New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

[AgX]

The post by Freestyle Photo does not indicate whether that warning was based on own expirience/testing or reported hearsay or information from the security agents.

 

[BrianShaw]

I was flying from Logan in Boston, they had this new scanner. They put “safe up to 800 ISO” sign. I’m using 400 film. No problem to fly over USA this and previous year then new scanners were installed.

That’s good to hear... a first-hand report.

 

[lauffray]

I was flying from Logan in Boston, they had this new scanner. They put “safe up to 800 ISO” sign. I’m using 400 film. No problem to fly over USA this and previous year then new scanners were installed.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for, some first-hand experience. So you had exposed film, and when you developed it at home it was fine?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thanks, that's what I was looking for, some first-hand experience. So you had exposed film, and when you developed it at home it was fine?

Yes.

Here is one film bulk story.
Made in Europe, shipped to Russia. Went from Russia to Canada after been tossed between custom release back and forth.
Went to Russia to be exposed where. Came back from Russia via Poland.
I don't know how many times and how it was scanned in total. No hands checks, just scans. All I know - this film gave me fine exposures and prints from it.

 

[pentaxuser]

So the new scanners' safe limits would seem to be declared by the "authorities" for want of a better word as the same as the old i.e. up to 800 ISO Looks like we have a non thread created by the petapixel link

A couple of questions about petapixel, if I may. Does petapixel simply collect any item he finds that he thinks will "get a buzz". Does he explain anywhere that he cannot be the responsible for the content and indeed accurate content is not part of his remit which primarily is to be read

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

So the new scanners' safe limits would seem to be declared by the "authorities" for want of a better word as the same as the old i.e. up to 800 ISO Looks like we have a non thread created by the petapixel link

A couple of questions about petapixel, if I may. Does petapixel simply collect any item he finds that he thinks will "get a buzz". Does he explain anywhere that he cannot be the responsible for the content and indeed accurate content is not part of his remit which primarily is to be read

pentaxuser

No “authority “ has declared anything except by implication of 1 report of such a sign, and no validated evidence that the sign is correct. A lot of assumptions...

If only we had a manufacturer attestation, beyond that of a marketing guy, that the CT in this application is same as in prior applications or has been “tamed” for the new application.

If only we had an aviation authority comment...

If only we had a film manufacturer comment...

A lot of unknowns...

And who knows about Petapixel or most internet “sources”.

 

[pentaxuser]

Perhaps time for those who may be affected to contact the airport where the sign is displayed and ask what the source of their information is. Might also be time to contact Ilford as well?

If the sign is correct it might explain why none of the film companies have sought to warn us

pentaxuser

 

[Wallendo]

An interesting quote

Kosmo Foto spoke to Making Kodak Film author Robert Shanebrook about the new scanners. He said:

“They are not specific regarding whether LAX has machines that will damage film in carry-on baggage.

“They will post notices if equipment will damage carry-on film. They cover themselves from being responsible for high value film i.e professional grade film, motion picture film, sheet film, etc.

“Passengers can ask for hand-inspection of film. It does NOT say that hand-inspection will always be provided. The bottom line is passengers can ask for and expect to have hand-inspection. Simply say it is expected to pass the film through more than five inspections on this and future flights.”

https://kosmofoto.com/2019/10/new-airport-hand-luggage-scanners-will-destroy-unprocessed-film/

Looking around online, there really seems to be little objective information available.

I really doubt the the TSA is going to use high levels of radiation in machines where employees and passengers are going to be in close proximity to the scanners. I seems like people are just assuming that CT technology is automatically bad for film, but without definite evidence of these machines affecting film.

 

[BrianShaw]

An interesting quote

https://kosmofoto.com/2019/10/new-airport-hand-luggage-scanners-will-destroy-unprocessed-film/

Looking around online, there really seems to be little objective information available.

I really doubt the the TSA is going to use high levels of radiation in machines where employees and passengers are going to be in close proximity to the scanners. I seems like people are just assuming that CT technology is automatically bad for film, but without definite evidence of these machines affecting film.

These kind of machines are classified as “enclosed x-ray” devices. Human safety is well understood with human safety features in the design.

But considering what we know as fact about CT scanners... it seems reasonable to assume that they are unsafe for film. It would take more than just a sign to make me confident that they are film safe.

 

[Saganich]

We have CT machines that are very low dose compared to a generation previous, so it is possible the radiation isn't significantly higher. I'll test it out next month if I encounter one at JFK. I can tape two dosimeters to a film can in my carry-on. I may have to find my old homemade lead film cans again.

 

[cowanw]

BTW, exposed film is MORE vulnerable than unexposed film, because the film has been taken beyond the minimum threshhold during the picture taking, so incremental exposure to radiation will show to a greater extent.

