Air travel with film

<p>Thanks for the many good posts about travelling by plane with film. The standard advice seems to be: always carry film in hand luggage, ask for hand inspection but don't worry if the security staff insists on putting your films through the X-ray scanner.<br>

This weekend, I travelled Brussels-Copenhagen and back with some Ilford Delta 400 and some Kodak Ektar 100. In both airports, they gladly accepted to perform hand inspection. In Copenhagen, however, the security officer said: "We're perfectly happy to hand inspect if that's what you want, but you should know that the background radiation at 30,000 ft is about ten times stronger than the levels reached in our machine".<br>

I must confess that I have never heard that the bigger risk when travelling with film was not the security check but the flight itself.<br>

I have since found a NASA report with the title "The Effects of Space Radiation on Flight Film", but space is obviously very different.<br>

Does anyone have more information about the effects of normal flying on film?</p>

<p>Many thanks in advance,<br>

<br />Peter</p>

<p>Well, it is dependent on the altitude. But overall, the effects on fresh film for several flights is negligible.</p>

<p>Thanks. However, is it true that the background radiation at 30,000 feet is ten times stronger than the radiation of the hand-luggage scanners used at airports? If so, it seems ridiculous to even be asking for hand inspection of film, especially since scanning only lasts a few seconds, while the duration of a flight could be anything from about 1 to 12 hours!</p>

<p>Scanners at airports differ in their radiation output depending on the machine used as well as the frequency of calibration, so, IMHO no it isn't ridiculous to ask for hand scanning at the airports. Personally, I don't because I tend to use relatively slow films...nothing above ISO 400....but if I was using some fast films (>1600) I probably would.</p>

<p>Well, what counts is both the strength and time. The cumulative dose for a 10 hour flight at 30,000 feet could be more than the scanner for a fraction of a second. It is common to compare the increased background radiation against chest X-rays. Frequent fliers do get a significant extra dose.</p>

<p>The spectrum is different, and so will be the effect on people vs. film.</p>

<p>Airport signs I have seen recommend hand inspection at ISO 800 or more. Since I commonly use Diafine, and rate my films higher, I have asked for hand inspection of lower ISO film. (If they ever asked why, though they usually don't.)</p>

<p>I also have film-shield lead bags, and have put those through. Sometimes they ask for hand inspection after seeing the bag, sometimes not.</p>

<p>Again, it is the cumulative dose. On a long trip, you might go through many airports. One or two through the X-ray is probably fine, but five or six might not be. When I am rushed, I allow them through, when not I take the time for hand inspection.</p>

<p>This chart will get you started: </p>

<p>http://xkcd.com/radiation/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The effects of the in-flight cosmic rays, and the carry-on X-ray, are measurable. But they are so minor as to be insignificant.<br>

Checked luggage, certain destruction.</p>

<p>The problem with traveling with film, is that radiation is accumulative. So if the film gets scanned multiple times and then flown over a significant distance without lead bags you increase the exposure and risk latent images that have not been developed. So, for long trips develop locally or on the go, travel with lead bag and ask for hand inspection. I have been to sensitive places where that wasn't an option and it all worked out once i had everything else in place. And once you traveled with film, keep that batch from taking another trip.</p>

<p>I don't worry even think about it anymore, at least with the security checkpoint scanners in North America. I've used film that's been through the scanner a half dozen or so times, with no perceptible effects.</p>

<p>Some time ago a guy actually did the experiment, and looked at film which had been through the scanner a known number of times. I think he described it here on photo.net, probably about ten years ago. </p>

<p>FWIW, he estimated you would have to scan 400 ASA film over 30 times before you begin to see the first trace of perceptible fogging. That said, I don't remember the details of his experiment. And of course, if your film was already exposed, it would be off the toe of the curve and more easily fogged.</p>

<p>I haven't found information on the doses from carry-on baggage machines: I suspect they are tiny and getting smaller for the same reason that dental x-ray doses are tiny and getting smaller: people have to work around these machines and they (not your film) can get nasty cumulative doses.</p>

<p>From the <a href="https://xkcd.com/radiation/">xkcd radiation chart</a> you can see that the dose from a flight from NY to LA is roughly two chest x-rays. This will almost certainly hugely dominate any dose from the carry-on machine. It is notable that all film on a flight gets both the dose from the machine and the dose from the flight itself: I'd like to gently suggest that if very fast film gets fogged by flying it is probably getting fogged by the flight itself, not by the machine. </p>

The worst I've seen from going through multiple carry-on scanners on trans-Pacific flights is maybe a slight increase in base fog of Delta 3200 (but it wasn't brand-new film, so a few months worth of normal background radiation had also been contributing to that). It wasn't anything that interfered with making high-quality prints.

