Re: an infant got x-rayed (was Re: Pablo Picasso's sculptures gotx-rayed)

[Jordan Wosnick <jwosnick@fastmail.fm>]

Ryuji, I don't know the details, but I too have often wondered why 
people insist on having slow film hand-inspected rather than putting 
it through the carry-on luggage X-ray scanner. I have never actually 
seen any documented evidence of film being ruined by such a scanner.

I've read in the past that film gets exposed to more high-energy 
radiation during a flight (due to increased cosmic ray penetration at 
high altitudes) than it does in a carry-on luggage X-ray scanner. I 
don't know how true this is.

X-ray scanners for checked luggage are a different story, as they are 
much larger and more powerful.

Jordan

Ryuji Suzuki wrote:

> Another curious note is this:
>
>     In the several seconds the baby spent in the machine, the
>     doctor added, he was exposed to as much radiation as he
>     would naturally get from cosmic rays — or high energy from
>     outer space — in a day. (quoted from LA Times link above)
>
> Is this really true? Then what's the point of asking for hand
> inspection of films? (if it's carried on anyway) The bar graph
> in the article (as well as the video) indicates that the
> radiation dose of the x-ray luggage screener is 1 mREM and
> this indeed is not that much.
--


Jordan Wosnick
jwosnick@fastmail.fm