[Wheatfield]

That was never me. I usually had for fast film was some Fuji 200 but mostly I was shooting some Kodak 100 speed, Fuji 100 speed, or Ilford PanF 50.

Trying to tell people that those wierd shadows on their negs was caused by x-rays was always challenging. Leaving Canada, it was generally pretty easy to get a hand inspection, so the film wasn't x-rayed.
Coming back, depending on where the person was travelling from, it was sometimes impossible to not get film x-rayed, and, since it's exposed film that is most sensitive to x-ray damage, it often only takes one pass to do the damage.
Of course the people doing the x-raying are telling people that the dosage won't harm their film (and it likely won't if the film hasn't been shot), but if the film is exposed, then it's an outright lie to say the film won't be damaged by x-rays.
And, for people who insisted on using x-ray bags, time and again, the bag would be opened, the film dumped out and run through the x-ray machine.

[aslyfox]

supposedly you can request a hand inspection and skip x ray in the US

but beware of the discretion granted

Film
Carry On Bags: Yes
Checked Bags: Yes
We recommend that you put undeveloped film and cameras containing undeveloped film in your carry-on bags or take undeveloped film with you to the checkpoint and ask for a hand inspection.

For more prohibited items, please go to the 'What Can I Bring?' page.
The final decision rests with the TSA officer on whether an item is allowed through the checkpoint.

Film | Transportation Security Administration

[Wheatfield]

supposedly you can request a hand inspection and skip x ray in the US

but beware of the discretion granted



Film | Transportation Security Administration

You can ask, but you may not get, and this is true for most places, not just the USA. If the inspector hasn't had his coffee yet that day, you might have been better to mail your used film home and hope it doesn't get dosed on the trip.
The worst x-ray damage I ever saw was from someone who had travelled to Thailand. The film was mildly heat damaged, which made it even more prone to x-ray damage, and had been dosed in Thailand, then Japan, then Hawai'i, and finally in Los Angeles.
It was quite a mess and the customer was something of a Brad (my daughter tells me that's Karen's husband) about it.

[Zooland]

Reminds me of that poor cameraman that got shot dead by American troops in Iraq after they mistook his camera for a grenade launcher.

At least this one is still alive.

[BWG]

I smell a lawsuit. Putting a guy on the tarmac face down seems a serious overreaction.

It was not an overreaction. From what was known at the time by law enforcement the man was trying to blow up an airliner. Good for him he followed instructions and complied. That’s a heroic act in the face of adversity.
The woman complainant should be put on a no-fly list.

[Photos-by-Chas]

Unless she knowingly made a false complaint, she did nothing illegal.

Homeland Security is protecting these folks, because they don't want to discourage people from reporting suspicious objects/individuals.

What we need are smarter less stupid humans.

Good points all. So it was merely a case of simple negligence which inconvenienced a hundred other people and caused them actual damages; I hope they all sue her. The phrase I recall from school days that applies to such a person is "officious intermeddler".

On the surface, she did nothing intentionally illegal, but the fact that her words and actions were done with probable knowledge of what would eventually occur, the results were an unnecessary series of actions and procedures that resulted in a very high cost to a wide group of people and organizations. Additionally it increased the likelihood of very serious results. Rather than labeling the complainer as less smart, stupid or even an officious intermeddler, maybe describe her as a person lacking common sense or logical thinking.

A safer and much better action on the complaining passenger's part would have been to mention to him that he had an interesting or unique camera. Maybe an off hand or casual comment would have begun a conversation and gained an explanation instead of a panic and confusion.

[aslyfox]

seems to me we have two different situations

1 the actions of the woman

2 the actions of the crew and first responders

1 in hindsight totally unacceptable and put others in great risk

in real time - ridiculous over reaction

why not alert the crew as to her suspicions

2 quite correct based on what the news reports ( and we all know how accurate those can be )

[UncleVanya]

It was not an overreaction. From what was known at the time by law enforcement the man was trying to blow up an airliner. Good for him he followed instructions and complied. That’s a heroic act in the face of adversity.
The woman complainant should be put on a no-fly list.