 

If the probability of your film getting very, very-slightly fogged is a genuine worry, then your increased probability of developing cancer should be terrifying.

<p>I think there's a limited amount of fact-finding and questioning that's worthwhile in the context that I think the world understands ( and has done for some time) that taking low to medium speed film for a few air journeys doesn't do perceptible harm. I suspect ( but don't know ) that the dose varies between machines varies from one low and irrelevant number to another. For years people whose livelihoods depended on travelling photography carried unexposed and exposed film whilst travelling by air and managed to get their pictures back home OK. A lot of people stopped asking for hand-checks, partly because it clearly didn't much matter except for maybe rather fast film with multiple potential passes, and partly people like me, with LHR as the closest airport, where a co-operative attitude wasn't often forthcoming. </p>

<p>Interestingly though whilst the generally accepted view is that leaving film in checked bags means its toast, unequivocably, I've twice left a single film in my bags by accident. To my surprise on both occasions the film (TriX) seemed fine. Both were transatlantic flights to LHR. Now I'm not trying to persuade anyone that leaving film in a checked bag is OK; but pointing out that either not every bag got scanned even in the post 9/11 era, or that the dose varies a lot. The real point is that even if you've been as stupid as I was, its still worthwhile getting a roll developed as it might be OK. </p>

 

I've also had a few rolls survive unharmed after mistakenly leaving them in a checked bag. Not a guarantee of destruction, but certainly inadvisable.

<p>Per Mark's comment, as I already own a couple lead-lined bags, I always use those. As I've mentioned on similar threads on PN regarding this topic, I was advised simply to remove the bag from my hand luggage and request a hand check. Sometimes I just skip the request and send the bag through -- about 50% of the time it is caught and hand searched after the fact. In Asia, they didn't even look in the bag. The bag protects from radiation during the flight as well but as someone wisely mentioned, the radiation is more of a concern on my body than my film. </p>

<p>I haven't found a lead bag to crawl into when I'm flying yet but I'll keep looking.</p>

<p> "Most items receive about one-tenth of a millirem of <a title="" href="http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-sources-uses/radiation-resources/glossary.html" rel="glossary-def/15">exposure</a> (about a tenth of a day’s worth of natural <a title="" href="http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-sources-uses/radiation-resources/glossary.html" rel="glossary-def/3">background radiation</a>)."<br>

<br>

http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-sources-uses/security-devices.html<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>The usual rule that I remember is that a color film of a given ISO is about equivalent, in such sensitivities, to a black and white film of about 4x the ISO.</p>

<p>The signs in airports mention ISO 800, but not color or black and white. It might be ISO 800 color and ISO 3200 for black and white. (And the sensitivity of TMZ and Delta 3200 are well known.)</p>

<p>One problem, though, is that uniform exposure isn't so bad, but partial exposure with a sharp edge might be noticed. From the right angle, the X-rays will go into a 35mm cartridge with a sharp shadow.<br>

Other metal objects nearby could also cast shadows. Film inside a metal body camera has somewhat more protection. It might be best, then, to put them through the X-ray in the little trays, with an orientation that reduces the shadows.</p>

<p>Many thanks for all the extremely knowledgeable contributions to the discussion. I also found the comparison table between radiation from different sources interesting. It is reassuring to see that the radiation dose from a few seconds in the hand luggage scanner can't be compared to a few seconds at 30,000 feet, but perhaps to many hours at 30,000 feet. It is pretty obvious that the information given to me by the security agent at the airport in Copenhagen is not correct. On the other hand, lead-lined film bags sound like a very reasonable investment.</p>

<p>Peter wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is reassuring to see that the radiation dose from a few seconds in the hand luggage scanner can't be compared to a few seconds at 30,000 feet, but perhaps to many hours at 30,000 feet. It is pretty obvious that the information given to me by the security agent at the airport in Copenhagen is not correct.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In fact they are correct: you are confused about units. The dose from the machine is about 0.01 millirem, while xkcd gives the dose from a flight from NY to LA as 40 micro Sieverts. 100 rem are a Sv, so if you do the maths you'll find that the dose from flying is about 400 times the dose from the machine.</p>

