Re: an infant got x-rayed (was Re: Pablo Picasso's sculptures gotx-rayed)
Okay, scanners @ airports. I'm afraid of them and have actually had
film latensified, so to speak by them.
Both were high speed: TMax 400 and Fuji 1600 ISO color neg. Two years
ago, flying to Italy, I sent ALL my
film via FedEx to Italy. The film I took with me was noticeably
fogged. It might have been because I needed
to go through San Francisco x-rays and also the famed RyanAir-no-
compromise inspection in England to
Italy, then back. But, th epoint is that the film indeed, was fogged.
Rather low in contrast ultimately.
Jack F
On December2006, at 9:18 AM, Jordan Wosnick wrote:
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