGFA albums https://www.flickr.com/photos/51853869@N08/sets/72157649354640905 .

Anyhow I don't care anymore now if I can't take them films, am fine with using 50s/60s B&W safety films instead and perhaps my 1946 Kodak Flurographic 35mm film which is labeled "safety film".

there is a way to determine if your film is safety film ...
clip off a tiny bit of the leader and in a well ventilted place see if it burns

i understand your interest in using old film to make exposures with, i for the most part ONLY use expired film, and it is fun
but personally if it was me with your maybe non-safety film, i would use it close to home, if at all. i wouldn't travel with it
i'd keep it separate from my other film and probably get rid of it in a safe way. yes, i understand the way old film can make an image look different ..
but, i see no purpose to use a film that is unstable, and dangerous and traveling with it ( i have never heard of ancesters traveling with folios of old negatives, maybe pictures, but not negatives )
if it is just to use it ( and post to a flickr group ) that can be done without putting you or your fellow travellers in a potenially dangerous situation ... why not
even if the airlines or transport company suggests it is OK, i wouldn't bring it on a plane .. but that's me .. i have been here on apug long enough
to know people ask advice for stuff, they take a reading and then do whatever they want.
besides, there are plenty of modern ( as in post 1930s ) ways one can get a similar look to your olde nitrate film in the developing+ enlarging part of chemical photography .
i hope you have fun on your trip and you return with photographs, no matter what film you bring with you.

john

 

[Sirius Glass]

APUGuser19 I don't appreciate being talked to like that. It never hurts to ask questions no matter how stupid they sound and the responses to my question have been mixed, some saying definite "NO" and some stating "MAYBE BUT ASK" backed with their information I feel compelled to ask the airlines themselves.

+1

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The nitration of cellulose is stopped at certain stages depending on the intended use for the product. The products of these stages are loosely termed cellulose mononitrate, dinitrate and trinitrate. The moonitrate is used to make celluloid and cine film stock. For gun cotton a mixture of the di- and trinitrates is used. Nitrate film doesn't just burn like paper it burns like a flare. Because of this it can be a serious hzzard.

 

[typicalaussiebloke]

Forgive me. When I read the question, I accidentally had left my optic nerve translation filter in place. As I read it, a man was planning a trip to a place where he might never go again, and instead of taking good fresh film, he wanted to use the trip as an opportunity to experiment with 80 year old guncotton. From that point, the question of airplanes never even registered in my mind.

Thanks for clearing that up, didn't know that was how you interpreted my question. Anyways in general I am an amateur vintage film photographer and I've shot loads of rolls of film from the 30s and 40s and a film pack that expired in 1913 https://www.flickr.com/photos/51853869@N08/sets/72157647424096839 and all successfully made pictures , I have developed a knack of knowing how much to overexpose vintage film for it to work and make good pictures or at least usable pictures and I get more satisfaction capturing historical subjects on vintage film than on a new film.

I have actually done burn tests on strips of those films and others and yep they burn but not violently like the burning of nitrate motion picture films I've seen, to test how hazardous these roll films are too I have done a soldering iron heat burn test on the strips and they don't catch fire, they just melt, so I thought maybe these films aren't too hazardous as I literally have to ignite them to burn, so from that point I fail to see how a nitrate roll still photography film with backing paper (which neutralizes the reactants) in a packet in carry bag in an air conditioned plane would spontaneously catch alight. Another thing that's kind of confusing with burn tests is the early safety films also burned when ignited so that makes it harder for me to determine whether the films are definitely nitrate or definitely safety.

 

[pdeeh]

From all I've read, I think it's a canard that nitrate film spontaneously combusts. As I recall, neither of the (authoritative) documents you linked in the OP says it will or can under normal circumstances. Though I haven't tbh gone back and reread them line by line recently.
The problem comes after it's been ignited.

 

[AgX]

Nitrate base has a lower relative ignition temperature than safety film, it has a much higher rat of combustion.

Yes it can spontaneously ignite. Though only in the state of deterioration already started and likely only under dense storing condition.

(Keep in mind that self-ignition is a fenomenon that also occurs with natural material as hay, if stored under certain circumstances.)