USA rules for flying with film 3/2006

[df cardwell]

df cardwell submitted a new resource:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) - USA rules for flying with film 3/2006

Frequently, APUGGERS wonder what the reality is of flying with film in the USA. There usually follows all sorts of good, and weird, information.

As of 3/2006, this is the official policy of the Transportation Security Administration ( LINK: Dead Link Removed AND: Dead Link Removed )

Please check the website before you fly, to see if things have changed. And have a nice...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Sean]

comments from the previous article system:

By SteveH - 07:13 PM, 03-10-2006 Rating: None
Hrmm. I ask again - how do they intend to hand-inspect sheet film ? Sheet by Sheet ?

By JiminKyiv - 08:55 PM, 03-10-2006 Rating: None
Actually, since I just got my British client to agree to pay me with 8x10 Delta 100 starting next month, I'm wondering about that very issue.

By BradS - 12:48 AM, 03-11-2006 Rating: None
When last I travelled with sheet film, it was a non issue. They simply pull you aside and do the "wipe" test on each box. They **DO NOT** open the boxes. No worries. It was actually much less hassle than travelling with 35mm or 120.

By claudiosz - 10:42 AM, 03-11-2006 Rating: None
I have a bad experience. The security personal of Miami Airport tell me "this is an explosive bag" (three J&C unopened boxes, 2x3 sheet film). After see each sheet of film at open light and with some kind of robotic nose, tell me this is an unknowkedge kind of explosive. It´s dangerous and the trip is for you not for this strange explosives. As say some say, human intelligence have serios limitations but stupidity don´t know limits.

By BradS - 04:24 PM, 03-11-2006 Rating: None
Maybe things have changed. I flew through Miami, FL in January 2006 and had absolutley no trouble at all. They were very courteous and professional. Same in Equador - of course, you have to ask in Spanish but, if you make an effort, they seem very happy to help and not screw up your vacation.

By Paul Sorensen - 06:31 PM, 03-11-2006 Rating: None
I had an interesting experience in the Minneapolis airport. The person at the xray machine was REALLY snarky, he held up my bag of about 20 rolls of film and a couple packs of Polaroid and yelled out "hand inspection...it's going to be a long one" at the top of his lungs. The actual person who did the inspection was very professional and quick about it. The Polaroid boxes were broken open, and he did wonder what the coaters were, but that was about it.

By genecrumpler - 05:09 PM, 03-18-2006 Rating: None
I've run ISO 100 film, color and B&W through hand machines all over the world. I've used film that has been through 7-8 times with no effect. I do mark the number of times through on the box, just to be sure.

By reggie - 12:23 AM, 03-25-2006 Rating: None
I've gone thru airports with opened boxes of 4x5 sheet film. I make sure to take along a changing bag. I've actually had security agents use the bag to open the box and feel the sheets to be sure there was no device inside the box. They carefully re-closed all the inner boxes under my verbal guidance and were very nice about it. The best part is they aren't allowed to take tips.

-R

 

[don sigl]

Interesting how some people believe that somehow the laws of the physical univrese can be altered by airport x ray machines. Last I knew, xray radiation had enough energy to reduce silver halides. The fact that you have a limited number of passes before you begin to notice is confirmation that the machines are damaging. The fact that you don't notice.... well not everyone practices the zone system or owns a densitometer. We all have our standards.

 

[Roger Hicks]

...well not everyone practices the zone system or owns a densitometer. We all have our standards.

Yes, we do. And many of us DO have densitometers, and know that you can see smaller variations in the shadows than are easily measurable with one. For this and other reasons we may not necessarily have a high opinion of that small subset of basic sensitometry called the Zone System.

I've run fast film through multiple X-rays (how about Delta 3200 through Heathrow-Goa-Bombay-Goa-Persian Gulf) AND done sensitometric tests that reveal no problem. Ilford confrms that it ain't normally a concern. Their 0.03 increase in FB+F from Concorde (London-NY) with Delta 3200 was ascribed to cosmic rays, not X-rays, because they ran a control that wasn't X-rayed.

Oh, and thanks, Don, for hard information and good links.

Cheers,

R

 

[don sigl]

Yes, we do. And many of us DO have densitometers, and know that you can see smaller variations in the shadows than are easily measurable with one. For this and other reasons we may not necessarily have a high opinion of that small subset of basic sensitometry called the Zone System.

I've run fast film through multiple X-rays (how about Delta 3200 through Heathrow-Goa-Bombay-Goa-Persian Gulf) AND done sensitometric tests that reveal no problem. Ilford confrms that it ain't normally a concern. Their 0.03 increase in FB+F from Concorde (London-NY) with Delta 3200 was ascribed to cosmic rays, not X-rays, because they ran a control that wasn't X-rayed.

Oh, and thanks, Don, for hard information and good links.

Cheers,

R

Y Not sure what your last sentence refers to, but then most of what your saying is counter to basic photo science and physics in general. Sorry, but I would rather rely on the reality of physics than anything Ilford has to say. Its simply not true that the Xray machines are not fogging your film. They Are. That you can't see it or can't find any significant difference with your densitometer only means you find the difference trivial or should invest in a new densitometer. The whole idea is ridiculous and flys in the face of basic science. Anyone who believes it is fooling themselves. On the other hand, you can find it acceptable. Thats fine. Like I said, everyone has their own standards. But to say its not happening... thats total#$%^%%. BTW, the last time I checked Xrays were considerably shorter in wavelength than visible light. Of course cosmic rays will fog, and so will Xrays.
It never ceases to amaze me what people will accept, or believe. I've got science on my side. But if you can see better than a .01 density change by eye (The capability of my Xrite 261T in ortho or UV), then I'll be ready to throw physics out the window and believe you have Xray vision. I guess Superman didn't think much of the zone system either.

