Do not use a lead bag when going thru x-ray

[rob_malkin]

I was researching this a few days ago and found out some rather

interesting info.

A lot of photo shops will sell you "x-ray proof" bags. These are just

lead lined bags. The idea is simple but,

 

when the x-ray inspector can see that there is a bag shape that he

can not see anything thru he will simply boost the radiation level.

This is bad news for your equipment because all your other equipment

gets blasted with high penetration radiation. So if you left any film

out of the bag, well I guess it would be damaged.

 

So, what to do.

If you can get a hand inspection, good, if you cant just shut up and

dont worry about it.

 

Also at high altitude the radiation in the atmposphere is more

damaging to film emulsion than the x-ray.

Hope it helps

 

rob

[mike_lepp1]

Most bags aren't thick enough to prevent the x-rays from seeing what's inside them. They will, however, reduce the dose; which is what matters.

 

I usually put my film in a plastic bag and ask for a hand check anyway. There's never been an issue with this.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>when the x-ray inspector can see that there is a bag shape that he can not see

anything thru he will simply boost the radiation level. </I><P> Wouldn't it be nice if

everything you read on the internet were true?<P>On the other hand the rest of your

post is absolutely right on the money.

[rob_malkin]

This was not found on the internet. It was published by a man who workes for a security firm making x-ray machines for airports in the united kingdom. It was published in Amateur Photographer in UK about 19 months ago. I followed up the article and have found out that new x-ray machines (in the uk at least) have variable power x-ray machines.

 

So I would think that its true. It was his advice to use a paper bag and not bother with a lead one.

 

I do agree a lot of stuff on the net is rubbish but I would not bother to post it if I did not read up about it.

 

rob

 

(the variable power may be achived by a longer exposure thus giving a greather penetration, I dont know anything about x-ray apart from the basics)

[StanleyBeck]

I'm more inclined to think that the operator is increasing the sensitivity of his imager, rather than boosting the power, for the following reasons:

 

1. There is a practical limit to how much power you can get from a given X-Ray tube;

 

2. X-Rays are a health hazard, and are tightly controlled. Increasing the power would not only zap everything it is scanning, but would present a specific hazard to the screeners (and travelers). (Note that X-Ray technicians in hospitals use lead aprons, and stand behind a lead lined wall each time they make an exposure.

 

I agree that the lead film bags will probably create more trouble than they are worth.

[mike_elek]

<i>Note that X-Ray technicians in hospitals use lead aprons, and stand behind a lead lined wall each time they make an exposure.</i><P>

 

... which makes me only slightly nervous when I'm at the dentist, and that thing is pointed at my head while the operator is behind a lead barrier.

[rob_malkin]

I would hate to think what kind of exposure these people are exposed to in countries where health and safety is not important. I would think that post cost war countries, Yugoslavia, Russia, Romania would have older russian built machines.

In my opinion, this is pretty much the only advantage of digital over film. It has the ability to be copied with no loss of image quality and never ages, and X-ray would have no effect on it.(in cd format anyway)

 

happy shooting

[mskovacs]

As someone who works in medical imaging research, I assure you that the precautions are for employees to meet strict government guidelines for radiation exposure. X-rays and nuclear medicine are about the safest medical procedures you can have.

 

Regarding all the paranoia about exposing films to airport X-rays, I have very strong evidence that airline flights expose you and your films to much higher radiation levels than the carry-on scanners. In fact, my own measurements show that pilots and flight attendants are exposed to more radiation than allowed for radiation workers in Canada. Metal 35mm cannisters must also attenuate the X-rays to a reasonable degree. I am certain from my own measurements that the X-rays commonly used are less than 50keV in energy simply because my portable dosimeter registered zero dose.

[wyverndude]

I believe they (speaking for the USA) are required to grant a request for a hand-inspection, and I think I've seen that posted as a policy -but at the moment, I'm not positive about that.

<P>

I carry my film in a lead bag, in my carry-on. When I get to the security check point, I get out my film bag and ask for a hand inspection of my film (not the entire carry-on) -very politely.

<P>

They're usually cooperative. If they refuse, I send the lead bag through the X-ray machine in my carry-on and snigger when they realize that they can't see into my film bag and are going to have to do a hand inspection.

<P>

So far, has worked every time.

[bob_katz1]

What's film?

[walter_strong3]

I've travelled to China twice and Russia three times using two different kinds of lead lined bags. No problems. HOWEVER, if you want to save some money (as in not paying for lead lined bags!), be sure and take two or three rolls of 1600 ISO film and always ask for a hand inspection because you have some "really sensitive film".

[staticlag]

If anyone is worried about "increasing the intensity of the x-rays" why don't you just double or triple the lead bagging? Just buy progressively bigger bags as the outside bag.

[andrew_hull]

1. Operators CAN see what is in the bag. I have seen it myself

2. They cannot "up" the intensity on the xray.

[40mm]

Alternatively, just don't worry about it. I've followed this discussion topic on photo.net for several years and as far as I'm aware nobody has yet provided an image damaged by carry-on x-ray machine exposure. I've had many films go through the machines and never had the slightest problem. Can we perhaps have a moratorium on the subject until someone demonstrates that the problem actually exists?