Scanning digital cameras at airports?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PeterH, Feb 27, 2004.

  1. PeterH

    PeterH Guest

    Is there any adverse effect that airport scanners can have on digital
    cameras?

    Should the memory card be removed first? Can the electronics be effected?

    I'm thinking back to the days when some airport scanners effected high speed
    film.

    regards

    PeterH
    PeterH, Feb 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PeterH

    Ron Hunter Guest

    PeterH wrote:

    > Is there any adverse effect that airport scanners can have on digital
    > cameras?
    >
    > Should the memory card be removed first? Can the electronics be effected?
    >
    > I'm thinking back to the days when some airport scanners effected high speed
    > film.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > PeterH
    >
    >

    The quick answer is no. No effect. However, you might want to avoid
    the scanners that scan the checked baggage since they are still coming
    out with newer ones and you don't want any surprises.
    Other reasons for avoiding putting your camera into checked baggage:
    1. It may not end up where YOU do.
    2. It may be stolen, given that bags may, and often ARE searched.
    3. You might want the camera during the trip, or before you get your
    bags back.

    4. Baggage handlers aren't gentle with the bags.
    Ron Hunter, Feb 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PeterH

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <SCP%b.79156$> on Fri, 27 Feb 2004
    22:35:30 GMT, "PeterH" <reply to > wrote:

    >Is there any adverse effect that airport scanners can have on digital
    >cameras?


    No.

    >Should the memory card be removed first? Can the electronics be effected?


    No and no.

    >I'm thinking back to the days when some airport scanners effected high speed
    >film.


    Different issue.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Feb 27, 2004
    #3
  4. PeterH

    GLC1173 Guest

    Ron wrote:
    >Other reasons for avoiding putting your >camera into checked baggage:
    >1. It may not end up where YOU do.
    >2. It may be stolen, given that bags may, >and often ARE searched.


    Theft by baggage handlers at U.S. airports is common enough to result in
    prosecutions from time to time.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    <B>Dissident news - plus immigration, gun rights, nationwide weather
    <I><A HREF="http://www.alamanceind.com">ALAMANCE INDEPENDENT:
    official newspaper of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy</A></b></i>
    GLC1173, Feb 27, 2004
    #4
  5. PeterH

    Don Guest

    While it's true that the short answer is "no," the correct answer is that
    there is a very slight effect. X-rays *do* cause damage to silicon, with
    the amount of damage dependent on a lot of parameters, such as dose, energy
    level, depth and thickness of the active area in the silicon, shielding from
    the camera body, etc. The damage usually takes the form of trap creation
    and increased leakage. The effects of trap generation are complex and
    subtle, the effect of leakage is increased noise in shadow areas.

    The effect is so slight from the x-rays used in carry-on luggage that it
    would take many passes through the scanner to have a measureable impact,
    probably more than any camera is likely to get. The same is not true of the
    x-rays (and other types of scanners) used on checked luggage. They are much
    stronger. I don't believe even checked-luggage x-ray scanners will cause
    significant damage in a single pass, however. But, as someone else
    observed, there are other reasons for not putting a camera in checked
    luggage.

    I have a Canon G2 that has been through dozens of carry-on scans with no
    effects that I have noticed, although I must admit I've not made before and
    after comparison shots.

    Don


    "PeterH" <reply to > wrote in message
    news:SCP%b.79156$...
    > Is there any adverse effect that airport scanners can have on digital
    > cameras?
    >
    > Should the memory card be removed first? Can the electronics be effected?
    >
    > I'm thinking back to the days when some airport scanners effected high

    speed
    > film.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > PeterH
    >
    >
    Don, Feb 28, 2004
    #5
  6. PeterH

    Lucas Tam Guest

    "Don" <> wrote in news::

    > While it's true that the short answer is "no," the correct answer is that
    > there is a very slight effect.


    It's bad enough people repeatly ask the question about Xrays - there's no
    need to confuse the newbie.

    --
    Lucas Tam ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
    Lucas Tam, Feb 28, 2004
    #6
  7. PeterH

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Don wrote:
    > While it's true that the short answer is "no," the correct answer is that
    > there is a very slight effect. X-rays *do* cause damage to silicon, with
    > the amount of damage dependent on a lot of parameters, such as dose, energy
    > level, depth and thickness of the active area in the silicon, shielding from
    > the camera body, etc. The damage usually takes the form of trap creation
    > and increased leakage. The effects of trap generation are complex and
    > subtle, the effect of leakage is increased noise in shadow areas.
    >
    > The effect is so slight from the x-rays used in carry-on luggage that it
    > would take many passes through the scanner to have a measureable impact,
    > probably more than any camera is likely to get. The same is not true of the
    > x-rays (and other types of scanners) used on checked luggage. They are much
    > stronger. I don't believe even checked-luggage x-ray scanners will cause
    > significant damage in a single pass, however. But, as someone else
    > observed, there are other reasons for not putting a camera in checked
    > luggage.
    >
    > I have a Canon G2 that has been through dozens of carry-on scans with no
    > effects that I have noticed, although I must admit I've not made before and
    > after comparison shots.
    >
    > Don
    >
    >
    > "PeterH" <reply to > wrote in message
    > news:SCP%b.79156$...
    >
    >>Is there any adverse effect that airport scanners can have on digital
    >>cameras?
    >>
    >>Should the memory card be removed first? Can the electronics be effected?
    >>
    >>I'm thinking back to the days when some airport scanners effected high

    >
    > speed
    >
    >>film.
    >>
    >>regards
    >>
    >>PeterH
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >

