Camera PV 2007 » Camera Bag » film protector envelope
film protector envelope
Question:
Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing through security at international airports?
Response:
> Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing > through security at international airports?
I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything thin and light is probably a gyp.
Response:
> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing > through security at international airports? > I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess > that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything > thin and light is probably a gyp.
Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed when the lead foil is creased several times. Jim.
Response:
Actually, even the heavy ones need to be doubled to be effective. I’ve been considering making my own lead film box. Frank Matthews – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing > through security at international airports? > I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess > that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything > thin and light is probably a gyp.
Response:
> Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead > would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 > or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed > when the lead foil is creased several times.
I have traveled by air with at least 200 rolls of film over the years. Not a single roll has ever been damaged as a result of my packing the film in my camera bag and letting it go through the scanner with other carry on items. If an operator of one of those airport scanners can’t see because you packed your film in a lead package, he’ll most likely just turn up the intensity of the scanner.
Response:
> > Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead > would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 > or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed > when the lead foil is creased several times. > I have traveled by air with at least 200 rolls of film over the years. > Not a single roll has ever been damaged as a result of my packing the > film in my camera bag and letting it go through the scanner with other > carry on items. If an operator of one of those airport scanners can’t > see because you packed your film in a lead package, he’ll most likely > just turn up the intensity of the scanner.
On the other hand, I have been using the same foil bag for about ten years and have never detected any damage. I have also never noticed the operator adjusting the machine. I will admit that I have been asked to open my camera bag but never the film bag. These observations pertain only to North America and Western Europe. I only once travelled to a country that was part of the Warsaw Pact and that was when I drove into East Germany. Jim. Jim.
Response:
Stanley Horwitz wrote about his travels without a lead film bag: I can probably understand your lack of problems and the lead bag may be unnecessary. Ordinary photographic film is not particularly sensitive to x-rays. X-ray photography uses specially sensitised film or a fluorescent screen. Jim.
Response:
The faster the film, the more susceptible to fogging by x-rays. First, the effect is cumulative, i.e. the more trips through the conveyor, the more likely the film will fog. Second, higher-speed films, e.g. the 800 speed films common for use in p&s cameras, and Kodak’s 1600 speed emulsions will be more sensitive as well. Best thing to do is to take the film out of the boxes, put it in a clear plastic baggie, and ask the security person for a hand inspection. Most will cooperate. For those that won’t, one trip through the x-ray probably won’t hurt. For multiple trips, however, a heavy-duty lead bag will help. And never, never keep film in checked baggage. Checked baggage is scanned by a different system entirely, which uses much higher energy x-rays. Kodak’s and Fuji’s web sites both have information on this, I believe. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Stanley Horwitz wrote about his travels without a lead film bag: >I can probably understand your lack of problems and the lead bag may be >unnecessary. Ordinary photographic film is not particularly sensitive to >x-rays. X-ray photography uses specially sensitised film or a >fluorescent screen. >Jim.
Response:
>Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing >through security at international airports?
I’ve made 8 trips to Europe with 800 speed film in my carry-on camera bag (not using any film protection) and never had any fogging or other problems.
Response:
>> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing > > through security at international airports? > I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess > that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything > thin and light is probably a gyp. >Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead >would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 >or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed >when the lead foil is creased several times.
Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them having a hand check done.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing >> > through security at international airports? >> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess >> that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything >> thin and light is probably a gyp. >Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead >would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 >or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed >when the lead foil is creased several times. > Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking > up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on > luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 > different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, > since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them > having a hand check done.
Since the film bags are mad from laminated lead of unknown thickness, I cannot calculate their absorption but I wonder if the x-ray scanners in airports can generate enough power to penetrate the bag? I am no longer in a position to try the experiment myself but I think it might be worth doing. Certainly, an operator seeing the bag might request you to open the case but, in my experience, that does not happen often. Jim.
Response:
> > Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking > up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage.
Is there any data that shows that they increase the power to the x-ray transmitter? It COULD be a change in gain in the receiver…….
Response:
> > > Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking > > up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. > Is there any data that shows that they increase the power to the x-ray > transmitter? It COULD be a change in gain in the receiver…….
No idea. It was not my suggestion that the power was changed but I doubt that a sensitivity increase on the receiver would be very effective. Does anyone know? Jim.