<p>It's actually a little less simple than this, because the dose from flying is presumably a whole-body dose, while film is small. Radiation dose measurement is just a mess unfortunately. However it does seem reasonably safe to worry about the flight more than the machine.</p>

<p>Also perhaps worth pointing out that there have indeed been studies of cancer rates in air crew, who get exposed to this kind of dose all the time. They don't get cancer more often, and in fact they may get it less often.</p>

<p>Mr Adler.</p>

<p>You don't actually need lead bags- just something else to carry, something else to spend money on. I suspect that a huge majority of people carrying film over the years haven't used them - I'm a photographer, I know other photographers and I never met anyone who used them. Of course the people who use them argue that they've had no problems , so the bags must be a good thing. Reality is that they wouldn't have had any trouble without the bags either, as a large proportion of other people could verify. </p>

<p>There is one exception and that is if you're carrying very fast films on trips with many flights. , when the lead bag might help a bit if you can't get hand inspections. </p>

<p>The two lead bags that I have were given to me along with some rolls of film. I would not pay list price for them.</p>

<p>One reason I use one is to keep the film together. I suppose a zip-lock bag would do just as well.<br>

If I take the film out of a lead bag for hand inspection, they will know I am serious about my film.<br>

(Then again, anyone today traveling with film is likely serious about it.)</p>

<p>I suspect X-ray equipment has improved over the years, so what was true 10 or 20 years ago, might not be today. </p>

This is probably another one of the

factors that for the large part has no

perceptible effect. For me I'll rank it

alongside the following we all fret about

but are not that important: a few specs

of dust in a lens, slight mark on an

optic, not using zeiss/Leica lenses, not

using MLU with a tripod.

<p>I recall a study by a group including Kodak scientists from several years ago. According to the data, it would take hundreds of inspections to increase the fog level of ISO 400 film by one stop.</p>

<p>If they hand inspect, the boxes and foil pouches may be opened. You risk more from light exposure than radiation from carry-on luggage inspection. The actual exposure is not only weak, but very brief. The inspection is done on a digital image, highly processed for threat detection.</p>

<p>Checked baggage inspection is another matter. The X-rays must be powerful enough to penetrate metal. Film will be ruined with even one inspection. It uses electron beam technology, which is somewhat misleading. A focused beam of electrons is scanned against a tungsten target, which produces a moving focused beam of X-rays. The actual inspection is done with X-rays. Film damage is often seen as streaks and spots, rather than overall fogging.</p>

<p>Lead bags are a waste of time and money. They will raise a red flag in the inspection machine, and the bags will be opened and the contents scanned anyway. Furthermore they are heavy in a time when baggage weight limits are decreasing. California and the EU are really funny about anything containing lead. It causes everything from cancer to bad breath. If returned to the ground from whence it came, it will poison future generations forever.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I recall a study by a group including Kodak scientists from several years ago. According to the data, it would take hundreds of inspections to increase the fog level of ISO 400 film by one stop.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds right, but as with safelight exposure, a dose too small to actually fog can change the effect of image exposure. That might get it down to tens.</p>

I always ask to hand inspect my films, sometime with sucess, sometimes not. In many years only one time happened to have the film damaged (and it was carried as cabin lugguage), I can't say for sure which airport was responsible (sometimes the same roll if not used during a trip is used inthe next one) but certainly in Europe (milan, paris, dublin). The films was rollei IR400 and show the classic wavy lines caused by xray machine. If I have time I will scan it in the next few days. Anyway the printer (classic darkroom printer) say it wil not show in the print.

my advice: ask always hand inspection and if they say the machine is safe explain them that the effect (now I am talking about fogging,

not the wavy lines) is cumulative.

<blockquote>

<p>I'm a photographer, I know other photographers and I never met anyone who used them. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>David, I respect your opinion and experience but personalty I always use lead-lined bags and this advice I’ve received from a professional photographer also who travels around the Globe a lot. The bag cost about $20 and holds 15 rolls of 35mm films. Doesn’t sound like a huge investment. Yes, right no film should be faster than ISO400 (color or BW I believe it doesn’t make any difference). For my one trip to Europe I might have 8-10 times X-ray checkups, but never spotted any problems on the films.</p>

<p>Regarding high altitude (30,000 ft.) radiation I think it’s pretty much negligible. So if your luggage exposed to the high radiation humans should too during the flight. However as Tim mentioned, crew members don’t have any health issues related to overdose radiation.</p>