[filmscanners] RE: X rays was Digital PIC

["" <johnhayward@hopcoinvst.com>]

Sounds like it might be a good idea to keep a couple of 1600 ISO rolls
in one's film bag just to ensure (sic) hand clearance.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:33 AM
To: johnhayward@hopcoinvst.com
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: X rays was Digital PIC

With today's explosives, the issue isn't even the metal anymore.  You
could probably "sneak" a few rolls of film through the security gate,
but for most of us the problem is more than a few rolls.

They had my wife take off her shoes each time she went through and they
X-rayed them, so its not just metal they are looking for.

Next thing someone will get caught with explosives under a wig and they
will start pulling at people's hair.  It seems to me they are inspired
by the "technique of the week".  There are probably thousands of ways to
sneak stuff through that could potentially endanger an aircraft, but
until they catch someone doing it, it isn't considered a threat.  Maybe
strip searches will become common place when you fly.

In the case of my wife at LA airport, the rolls were in a clear ziplock
bag, she requested hand inspection, they still refused, and threw it
into the carry on X-ray machine.  She made the mistake of telling the
guy the film was up to 400 ISO.  You seem to need to say 1000 ISO or
above to even get them to consider hand inspection, in spite of what the
FAA regulations say.

Art



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body