Response:
I’ve watched the screen. They can see thru both regular and strong bags. So far, I don’t think they can get thru double bags. Frank Matthews – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing > >> > through security at international airports? > >> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess > >> that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything > >> thin and light is probably a gyp. > >Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead > >would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 > >or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed > >when the lead foil is creased several times. > Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking > up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on > luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 > different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, > since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them > having a hand check done. > Since the film bags are mad from laminated lead of unknown thickness, I > cannot calculate their absorption but I wonder if the x-ray scanners in > airports can generate enough power to penetrate the bag? I am no longer > in a position to try the experiment myself but I think it might be worth > doing. Certainly, an operator seeing the bag might request you to open > the case but, in my experience, that does not happen often. > Jim.
Response:
>>> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing >> > through security at international airports? >> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess >> that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything >> thin and light is probably a gyp. >Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead >would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 >or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed >when the lead foil is creased several times.
The question I would like to ask is: has anyone ever had film fogged by the airport machines? I have made numerous trips through Dulles, Frankfurt and Munich airports with 800 speed film without a protector and never seen evidence of fogging. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking >up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on >luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 >different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, >since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them >having a hand check done.
Response:
I am not sure about the passenger inspections but I did get a memo from one of hte airlines recently advising that passengers should hand carry film to avoid the luggage inspection x-rays Joseph Coulter First Discount Travel Ponte Vedra Beach, FL – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing >>> > through security at international airports? >>> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess >>> that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything >>> thin and light is probably a gyp. >>Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead >>would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 >>or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed >>when the lead foil is creased several times. > The question I would like to ask is: has anyone ever had film fogged > by the airport machines? I have made numerous trips through Dulles, > Frankfurt and Munich airports with 800 speed film without a protector > and never seen evidence of fogging. >Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking >up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on >luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 >different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, >since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them >having a hand check done.
Response:
>The question I would like to ask is: has anyone ever had film fogged >by the airport machines?
My brother’s, uncle’s, 2nd wife’s, hairdresser had a roll of 100 speed film completely wiped out by the machine. It also made her unfertile and caused her net worth to drop in half, after she bought a new car… 
Response:
> The faster the film, the more susceptible to fogging by x-rays. First, the > effect is cumulative, i.e. the more trips through the conveyor, the more > likely the film will fog. Second, higher-speed films, e.g. the 800 speed > films common for use in p&s cameras, and Kodak’s 1600 speed emulsions will > be more sensitive as well. > Best thing to do is to take the film out of the boxes, put it in a clear > plastic baggie, and ask the security person for a hand inspection. Most > will cooperate. For those that won’t, one trip through the x-ray probably > won’t hurt. For multiple trips, however, a heavy-duty lead bag will help.
I have taken individual rolls of Kodak 800 and 1600 speed film and let them be x-rayed as carryon luggage a few times without any special care. Not a once have I had any problems.
Response:
>>> Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope >> when passing through security at international airports? > I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. > I’d guess that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick > and heavy. Anything thin and light is probably a gyp. > Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a > millimeter of lead would reduce the intensity of common x-ray > radiation by a factor of 3000 or so. I suspect the only > problem would be possible pinholes formed when the lead foil > is creased several times.