Wouldn't the effect be additive whether the intended exposure or the xray exposure was first?

 

[Frank53]

Schiphol has been using those new ct scanners for some time now. I’ve been flying 2 or 3 times each year, always with film in my handluggage and had never a problem after development. So, as far as I know, those scanners are not worse than the old ones.
Regards,
Frank

 

[BrianShaw]

We have CT machines that are very low dose compared to a generation previous, so it is possible the radiation isn't significantly higher. I'll test it out next month if I encounter one at JFK. I can tape two dosimeters to a film can in my carry-on. I may have to find my old homemade lead film cans again.

Ask them to run a roll of 400 film through five times!

 

[pentaxuser]

Ask them to run a roll of 400 film through five times!

Seems like you may have to ask the likes of Ilford, Brian, to either correct the impression, a wrong impression it would appear in your opinion, that the new scanners are no worse or satisfy yourself they, backed by the likes of Ilford . I say Ilford only because only Ilford seems to have a sort of presence here that Foma, Fuji and Kodak don't

Here's a thought. Henning Serger seems to have more insider knowledge of the film companies than most. In case he hasn't been following this thread it might make sense to ask him what he knows about the effect of these new scanners on film and if his answer to this question is nothing he may be better placed than most of us to ask the question of the film makers and report back

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I rather expect that the characteristics of the new scanners are something that the parties responsible wish to keep as secret as possible.
They are, after all, security scanners.
It may very well be the case that with the film using community being as small as it now is, there may never be anything more than anecdotal reports about film damage, or the lack thereof.

 

[BrianShaw]

Seems like you may have to ask the likes of Ilford, Brian, to either correct the impression, a wrong impression it would appear in your opinion, that the new scanners are no worse or satisfy yourself they, backed by the likes of Ilford . I say Ilford only because only Ilford seems to have a sort of presence here that Foma, Fuji and Kodak don't

Here's a thought. Henning Serger seems to have more insider knowledge of the film companies than most. In case he hasn't been following this thread it might make sense to ask him what he knows about the effect of these new scanners on film and if his answer to this question is nothing he may be better placed than most of us to ask the question of the film makers and report back

pentaxuser

If you think someone needs to be asked, please take the initiative and ask them. We’d all appreciate it. I’d be all ears if Ilford or anyone else has data to share, preferably experimental data like was done in the past.

I have no idea how much insight either Henning or Shanebrook have on this topic. I suspect that it is very limited. I read the Shanebrook interview... I really respect him but the lack of insight expressed in the article tends to support my opinion. I could be wrong, of course.

Two user reports are encouraging although one doesn’t seem to have yet confirmed examination of the processed film. An experiment simulating a “typical holiday trip on an airplane” would be even better.

 

[BrianShaw]

I rather expect that the characteristics of the new scanners are something that the parties responsible wish to keep as secret as possible.
They are, after all, security scanners.
It may very well be the case that with the film using community being as small as it now is, there may never be anything more than anecdotal reports about film damage, or the lack thereof.

The specs on the basic technology are generally fairly open. What’s secret is the employment scheme. That includes some of the feature detection capabilities and details of the image enhancement capabilities.

The film community is indeed so small, despite the reports of phenomenal growth, that nobody cares to inform us... not the government who does the screening, not the manufacturers, and not the film company. Just Petapixel...

 

[Rich Mulvey]

We have CT machines that are very low dose compared to a generation previous, so it is possible the radiation isn't significantly higher. I'll test it out next month if I encounter one at JFK. I can tape two dosimeters to a film can in my carry-on. I may have to find my old homemade lead film cans again.

You'll definitely encounter them at JFK; I did yesterday.

I was with a fellow film-shooting friend, and she had a bunch of unexposed Natura 1600 in her bag, and I had a couple TMAX 400's. There were signs touting their new "Automated scanning systems" in front of a couple of the scanners--the ones with the glowing rings on the end.

I'm developing my TMAX tomorrow. If it's fogged I'm going to be pissed, but not as much as my friend, since Natura 1600 is basically worth its weight in gold these days.

 

[AgX]

Two user reports are encouraging although one doesn’t seem to have yet confirmed examination of the processed film.

On the other hand, we do not even have a convincing statement at all that a film has been harmed.

 

[BrianShaw]

On the other hand, we do not even have a convincing statement at all that a film has been harmed.

... and that brings us back to square one: there are more unknowns than knowns.