Let’s play out three scenarios:

1) man is in possession of a bomb.

2) man is planning to build a bomb.

3) man is a old camera fan.

In situation number 1 - Landing emergency could set this guy off. First response here seems a bit out of touch but maybe it makes sense. Assumption is they were looking for detonation triggers and trying to be careful about others lives. But hours of detention? Seems pretty easy to pull up the computer and camera.

Situation 2 - no urgency. Land at scheduled airport pull aside guy and question.

Scenario 3 - will happen again and again and may be used to petty effect. Many times I wished to call an anonymous tip in about a rude person in management at a former company when he was flying. But I didn’t and wouldn’t.

On the surface, she did nothing intentionally illegal, but the fact that her words and actions were done with probable knowledge of what would eventually occur, the results were an unnecessary series of actions and procedures that resulted in a very high cost to a wide group of people and organizations. Additionally it increased the likelihood of very serious results. Rather than labeling the complainer as less smart, stupid or even an officious intermeddler, maybe describe her as a person lacking common sense or logical thinking.
...

True. Reminds me of a criminal case in Virginia not too long ago. It's a felony to wear a mask in a public place in Virginia (a statute passed in reaction to the KKK practice), unless certain exceptions apply. The intentional act required under the plain terms of the statute is the act of concealing one's identity. In this case, a black man was protesting racism by standing on a prominent street corner with a sign and wearing a KKK outfit, including the hood, having no thought about concealing his identity. The "authorities" didn't like him doing that, so they charged him with wearing a mask in public. When it went to trial, the court cited the legal maxim (enshrined in Virginia's standard jury instructions), that "a person is presumed to have intended the usual and probable consequences of his acts", and the man was found guilty. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. Now as far as I know, that rule had never been previously applied in any criminal case, because it's a part of tort law (intentionally committed wrongful acts other than a breach of contract). In fact, there are cases that say it's a per-se violation of the right to due process to apply any presumption conclusively against a criminal defendant, and in this case, the defendant did rebut the presumption but the court pooh-pooh'ed his defenses (including the right to freedom of speech). So now, no exception to the felony statute can apply, because anyone engaged in, say, dentistry, is conclusively deemed to have intended to conceal his identity by wearing a mask and is therefore a felon. And what about all those people who are wearing masks because they want to feel safe from viral disorders? All guilty as felons and probably headed for five years in the penitentiary.

And, if that conclusive presumption can really apply, other than to punish a black man for protesting racism, then the intentional act of making a report to police that turned out to be false (it was the act of reporting that was intentional) then it could well be a criminal act where I live.

[Digitalis]

Only if the people around you are unbelievably stupid...

---------- Post added 2021-10-22 at 07:42 PM ----------

The real terrorists are the little old ladies with knitting.

yeah, the ones that lurk in a dark corner diligently knitting an afghan..

[UncleVanya]

Only if the people around you are unbelievably stupid...

---------- Post added 2021-10-22 at 07:42 PM ----------



yeah, the ones that lurk in a dark corner diligently knitting an afghan..

In the USA my wife has had loads of difficulty flying as a knitter. So much is at the discretion of the agents checking you through security. Needles, scissors, etc can all be required to be tossed in the trash even if they meet recommended size and style…

[Serkevan]

yeah, the ones that lurk in a dark corner diligently knitting an afghan..

Well being stabbed by a lot of knitting needles can't be nice, whether you're Afghan or from any other country

[aslyfox]

. . . knitting an afghan..

never heard the creation theory that you create a person by knitting

[ thank you, thank you, don't forget to leave a tip for the wait staff when you leave ]

[ehrwien]

In the USA my wife has had loads of difficulty flying as a knitter.

I imagine you'd have to knit very tight stitches, otherwise the air will just pass right through the fabric and not generate enough lift?

[UncleVanya]

I imagine you'd have to knit very tight stitches, otherwise the air will just pass right through the fabric and not generate enough lift?

I usually sprinkle magic fairy dust on them and it fixes the problem.