I want my photos from Europe to look their best. But do the lead-foil film carriers really protect undeveloped film from x-ray damage? If the lead in the bag obscures the airport security technician’s view of what’s inside, the tech will have to crank up the x-ray intensity to the point where everything IS visible, in which case the film in the bag may well be getting a higher dose than it would under normal x-ray inspection with no foil bag. (And if the techs don’t see what’s inside the bag, they aren’t protecting anyone from anything and aren’t doing what they were hired to do.) Does the amount of lead in one of those bags afford any more protection than the film canister itself? Kodak’s canisters are made of steel about 0.01 inches thick (about 0.25 mm). In comparison, how much protection would you get from the 0.001 mm of lead mentioned above? We’ve all heard that hand-carried luggage receives a lower dosage of x-rays than checked luggage does. Does anyone in r.t.e know the relative levels? Also, is there anything other than film in an ordinary traveler’s luggage that would be affected by x-ray inspection? Nick
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope >>> when passing through security at international airports? >> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. >> I’d guess that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick >> and heavy. Anything thin and light is probably a gyp. > Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a > millimeter of lead would reduce the intensity of common x-ray > radiation by a factor of 3000 or so. I suspect the only > problem would be possible pinholes formed when the lead foil > is creased several times. > I want my photos from Europe to look their best. But do the lead-foil film > carriers really protect undeveloped film from x-ray damage? > If the lead in the bag obscures the airport security technician’s view of > what’s inside, the tech will have to crank up the x-ray intensity to the > point where everything IS visible, in which case the film in the bag may > well be getting a higher dose than it would under normal x-ray inspection > with no foil bag. (And if the techs don’t see what’s inside the bag, they > aren’t protecting anyone from anything and aren’t doing what they were hired > to do.) > Does the amount of lead in one of those bags afford any more protection than > the film canister itself? Kodak’s canisters are made of steel about 0.01 > inches thick (about 0.25 mm). In comparison, how much protection would you > get from the 0.001 mm of lead mentioned above? > We’ve all heard that hand-carried luggage receives a lower dosage of x-rays > than checked luggage does. Does anyone in r.t.e know the relative levels? > Also, is there anything other than film in an ordinary traveler’s luggage > that would be affected by x-ray inspection?
My previous estimate should have been for 1/100th a millimeter of lead where the reduction is about 3000 for X-radiation of wave-length 1.4 angstroms. For .25mm of iron, the reduction is much greater but the problem there is complicated by fluorescence. Film cans are often aluminum or plastic of much lower absorption. It has been suggested (tho’ I don’t really know why) that floppy discs might be affected by X-radiation. A local high-schooler checked that as a science project by persuading frequent travellers to carry discs with them and no damage was ever apparent. Jim.
Response:
HI folks,there have been many postings about x rays harming film and froo my experience ,nither film or floppy disk are harmed provided it is carried in hand luggage. I have travelled all over the world ,both in the ‘West’and Asia /Africa with an assortment of airports and xray machines and have had no films spoiled ,evn where trips involve several flights.Yes i do have a thin lead pouch ,10 years old to carry the films in my hand luggage ,but this is just to keep the films together.It was bought at a time when this subject was starting to appear,and worry travellers.However ,99 per cent of peolple do not use lead pouches , and their films are also unharmed. In a recent photo magazine in UK,it was suggested thet a report was coming out to say hand luggage x rays,do not harm film even after 8 passes. Humidity and bad storage of films should be of more concern to photographers. As to floppy disks,I tooka Sony mavica to India ,and the images were unaffected also by x rays…..regards.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The faster the film, the more susceptible to fogging by x-rays. First, the > effect is cumulative, i.e. the more trips through the conveyor, the more > likely the film will fog. Second, higher-speed films, e.g. the 800 speed > films common for use in p&s cameras, and Kodak’s 1600 speed emulsions will > be more sensitive as well. > Best thing to do is to take the film out of the boxes, put it in a clear > plastic baggie, and ask the security person for a hand inspection. Most > will cooperate. For those that won’t, one trip through the x-ray probably > won’t hurt. For multiple trips, however, a heavy-duty lead bag will help. >I have taken individual rolls of Kodak 800 and 1600 speed film and let them >be x-rayed as carryon luggage a few times without any special care. Not a >once have I had any problems.
The problem is cumulative, i.e. the more times through the conveyor, the more likely the film will be fogged.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope >>> when passing through security at international airports? >> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. >> I’d guess that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick >> and heavy. Anything thin and light is probably a gyp. > Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a > millimeter of lead would reduce the intensity of common x-ray > radiation by a factor of 3000 or so. I suspect the only > problem would be possible pinholes formed when the lead foil > is creased several times. >I want my photos from Europe to look their best. But do the lead-foil film >carriers really protect undeveloped film from x-ray damage? >If the lead in the bag obscures the airport security technician’s view of >what’s inside, the tech will have to crank up the x-ray intensity to the >point where everything IS visible, in which case the film in the bag may >well be getting a higher dose than it would under normal x-ray inspection >with no foil bag. (And if the techs don’t see what’s inside the bag, they >aren’t protecting anyone from anything and aren’t doing what they were hired >to do.)