 

[mooseontheloose]

I saw this yesterday too, and it has me concerned. Not because I fly through the States all that much, but the fear of when they will become commonplace worldwide. There are more airports and personnel out there beyond the TSA and Heathrow (the ones that get mentioned the most), and many of these places either don't allow hand checks and/or are overconfident in their knowledge that film is safe in the scanners, even though when asked they have no idea what film is. I had this experience on my most recent trip through Central Asia and the Middle East (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, UAE, and Iraq) - my film went through 40-50 scanners as I flew, took trains, and crossed land borders - in some cases the bags had to go through 4 or 5 x-ray scanners in one place! At best I got somewhere between 5-10 hand checks of my film, avoiding the machines. At about the halfway point of my trip, I realised that all the film I was shooting might be toast, and it would all be for nothing. But I shot anyway (with backups on my phone), even though I was worried and somewhat stressed about this the entire trip.

At this point however, I've developed about 70% of the film (both colour and B&W) and it all looks fine so far, except for a couple rolls of 35mm film that have some dark lines on them, which affects some images but not the whole roll (I'll post them sometime soon). So it looks like my worries were (mostly) for nothing, but this is something that stresses me out, even without those new scanners.

Long story short, at least 80% of my photography is travel-based, so not being able to travel with film, or having to deal with the hassle of finding film at my destination and/or having it developed there, would be a real PITA. I don't know if I would go completely digital, but it would seriously impact the way I do photography.

 

[BrianShaw]

my film went through 40-50 scanners as I flew, took trains, and crossed land borders - in some cases the bags had to go through 4 or 5 x-ray scanners in one place!

We’re any of these scanners the new 3-D CAT type?

What film?

Given the locations I’d guess not, at least not yet, but that’s a LOT of x-ray exposure no matter what kind of machine. Per the historical study data your film is well beyond the range of acceptable exposure without some sort of measurable degradation.

 

[mooseontheloose]

We’re any of these scanners the new 3-D CAT type?

Given the locations I’d guess not, at least not yet, but that’s a LOT of x-ray exposure no matter what kind of machine. Per the historical study data your film is well beyond the range of acceptable exposure without some sort of measurable degradation.

No, they weren't. But many of the scanners were the huge ones for checked bags and those had me the most worried, and the ones I asked for hand checks the most (some were granted, some were not). Sometimes, even when I was worried, I had to put the bags through these scanners because of the crowds of people/impatience of the scan operators/limited time I had with my group.

As for degradation, at the moment I've just been eyeballing the negatives and they seem normal to me; however, printing and/or looking at them under a loupe will be the real test. I used to think I was doing good when I had film go through 10-15 scans on a trip, but this is a new record for me when you also consider how many flights I took over 4 weeks of travel: Osaka-Seoul/Seoul-Almaty/Bishkek-Baku/Baku-Ashgabat/Khiva-Samarkand/Dushanbe-Dubai/Dubai-Erbil/Erbil-Dubai/Dubai-Almaty/Almaty-Seoul/Seoul-Osaka. In the airports I was looking at 2-3 scans minimum, at land border crossings 2-5 scans, at train stations 1-2 scans - and not just getting on the train or entering a country, but also leaving it.

 

[Wallendo]

An interesting article: https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12361.html

Although not film specific, it suggests that the new scanners may emit 39 times the radiation of current scanners: 1.56 milliisieverts vs. 0.05 mSv. Interestingly, the amount of radiation used is not released by TSA for security reasons.

By comparison, a tradition Chest X-Ray delivers 0.1 mSv and a Chest CT scan delivers 7 mSv
https://www.health.harvard.edu/canc...f the increased exposure,) — 70 times as much.

 

[spijker]

My experience is not so positive. On the return trip of my summer vacation from Malpensa airport in Milan Italy, the security guy at the airport told me that I didn't need to take my laptop and fluids out of the carry-on bag. That was a first for me. My Delta 100 and Delta 400 films came out fogged after development. The Delta 100 negatives are probably still usable but the Delta 400 looks pretty dark. I don't recall seeing any blue ring light around the scanner.

I've seen the 3D images on the scanner operator's screens at various airports for a few years now. So if that's a key indicator for CT scanners, then these machines have been in use for a while now. Looking back I have noticed some (mild) fogging in the past but never suspected the airport scanner. I thought the scanners would produce sinusoidal wave patterns. It seems that the scanners in Milan are much stronger and that explains why there was no need to take the laptop out of the bag. On the way out in Ottawa, the laptop had to go in a separate tray so I don't think that this was the problematic scanner.

If this is going to be the new future, it doesn't look good. Hand inspection is not a passenger's right. Buying film locally is not always an option and you'll have to develop your film before getting back on the plane. I may quit film photography all together. I hardly do any photography around Ottawa, it's all on vacation trips outside Canada. I'll try hand inspection on the next trip.