Jim

Have been following recent threads about film and x-ray machines at security. Not talking about the highpowered checked luggage machines, but carry-on security checks. During several recent trips, including one to Guyana in which I was simply glad to get out of the country alive, my requests for hand search of my camera and film was denied. I was TOLD in each instance to put the stuff on the conveyer belt. Of course I meekly complied, despite my reservations. It doesn't seem to be the right time to start asserting one's rights.

Tracey

Happened to me on my flight home from Denver. I was told that unless the flim was over 1000 asa it would be safe. Pictures turned out fine, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

xx

"Unfortunately, with the new higher security at U.S. airports, security screeners are demanding that all film and cameras be put through X-ray machines. Prior to Sept. 11, most airport security screeners would allow film and cameras to bypass the machines and be hand-checked. A Newsday photo editor reports that his wife, a professional photographer, passed through four airports in recent weeks and had all of her equipment X-rayed and then hand-checked, with screeners looking through each camera. Kodak spokesman Jim Blamphin in Rochester offers this advice to travelers: Under no circumstances should you pack unprocessed film in luggage intended to be checked. "Luggage passed through the high-intensity scanners now in use at many airports will damage unprocessed film," Blamphin says. "This includes film that is inside a camera, single-use cameras and film roles that have been exposed but not yet processed." Kodak's warning also applies to film packed in a lead-lined bag and then packed in checked luggage, which can actually increase the damage, the company says. Meanwhile, carry-on items containing film, such as purses or briefcases, can be safely passed through the X-ray conveyor belts at standard security checkpoints leading into the gate areas. These very low-intensity scanners will not harm unexposed film, even if passed through six or seven times. High-speed film, such as ASA 1000, can be safely passed through three or four times without risk." From Newsday yesterday.<BR><BR>

Dick

I was carrying a lot of film recently on a European trip. Even though the speed wasn't that high (ASA 400), x-rays are cumulative and I expected to be going through a lot of them, so each time I asked for hand inspection. The response was consistent everywhere - they asked if the film was over ASA 1000, and when told not, each checkpoint politely but firmly denied my request. I agree that it didn't seem like a good time to start an argument. The film turned out fine.

Gretchen

Another in the "no exceptions, put it on the conveyor belt" experiences.

mpprh

Hi<BR><BR>it's worth remembering too that it is difficult to argue in ,say, Serbo Croat or whatever !<BR><BR>Peter<BR>

Natasha

Yep. It will be hard to get around it these days. I've kind of given up on trying.

jjj

Went to Europe Last Sept (after 11th) and was told everywhere that absolutly NO hand inspections. I took 400spd film and ther was no damage, it went through 7 x-rays in my carry-on luggage.

Capo

I was denied hand inspections of the bag containing my film every time on our recent trip. I didn't make a big deal about it because three different people at professional camera shops in Seattle had assured me that low-speed film (I used 200 for prints and 50 for slides) was fine with about 5 or 6 passes through carry-on x-ray machines.<BR><BR>I've read in numerous places that one should never send film in checked luggage due to the higher intensity x-rays used for this luggage. In fact, the shop where I get my slides processed in Seattle has had a sign warning about this for the past two years or so.