I’ve never seen a tech crank up the x-rays. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I fly an awful lot and have never seen them do anything except look at the monitors and, from time to time, stop the belt and run something through again. >Does the amount of lead in one of those bags afford any more protection than >the film canister itself? Kodak’s canisters are made of steel about 0.01 >inches thick (about 0.25 mm). In comparison, how much protection would you >get from the 0.001 mm of lead mentioned above?
It’s been a long time since I’ve studied physics, so I can’t explain the why, but lead stops x-rays, steel (actually, probably tin) does not. >We’ve all heard that hand-carried luggage receives a lower dosage of x-rays >than checked luggage does. Does anyone in r.t.e know the relative levels?
If you mean numbers, no, but a number of airports (and it is kept secret which ones) have high-energy x-ray scanners for checked baggage. These _will_ fog film on a single pass — take a look a Kodak’s website, which reports on the problem. NEVER pack film in checked baggage. >Also, is there anything other than film in an ordinary traveler’s luggage >that would be affected by x-ray inspection?
There was some fear for a while that the electrical fields generated by the conveyor belt motors might harm magnetically recorded material, i.e. floppy disks and videotape, but I haven’t heard of anything like this recently. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Nick
Response:
The problem is that you aren’t getting fogging but rather a degradation of quality. Then how do you tell if youre exposure is off or the film has been slightly damaged? Also 999/1000 machines may be fine but what if THIS one is mal adjusted? Frank Matthews – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing >>> > through security at international airports? >>> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess >>> that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything >>> thin and light is probably a gyp. >>Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead >>would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 >>or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed >>when the lead foil is creased several times. > The question I would like to ask is: has anyone ever had film fogged > by the airport machines? I have made numerous trips through Dulles, > Frankfurt and Munich airports with 800 speed film without a protector > and never seen evidence of fogging. >Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking >up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on >luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 >different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, >since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them >having a hand check done.
Response:
Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing through security at international airports?
Response:
> Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing > through security at international airports?
I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything thin and light is probably a gyp.
Response:
> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing > through security at international airports? > I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess > that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything > thin and light is probably a gyp.
Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed when the lead foil is creased several times. Jim.
Response:
Actually, even the heavy ones need to be doubled to be effective. I’ve been considering making my own lead film box. Frank Matthews – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing > through security at international airports? > I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess > that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything > thin and light is probably a gyp.
Response:
> Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead > would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 > or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed > when the lead foil is creased several times.
I have traveled by air with at least 200 rolls of film over the years. Not a single roll has ever been damaged as a result of my packing the film in my camera bag and letting it go through the scanner with other carry on items. If an operator of one of those airport scanners can’t see because you packed your film in a lead package, he’ll most likely just turn up the intensity of the scanner.
Response:
> > Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead > would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 > or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed > when the lead foil is creased several times. > I have traveled by air with at least 200 rolls of film over the years. > Not a single roll has ever been damaged as a result of my packing the > film in my camera bag and letting it go through the scanner with other > carry on items. If an operator of one of those airport scanners can’t > see because you packed your film in a lead package, he’ll most likely > just turn up the intensity of the scanner.
On the other hand, I have been using the same foil bag for about ten years and have never detected any damage. I have also never noticed the operator adjusting the machine. I will admit that I have been asked to open my camera bag but never the film bag. These observations pertain only to North America and Western Europe. I only once travelled to a country that was part of the Warsaw Pact and that was when I drove into East Germany. Jim. Jim.
Response:
Stanley Horwitz wrote about his travels without a lead film bag: I can probably understand your lack of problems and the lead bag may be unnecessary. Ordinary photographic film is not particularly sensitive to x-rays. X-ray photography uses specially sensitised film or a fluorescent screen. Jim.
Response:
The faster the film, the more susceptible to fogging by x-rays. First, the effect is cumulative, i.e. the more trips through the conveyor, the more likely the film will fog. Second, higher-speed films, e.g. the 800 speed films common for use in p&s cameras, and Kodak’s 1600 speed emulsions will be more sensitive as well. Best thing to do is to take the film out of the boxes, put it in a clear plastic baggie, and ask the security person for a hand inspection. Most will cooperate. For those that won’t, one trip through the x-ray probably won’t hurt. For multiple trips, however, a heavy-duty lead bag will help. And never, never keep film in checked baggage. Checked baggage is scanned by a different system entirely, which uses much higher energy x-rays. Kodak’s and Fuji’s web sites both have information on this, I believe. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Stanley Horwitz wrote about his travels without a lead film bag: >I can probably understand your lack of problems and the lead bag may be >unnecessary. Ordinary photographic film is not particularly sensitive to >x-rays. X-ray photography uses specially sensitised film or a >fluorescent screen. >Jim.
