Film Sent Through Airport X-Ray Question

[craig_sander]

I have a friend who just came back from the Middle East, and three rolls of

film got left in his carry-on bag that went through x-ray machines in Germany

and in San Francisco.

2 of the rolls were Elite Chrome 100 and the other was Portra 160VC.

What are the odds that this film has been destroyed?

I just want to know what to expect since I am the one who is going to bring

them to the lab for developing.

[ellis_vener_photography]

the odds are very low: these are low ISO films and there were only 3 exposures to low level

power x-rays . if it had been in checked luggage that would be a very different story. There

they use much stronger gamma ray examnation devices , not x-ray, and this is notorious for

destroying film

[noreen]

I just took ISO 100 slide film through X-rays at Boston, Milan, Cairo, and then Milan again.

No problems at all.

[charles_stobbs3]

I took Elitechrome 100 through 6 carryon exams last summer with no problems (Boston, Kennedy, Brussels, Rome, Zurich,Kennedy).

[gene_e._mccluney]

It is important to remember that it is not the "carry on" scanners that will fog film, even

with several passes, rather it is the ultra-high strength X-ray scanners that are used for

"Checked" luggage. Never put unexposed or exposed unprocessed film in your "Checked"

luggage.

[randrew1]

Since I'm getting lazy, I'm going to copy what I wrote last month.

 

I don't have easy access to all of the sources that I did when I worked at Kodak so first let me tell you what I recall.

 

Natural background radiation comes from cosmic rays and from terrestrial gamma rays. The intensity of cosmic rays depends mostly on elevation. The terrestrial sources depend on the rocks and minerals native to that area. The total exposure varies from one less than 50 to over 200 milliroentgens. If you consider the variation from location to location and consider where people live, the average person on earth is exposed to about 70 milliroentgens (mR) per year.

 

There is a TSA document that specifies the maximum exposure in a carry-on inspection as 1 mR. That is how I came to the conclusion that "It will take more than 70 trips through a carry-on x-ray machine to equal the background radiation accumulated over one year."

 

Now comes the tough part. Can I verify this with readily available information? This report from a United Nations scientific committee (http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/gareport.pdf) reports that humans are exposed to 30 to 100 mR of cosmic rays and 30 to 60 mR of terrestrial gamma rays (I'm converting the units from millisieverts). Since film doesn't inhale or ingest, I'm only including external sources. They report the average annual exposure as 40 mR from cosmic sources and 50 mR from terrestrial sources. Considering the variability and different methods used, 90 is a pretty good match for my assumption of 70 mR.

 

I was unable to find the TSA spec on x-ray exposure, but I found another source that quoted it: (http://underwaterphotos.com/Filmsafe.htm). This site also describes a test of various films through multiple inspections. No effects were detected on any film after 16 inspections. The highest speed films had barely perceptible damage after 100 inspections. This is an old report (1994). If you are willing to accept my word for it, I can assure you that both Kodak and Fuji have made significant improvements in radiation sensitivity since then. That is, a 1600 speed film today would be less sensitive to radiation than a 1600 speed film in 1994.

 

One (of two) remaining questions: Are all milliroentgens created equal? Does 1 mR of cosmic rays have the same effect as 1 mR of x-rays? I know of no definitive answer. They could be different, but I'll bet they are within a factor of 2. Any experts out there?

 

The other remaining question: Does you film get more radiation during the flight than during the inspection? I found sources that would infer this, but I can't vouch for the sources. Another call for expert feedback.

 

Some of the units that inspect CHECKED baggage use high power x-rays that will destroy the photographic usefulness of film. This link has some examples:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

 

I heard a story recently about a photographer covering the inauguration in 2005 whose work was destroyed by one of these high power units.

 

Bottom line for me: I routinely leave 800 speed film in carry-on bag through airport screenings without any concern. I wont use any 800 speed film that has less than a year before its expiration date. I can see the grain degradation as the film ages.

 

Bottom line for you: the film is safe.

[larrydressler]

I don't check any film I get it from my agency at every point I have to use it. It is processed in whatever country I happen to be working in and then sent via the Embasy through a currier that is allowed to pass customs ect.

 

Ohh wait that was a show i just watched.

 

In Realality Personaly In the U.S.A. they will hand serch my stuff when I ask. Heathrow is not as nice. Cairo looks at me winks and lets me through.

 

Larry

[noreen]

Cairo didn't wink and let me through! I had to pass my backpack (and handbag) through

the X-ray twice. I never did figure out what it was that worried them, but I had a fair bit of

small electronics, ranging from my laptop and its cord to a non-SLR digital camera to my

F100, stuffed inside.

 

Even so, no harm done.

 

The only time I have ever had X-rays damage film was once with a couple of ISO 400 (IIRC)

rolls that went through not only London (twice) and Cairo, but also through two (IIRC)

machines at the Egyptian Museum, which is where I believe the damage was done.* Other

film, which did not pass through the museum X-rays, was fine, even the Delta 3200.

 

*This won't happen again because they don't allow photographs within the EM anymore.

Cameras must be checked before entering the building.