I do a bit of photography with film - yes it does still exist, no I am not a hipster - and this is probably the worst thing I could think of happening the next time I get on a plane. CT Scanners ruin undeveloped film. A niche problem yes, but not all of us need to carry liquids with us on to a plane either.

In America they have these CT scans and they're great. Although I'm not sure why we still take our boots off but that's by the by. The TSA agents manning these machines are all too happy to take my film and check it by hand so it doesn't touch the scanners. I've done this several times and every time there's not been a bother. I have a nice chat with them and I'm all too happy for them taking the time to do this. Last time I was boarding a flight the TSA agent was telling me that he used to do film photography when he started at Newark and that his first day on the job was 9/11. I've learned a lot from these TSA guys.

British airports, specifically Heathrow, are fucking wank. I asked them nicely to do it, and I swear the guy reacted like I had asked him to do a random drug test. The whole world fell out of his arse basically. He's huffing and puffing with the check (which, for the record, is a swab around the canister to look for explosives/drugs). He said "maybe you should get digital mate, it's much easier". I had to bite my tongue, because I wanted to tell him that not having to fly at all was much easier but here I am with no choice in the matter.

If Heathrow's attitude changes then there's no problem with this CT scanner. But I know they won't. So I'm not sure the next time I travel how I'm going to handle it. Whether I buy the film when I'm there (if I can) and then find a place to develop it (instead of me doing it) and then hoping when I get the negatives back the scanner doesn't knacker them before I scan them.

Yeah, I know, I sound like a prat that I'm moaning that this scanner is going to allow people to bring bottles of coke with them from Tesco on to the flight to save a few quid. But like everything in the UK, everything is a good idea until it's executed, then it's never the sunny uplands that were promised.

if Heathrow is 'that' experience, I kind of fail to imagine what it'd be like at the famous Luton or Stansted... They'd probably ignore you pretending you never heard you, starting through you and smiling through their clenched teeth to the next victim in line? Or, perhaps, the 'system' has reached the ultimate state of connected vessels and your experience is solid shit, regardless of whether you fly from a shitty Stansted or 'upmarket' Heathrow?

In my experience, heathrow is no better than any other airport. Except it's far more expensive/hassle to park at or otherwise get there.

I actively avoid heathrow when given the choice.

I was curious if tinfoil might actually be useful to protect your film. And I came across this:

https://petapixel.com/2021/07/06/what-happens-if-your-film-goes-through-the-tsas-ct-scanners/

Their take: A single CT scan of unexposed ISO 400 film won't do much harm, but scanning exposed film does have some impact on detail in low light areas. Is that true? It's the internet. Who the hell knows?

Tinfoil? Don't know. And not sure where one finds tinfoil nowadays. Aluminum foil? Probably not--not dense enough to block X-rays? Lead foil. Maybe. But for some reason I think lead foil is expensive and hard to come by. Besides, there's some possibility that the Airport people may actually look at their screen when your carry-on floats by and take umbrage at a strange, opaque package.

I don't actually care. My standards are not high, and digital is good enough for me. And air travel has become so aggravating in recent decades that I'll use virtually any alternative mode of transportation in order to avoid it.

" Their take: A single CT scan of unexposed ISO 400 film won't do much harm, but scanning exposed film does have some impact on detail in low light areas. Is that true? It's the internet. Who the hell knows? "

So the last time I went on a plane anywhere was New York in 2019, the before times. While the TSA are great, the Park Rangers must do the training for Heathrow. Everything must be scanned.

I have two rolls of film that went through the x-ray scanners about 4/5 times on the one day. When I developed them at home I did notice a degradation in the quality. Far more grainy and washed out. But the most telltale sign of anything being wrong was from the sprockets where you could see columns of grey coming from them. Essentially what you would see if you took your film to Chernobyl, it was all radiation damage. Given the day was quite misty/murky and it was all black and white, it kind of helped with the aesthetics. I mean I'd rather they weren't on the film anyway but might as well make the most of it. The films were both ISO 400 film too.

I've heard people on about lead lined bags etc to protect the film, but it just feels that instead of asking whats the problem and offering to hand check them they'll just take them out and throw them through the scanner anyway.

…but the rules were kept in place at the behest of airports which rely on them to sell drinks, especially to families with children.

and we're still stuck with it. I've lost count of them, but someone's knee must be bruised and bloody as hell... maybe even a fractured patella.

While the source of many a security queue bust-up, far from being draconian, the liquid rule had a basis in a foiled 2006 terror plot that would have been al-Qaeda's worst attack in the West since 9/11.

Except the plot was entirely implausible, as revealed by this very site:

https://www.theregister.com/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

The point of the regulations, as I understand them is that we're not allowed more than 10x100ml of liquids on a plane because someone could make a bomb out of liquids if they got hold of more than that (let's ignore for the minute that it's also possible, some might say easier, to make a bomb of solids)

how does a CT scanner change that? surely it can't detect the exact chemicals present in a liquid

The threat was already neglible. The failed "underpant bomber" gave governments the excuse for yet more security theatre and the airports cheered them on and successfully lobbied against the repeal of the rule, once the threat was shown to be negligible. You can buy enough stuff in duty free for some fairly nasty fireworks, but you could also take the basics for some more "interesting" stuff with you and "just add water" or other suitable reagents. The same is true for sharp implements, of course.

However, it's generally easier to target something else, such as the security queue, or bribe someone with security clearance to take whatever you want through: crew staff, catering, cleaners and all those security goons on minimum wage. That's how most smuggling happens anyway, apparently.