Response:
>Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing >through security at international airports?
I’ve made 8 trips to Europe with 800 speed film in my carry-on camera bag (not using any film protection) and never had any fogging or other problems.
Response:
>> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing > > through security at international airports? > I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess > that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything > thin and light is probably a gyp. >Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead >would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 >or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed >when the lead foil is creased several times.
Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them having a hand check done.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing >> > through security at international airports? >> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess >> that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything >> thin and light is probably a gyp. >Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead >would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 >or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed >when the lead foil is creased several times. > Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking > up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on > luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 > different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, > since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them > having a hand check done.
Since the film bags are mad from laminated lead of unknown thickness, I cannot calculate their absorption but I wonder if the x-ray scanners in airports can generate enough power to penetrate the bag? I am no longer in a position to try the experiment myself but I think it might be worth doing. Certainly, an operator seeing the bag might request you to open the case but, in my experience, that does not happen often. Jim.
Response:
> > Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking > up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage.
Is there any data that shows that they increase the power to the x-ray transmitter? It COULD be a change in gain in the receiver…….
Response:
> > > Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking > > up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. > Is there any data that shows that they increase the power to the x-ray > transmitter? It COULD be a change in gain in the receiver…….
No idea. It was not my suggestion that the power was changed but I doubt that a sensitivity increase on the receiver would be very effective. Does anyone know? Jim.
Response:
I’ve watched the screen. They can see thru both regular and strong bags. So far, I don’t think they can get thru double bags. Frank Matthews – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing > >> > through security at international airports? > >> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess > >> that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything > >> thin and light is probably a gyp. > >Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead > >would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 > >or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed > >when the lead foil is creased several times. > Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking > up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on > luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 > different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, > since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them > having a hand check done. > Since the film bags are mad from laminated lead of unknown thickness, I > cannot calculate their absorption but I wonder if the x-ray scanners in > airports can generate enough power to penetrate the bag? I am no longer > in a position to try the experiment myself but I think it might be worth > doing. Certainly, an operator seeing the bag might request you to open > the case but, in my experience, that does not happen often. > Jim.
Response:
>>> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing >> > through security at international airports? >> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess >> that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything >> thin and light is probably a gyp. >Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead >would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 >or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed >when the lead foil is creased several times.
The question I would like to ask is: has anyone ever had film fogged by the airport machines? I have made numerous trips through Dulles, Frankfurt and Munich airports with 800 speed film without a protector and never seen evidence of fogging. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking >up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on >luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 >different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, >since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them >having a hand check done.
Response:
I am not sure about the passenger inspections but I did get a memo from one of hte airlines recently advising that passengers should hand carry film to avoid the luggage inspection x-rays Joseph Coulter First Discount Travel Ponte Vedra Beach, FL – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing >>> > through security at international airports? >>> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess >>> that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything >>> thin and light is probably a gyp. >>Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead >>would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 >>or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed >>when the lead foil is creased several times. > The question I would like to ask is: has anyone ever had film fogged > by the airport machines? I have made numerous trips through Dulles, > Frankfurt and Munich airports with 800 speed film without a protector > and never seen evidence of fogging. >Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking >up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on >luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 >different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, >since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them >having a hand check done.
Response:
>The question I would like to ask is: has anyone ever had film fogged >by the airport machines?
My brother’s, uncle’s, 2nd wife’s, hairdresser had a roll of 100 speed film completely wiped out by the machine. It also made her unfertile and caused her net worth to drop in half, after she bought a new car…
Response:
> The faster the film, the more susceptible to fogging by x-rays. First, the > effect is cumulative, i.e. the more trips through the conveyor, the more > likely the film will fog. Second, higher-speed films, e.g. the 800 speed > films common for use in p&s cameras, and Kodak’s 1600 speed emulsions will > be more sensitive as well. > Best thing to do is to take the film out of the boxes, put it in a clear > plastic baggie, and ask the security person for a hand inspection. Most > will cooperate. For those that won’t, one trip through the x-ray probably > won’t hurt. For multiple trips, however, a heavy-duty lead bag will help.
