[filmscanners] Re: X rays was Digital PIC

["Carlson" <carlson@olypen.com>]

Right on!!
----- Original Message -----
From: <johnhayward@hopcoinvst.com>
To: <carlson@olypen.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:51 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: X rays was Digital PIC


> Though OT - a very valuable discussion.
>
> Does anyone know if the lead lined bags sold to carry film through
> carry-on X-Rays really help or do they only have a placebo (sic) effect?
>
> If they really were to shield film from X-Rays, wouldn't the objects
> inside be invisible and hence raise suspicion?
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Hersch Nitikman
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 5:12 PM
> To: johnhayward@hopcoinvst.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: X rays was Digital PIC
>
> The fundamental issue with regard to X-Ray intensity is that the
> equipment
> at the gate has to be limited to what the operators can be exposed to
> with
> reasonable safety (remembering that they serve complete shifts, day
> after
> day, in that gate environment!). Unless the operators act like dental
> technicians, and are clad in lead lined garments or aprons, the levels
> usable at the gates must be safe for film. For that matter, at least in
> the
> US & Canada, the prospects of serious litigation from pregnant
> passengers
> has to limit the gate exposure. Checked baggage, which has no such
> limitation, can be deadly. Never place unprocessed film in your checked
> baggage.
> Hersch
>
> At 02:35 AM 04/02/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >I have taken the liberty of quoting some of the extensive information
> on
> >the Kodak web site regarding X-Rays and what can be done during travel,
> >and a new threat called "serialization" equipment being used by some US
> >postal Services, which can apparently not only damage film, but also
> >digital cameras, CCDs, CD-Rs etc.  (Gee, great news, eh?)
> >
> >I've edited this down from a number of web pages, and so it isn't
> >exactly as it appears on the Kodak site, but the text is Copyright of
> >Kodak.  The web site www.kodak.com (and use the search engine: X-Ray
> >Damage) has photo examples of different types of X-ray and other
> damage.
> >   Some of those check-in baggage machines really do in film in as
> little
> >as one scan.  As an example the "Examiner 3DX 6000" unit almost
> >completely whites out a 400 ASA/ISO film in one pass.
> >
> >I hope no one flips because this is somewhat off topic.
> >
> >Art
> >
> >
> >   If you're going to be traveling through multiple X-ray examinations
> >(more than 5 times), request a hand search of your carry-on baggage.
> FAA
> >regulations in the U.S. allow for a hand search of photographic film
> and
> >equipment if requested. (See Note below for further FAA information.)
> >However, non-US airports may not honor this request.
> >
> >* If you're asked to step aside for a more thorough search of your
> >carry-on baggage, you should be advised that film could be harmed and
> >you should take it out of your luggage.
> >
> >Incidentally, the FAA provides air travelers in the United States the
> >right to request a non-X-ray inspection of photo-sensitive products in
> >FAA Reg 108.17 (PART 108-AIRPLANE OPERATOR SECURITY):
> >
> >"(e) No certificate holder may use an X-ray system to inspect carry-on
> >or checked articles unless a sign is posted in a conspicuous place at
> >the screening station and on the X-ray system which notifies passengers
> >that such items are being inspected by an X-ray and advises them to
> >remove all X-ray, scientific, and high-speed film from carry-on and
> >checked articles before inspection. This sign shall also advise
> >passengers that they may request that an inspection be made of their
> >photographic equipment and film packages without exposure to an X-ray
> >system. If the X-ray system exposes any carry-on or checked articles to
> >more than 1 milliroentgen during the inspection, the certificate holder
> >shall post a sign which advises passengers to remove film of all kinds
> >from their articles before inspection. If requested by passengers,
> their
> >photographic equipment and film packages shall be inspected without
> >exposure to an X-ray system."
> >
> >HAND-CARRIED BAGGAGE
> >
> >Carry-on baggage inspection conveyors using low intensity x-rays, used
> >at security checkpoints in US airports, usually do not affect film.
> >However, these machines may now be supplemented in some cases by high
> >intensity machines that will fog all unprocessed film. Travelers should
> >be wary of all scanners at foreign airports.
> >
> >Travelers should politely insist on hand-inspection of their film.
> Carry
> >a changing bag for use by the inspector. Demonstrate how it is used,
> >with a can of fogged film as an example. However, there is no guarantee
> >that your request will be granted by local inspectors, who may insist
> on
> >x-ray inspection. Hand inspection may not be permitted in some airports
> >outside the US.
> >
> >X rays from airport scanners don't affect digital camera images or film
> >that has already been processed, i.e. film from which you have received
> >prints, slides, KODAK PHOTO CD Discs, or KODAK PICTURE CD Discs.
> >
> >
> >
> >   US MAIL STERILIZATION
> >
> >The United States Postal Service is installing new equipment to
> >sterilize items sent through the mail. For security reasons, they are
> >not disclosing whether this process will be limited to letters, or if
> >parcels and other packages will also be included.
> >
> >Until further tests are conducted, it would be wise to assume that the
> >high energy beams used in the sterilization equipment will fog or
> damage
> >all film - processed or unprocessed, exposed or unexposed, negative or
> >print. In addition, photographic prints, slides, DVDs, picture CDs,
> >CD-ROMs, video tapes and even the CCD sensors in video cameras and
> other
> >products may be affected. Because those materials often contain
> valuable
> >- and sometimes, irreplaceable, images - Kodak recommends that you err
> >on the side of caution until more information is available.
> >
> >All imaging materials should be sent via a courier or an express air
> >shipping company that does not use the US postal system. Local
> >laboratories may have additional information and/or offer alternative
> >shipping arrangements.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >David Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > > At 5:01 -0800 1/4/02, Arthur Entlich wrote:
> > >
> > >>X-Ray damage is cumulative, so while one or
> > >>two times may not be visible, 3, 4 or more might well be
> > >>
> > >
> > > True. But tests in the UK have repeatedly failed to show any X-ray
> > > damage even on multiple (I think 16 was the max) passes with MODERN
> > > European machines. Maybe someone recalls the details? The
> Association
> > > of Photographers & British Journal of Photography were involved &
> the
> > > tests pretty thorough.
> > >
> > > My own experience (not shooting delicate tonal work, just reportage)
> > > has been of no problems with modern machines (& successful evasion
> of
> > > South American film friers).
> > >
> > > David Hoffman
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> >Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> >filmscanners'
> >or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title
> >or body
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title or body
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
>

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