 

[reub2000]

Its simply not true that the Xray machines are not fogging your film. They Are. That you can't see it or can't find any significant difference with your densitometer only means you find the difference trivial or should invest in a new densitometer.

Does the idea that the fogging is so little that nobody notices occur to you?

 

[don sigl]

Actually people do notice. Just run it through several times and see what happens. Maybe you have been lucky, but the effect is additive. If people wish to take the chance, then fine with me. What I contest is the bogus argument that the machines have no effect on film, which in affect claims that Xray radiation will not reduce the silver halides. Such a statement is misleading, inaccurate, and misinforms the genera public. It spreads ignorance. And that is never OK with me.

 

[keithwms]

Sure, all films are exposed to some extent by xray machines, but of course it is a matter of degree. I would think that taking the film up to high altitude for a 6 hour flight may actually be a bigger issue. How much exposure you get depends on the shielding and altitude and such.

Now, I have taken all manner of film, even high speed stuff, on flights etc. and have not seen any fogging. With inspection personnel, I have always taken care to explain how to treat the any film faster than ISO 200; my understanding is that one always has the right to request a hand inspection. Now that CTX devices are being used in some places it may be prudent to always request hand inspection, for any film. Last time I checked, the passenger always has the right to request hand inspection. Of course, it's your responsibility to make sure that you get into the line soon enough to have this done properly by someone who knows what they are doing.

If I had to take valuable quantity of large sheet film then I think I would just save the hassle and have it mailed to my destination; you can indicate "film- do not xray" and add insurance. Pulling out one test sheet would allow you to test for fogging immediately upon arrival. If in doubt, check it out.

Just another point, after the Chernobyl disaster, a photographer actually got in very close to the reactor, and was able to get a photo of the glow. Unfortunately he now suffers all manner of cancers and other ailments. As I recall some of his films fogged and some did not. Check it out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6177927.stm

 

[Ole]

Just another point, after the Chernobyl disaster, a photographer actually got in very close to the reactor, and was able to get a photo of the glow. Unfortunately he now suffers all manner of cancers and other ailments. As I recall some of his films fogged and some did not. Check it out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6177927.stm

That' no point at all, and has nothing to do with x-rays. He (and his film) suffered massive doses of alpha, beta, gamma and neutron radiation as well as radionuclide contamination. That's like comparing snowflakes and rifle bullets in terms of hazard (both are solid objects that move through the air, so both must be equally dangerous).

 

[keithwms]

That' no point at all, and has nothing to do with x-rays. He (and his film) suffered massive doses of alpha, beta, gamma and neutron radiation as well as radionuclide contamination. That's like comparing snowflakes and rifle bullets in terms of hazard (both are solid objects that move through the air, so both must be equally dangerous).

I didn't say it was related, I simply find it interesting that he got anything out at all. I started my career in a nuclear lab so I find these things interesting.

As for comparing bullets to snowflakes, this is about capture cross sections and attentuation coefficient as a function of energy, not mass. And as we all know, xrays and gammas are the same massless beast, simply with different energies.

 

[Ole]

e=mc^2 ring a bell?
Light and radio waves are also "the same massless beast" as xrays and gamma. That doesn't mean that they have the same effect.
And alpha, beta and neutron radiation are particles, with mass.

A sufficient number of snowflakes can also kill, just as surely as a bullet.

BTW, I still wear my dosimeter to work.

 

[keithwms]

Hmm I think I=I_0*exp(-mu*x) and E=pc are just a bit more relevant than E=mc^2 when one is trying to determine whether film in a container may be safely passed through an xray scanner.

Say here's a suggestion, why don't you put your dosimeter through the xray scanner at the airport and report back to us.

 

[keithwms]

Ah here's a link describing the doses received during flight:

http://www.aviation-health.org/news/browse.php?load=cosmic_radiation.html

 

[Ole]

Say here's a suggestion, why don't you put your dosimeter through the xray scanner at the airport and report back to us.

It goes through X-ray scanners at least twice every trip, some trips as much as six times. Since they still let me work with radioactive sources, the dose level must be very low. I can check just how much it receives, but that will take a while to find out. And then there's also the problem of subtracting the "real" dose, and what it picks up of background radiation when I'm at home.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It never ceases to amaze me what people will accept, or believe.

We heartily agree on this. You are saying that fogging that you can't see, or measure, is a problem. Others (including me) are saying that if you can't see it or measure it, it doesn't matter. We argue, indeed, that it cannot be said in any realistic sense to exist.

A resolution of 0.01 is realistic for most densitometers, including mine (a Heiland). Seeing a density difference of 0.005, at a boundary in the lightest area of a negative, does not require X-ray vision, simply because the human eye is an astonishingly effective tool for direct side-by-side comparisons, though it's not much good at quantifying or at comparing very slight differences when they are not side by side.

Cheers,

R.