I have taken individual rolls of Kodak 800 and 1600 speed film and let them be x-rayed as carryon luggage a few times without any special care. Not a once have I had any problems.
Response:
>>> Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope >> when passing through security at international airports? > I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. > I’d guess that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick > and heavy. Anything thin and light is probably a gyp. > Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a > millimeter of lead would reduce the intensity of common x-ray > radiation by a factor of 3000 or so. I suspect the only > problem would be possible pinholes formed when the lead foil > is creased several times.
I want my photos from Europe to look their best. But do the lead-foil film carriers really protect undeveloped film from x-ray damage? If the lead in the bag obscures the airport security technician’s view of what’s inside, the tech will have to crank up the x-ray intensity to the point where everything IS visible, in which case the film in the bag may well be getting a higher dose than it would under normal x-ray inspection with no foil bag. (And if the techs don’t see what’s inside the bag, they aren’t protecting anyone from anything and aren’t doing what they were hired to do.) Does the amount of lead in one of those bags afford any more protection than the film canister itself? Kodak’s canisters are made of steel about 0.01 inches thick (about 0.25 mm). In comparison, how much protection would you get from the 0.001 mm of lead mentioned above? We’ve all heard that hand-carried luggage receives a lower dosage of x-rays than checked luggage does. Does anyone in r.t.e know the relative levels? Also, is there anything other than film in an ordinary traveler’s luggage that would be affected by x-ray inspection? Nick
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope >>> when passing through security at international airports? >> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. >> I’d guess that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick >> and heavy. Anything thin and light is probably a gyp. > Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a > millimeter of lead would reduce the intensity of common x-ray > radiation by a factor of 3000 or so. I suspect the only > problem would be possible pinholes formed when the lead foil > is creased several times. > I want my photos from Europe to look their best. But do the lead-foil film > carriers really protect undeveloped film from x-ray damage? > If the lead in the bag obscures the airport security technician’s view of > what’s inside, the tech will have to crank up the x-ray intensity to the > point where everything IS visible, in which case the film in the bag may > well be getting a higher dose than it would under normal x-ray inspection > with no foil bag. (And if the techs don’t see what’s inside the bag, they > aren’t protecting anyone from anything and aren’t doing what they were hired > to do.) > Does the amount of lead in one of those bags afford any more protection than > the film canister itself? Kodak’s canisters are made of steel about 0.01 > inches thick (about 0.25 mm). In comparison, how much protection would you > get from the 0.001 mm of lead mentioned above? > We’ve all heard that hand-carried luggage receives a lower dosage of x-rays > than checked luggage does. Does anyone in r.t.e know the relative levels? > Also, is there anything other than film in an ordinary traveler’s luggage > that would be affected by x-ray inspection?
My previous estimate should have been for 1/100th a millimeter of lead where the reduction is about 3000 for X-radiation of wave-length 1.4 angstroms. For .25mm of iron, the reduction is much greater but the problem there is complicated by fluorescence. Film cans are often aluminum or plastic of much lower absorption. It has been suggested (tho’ I don’t really know why) that floppy discs might be affected by X-radiation. A local high-schooler checked that as a science project by persuading frequent travellers to carry discs with them and no damage was ever apparent. Jim.
Response:
HI folks,there have been many postings about x rays harming film and froo my experience ,nither film or floppy disk are harmed provided it is carried in hand luggage. I have travelled all over the world ,both in the ‘West’and Asia /Africa with an assortment of airports and xray machines and have had no films spoiled ,evn where trips involve several flights.Yes i do have a thin lead pouch ,10 years old to carry the films in my hand luggage ,but this is just to keep the films together.It was bought at a time when this subject was starting to appear,and worry travellers.However ,99 per cent of peolple do not use lead pouches , and their films are also unharmed. In a recent photo magazine in UK,it was suggested thet a report was coming out to say hand luggage x rays,do not harm film even after 8 passes. Humidity and bad storage of films should be of more concern to photographers. As to floppy disks,I tooka Sony mavica to India ,and the images were unaffected also by x rays…..regards.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The faster the film, the more susceptible to fogging by x-rays. First, the > effect is cumulative, i.e. the more trips through the conveyor, the more > likely the film will fog. Second, higher-speed films, e.g. the 800 speed > films common for use in p&s cameras, and Kodak’s 1600 speed emulsions will > be more sensitive as well. > Best thing to do is to take the film out of the boxes, put it in a clear > plastic baggie, and ask the security person for a hand inspection. Most > will cooperate. For those that won’t, one trip through the x-ray probably > won’t hurt. For multiple trips, however, a heavy-duty lead bag will help. >I have taken individual rolls of Kodak 800 and 1600 speed film and let them >be x-rayed as carryon luggage a few times without any special care. Not a >once have I had any problems.
The problem is cumulative, i.e. the more times through the conveyor, the more likely the film will be fogged.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope >>> when passing through security at international airports? >> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. >> I’d guess that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick >> and heavy. Anything thin and light is probably a gyp. > Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a > millimeter of lead would reduce the intensity of common x-ray > radiation by a factor of 3000 or so. I suspect the only > problem would be possible pinholes formed when the lead foil > is creased several times. >I want my photos from Europe to look their best. But do the lead-foil film >carriers really protect undeveloped film from x-ray damage? >If the lead in the bag obscures the airport security technician’s view of >what’s inside, the tech will have to crank up the x-ray intensity to the >point where everything IS visible, in which case the film in the bag may >well be getting a higher dose than it would under normal x-ray inspection >with no foil bag. (And if the techs don’t see what’s inside the bag, they >aren’t protecting anyone from anything and aren’t doing what they were hired >to do.)
I’ve never seen a tech crank up the x-rays. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I fly an awful lot and have never seen them do anything except look at the monitors and, from time to time, stop the belt and run something through again. >Does the amount of lead in one of those bags afford any more protection than >the film canister itself? Kodak’s canisters are made of steel about 0.01 >inches thick (about 0.25 mm). In comparison, how much protection would you >get from the 0.001 mm of lead mentioned above?
It’s been a long time since I’ve studied physics, so I can’t explain the why, but lead stops x-rays, steel (actually, probably tin) does not. >We’ve all heard that hand-carried luggage receives a lower dosage of x-rays >than checked luggage does. Does anyone in r.t.e know the relative levels?
If you mean numbers, no, but a number of airports (and it is kept secret which ones) have high-energy x-ray scanners for checked baggage. These _will_ fog film on a single pass — take a look a Kodak’s website, which reports on the problem. NEVER pack film in checked baggage. >Also, is there anything other than film in an ordinary traveler’s luggage >that would be affected by x-ray inspection?
There was some fear for a while that the electrical fields generated by the conveyor belt motors might harm magnetically recorded material, i.e. floppy disks and videotape, but I haven’t heard of anything like this recently. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Nick
Response:
The problem is that you aren’t getting fogging but rather a degradation of quality. Then how do you tell if youre exposure is off or the film has been slightly damaged? Also 999/1000 machines may be fine but what if THIS one is mal adjusted? Frank Matthews – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> > Is it advisable to use a shielded film protector envelope when passing >>> > through security at international airports? >>> I use 200-speed film and have never had a bit of trouble. I’d guess >>> that a **real** shielding envelope would be thick and heavy. Anything >>> thin and light is probably a gyp. >>Not necessarily; every little helps. Even 1/1000 of a millimeter of lead >>would reduce the intensity of common x-ray radiation by a factor of 3000 >>or so. I suspect the only problem would be possible pinholes formed >>when the lead foil is creased several times. > The question I would like to ask is: has anyone ever had film fogged > by the airport machines? I have made numerous trips through Dulles, > Frankfurt and Munich airports with 800 speed film without a protector > and never seen evidence of fogging. >Not only that, but consider the possibility of the x-ray operator cranking >up the dose when they see a big cold mass in your luggage. Carry on >luggage, they might. Checked luggage, they will. Just flew through 4 >different airports, and in Phoenix, they were zapping a carry on but good, >since they saw a big something or another in the bag. I was behind them >having a hand check done.