    If you want to get into a discussion of potential effects of that order,
    consider the increase in radiation experienced by the camera just
    because one is flying at 35,000 to 37000 feet. VASTLY more radiation
    effect, and over a MUCH longer period, simply because the shielding
    effect of the atmosphere is largely gone at crusing altitude. Neither
    effect is statistically significant.
    Ron Hunter, Feb 28, 2004
    #7
  8. PeterH

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:06:59 -0600,
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    >Don wrote:


    >> While it's true that the short answer is "no," the correct answer is that
    >> there is a very slight effect. X-rays *do* cause damage to silicon, with
    >> the amount of damage dependent on a lot of parameters, such as dose, energy
    >> level, depth and thickness of the active area in the silicon, shielding from
    >> the camera body, etc. The damage usually takes the form of trap creation
    >> and increased leakage. The effects of trap generation are complex and
    >> subtle, the effect of leakage is increased noise in shadow areas.
    >>
    >> The effect is so slight from the x-rays used in carry-on luggage that it
    >> would take many passes through the scanner to have a measureable impact,
    >> probably more than any camera is likely to get. The same is not true of the
    >> x-rays (and other types of scanners) used on checked luggage. They are much
    >> stronger. I don't believe even checked-luggage x-ray scanners will cause
    >> significant damage in a single pass, however. But, as someone else
    >> observed, there are other reasons for not putting a camera in checked
    >> luggage.
    >>
    >> I have a Canon G2 that has been through dozens of carry-on scans with no
    >> effects that I have noticed, although I must admit I've not made before and
    >> after comparison shots.


    >If you want to get into a discussion of potential effects of that order,
    >consider the increase in radiation experienced by the camera just
    >because one is flying at 35,000 to 37000 feet. VASTLY more radiation
    >effect, and over a MUCH longer period, simply because the shielding
    >effect of the atmosphere is largely gone at crusing altitude. Neither
    >effect is statistically significant.


    Amen. [sigh]

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Feb 28, 2004
    #8
  9. US MAIL? RE: Scanning digital cameras at airports?

    "PeterH" <reply to > wrote in message
    news:SCP%b.79156$...
    > Is there any adverse effect that airport scanners can have on digital
    > cameras?
    >
    > Should the memory card be removed first? Can the electronics be effected?
    >
    > I'm thinking back to the days when some airport scanners effected high

    speed
    > film.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > PeterH
    >

    -----------

    DON'T WORRY ABOUT FLYING - WORRY ABOUT USING THE MAILS

    Recently, I have been investigating, for an article on the subject, the
    effects of high energy electron beams on cameras and other media...there is
    always a sub-thread here and on many other forums about airport x-ray
    scanners...but DID YOU KNOW....

    If you ship photographic equipment or media through the regular US mail
    system AND it happens to pass through one of the mail sorting offices using
    ANY system to "sanitize" the mail against biological risks you may wind up
    with, at best, damaged equipment and at worst completely destroyed
    equipment. This extends widely to other items of photographic materials as
    well besides cameras.

    Here is what I have found so far [based on studies conducted by the
    Smithsonian]:

    Cameras and image data cards [including electronics generally] - the
    sanitization process WILL damage or completely destroy electronic components
    at the atomic level - that is, it will so damage image sensors and other
    micro-electronic components on pc-boards and data cards that they are
    rendered effectively useless generally by imposing excessive bit dropping
    and data loss on solid state processing / recording / memory media. This MAY
    include micro-drives and any other disk media (e.g CD's) as well.

    Lenses / Filters (glass or plastic) - the dose and energy levels applied to
    sanitize mail - hundreds of times more powerful then x-ray scanners, if
    applied to optics MAY cause discoloration of the glass at the atomic level -
    this is reversible by annealing (heating to a high temperature and then
    cooling under controlled conditions) but annealing is not an option for
    camera lenses and other complex optics. Further, colored media, such as
    colored photographic filters, may see alteration in the colors of that
    material - the effect WILL occur through-and-through the entire thickness
    and is not only a surface effect that can be cleaned or polished off.

    Photographic film (unprocessed) - WILL be fogged and destroyed at the first
    pass through the system

    Photographic film (processed) - the sanitization process WILL alter colors
    on any film or similar medium by affecting the dyes and / or chemistry of
    the images present thereon.

    Photographic PRINTS - same as films (processed) - dyes WILL be affected and
    the colors altered.

    Paper (e.g. base material of prints) - discoloring WILL occur. Sufficient
    energy is imparted to paper to yellow it and local heating may be sufficient
    to soften even the plastic used in toners (e.g. Zerox copies or laser
    printer copies) according to the Smithsonian study, and to cause transfer of
    toner to the packaging material or the back of a second page in contact with
    the front of the printed sheet. Plastic photographic slide mounts have been
    demonstrated to be damaged or destroyed by the heating effects - also in a
    test conducted by the Smithsonian study.

    Progressive effects - from the time of exposure induced chemical alterations
    and the generation of persistent free radicals within the dye chemistry
    present, in items like film and prints, but also including fine arts
    paintings and other types of pigmented materials, may be progressive over
    time - so that initial minor alterations in color, for instance, of film,
    prints or pigments, will continue to worsen in time with NO additional
    exposures - not unlike an accelerated aging process.

    The first study was done by the Smithsonian in 2001-2 [they also did a
    follow-up study as well to verify the results of the first] and their
    conclusion in both cases was that using the US mails for shipping valuable
    photographic; artistic; and scientific materials and equipment likely to be
    injured by the process was untenable; the overall recommendation was to find
    an alternate shipping method for all kinds of materials of value likely to
    be damaged by the process used by the USPS to sanitize mail, including the
    above photographic / electronic items, but, also artwork of all kinds,
    specimen slides, gemstones and mineral specimens and other things not
    related to photography.

    Much of this information is apparently KNOWN to government, industry and
    other entities such as museums and art dealers and even mass advertising
    companies who use the mails, but NOT to consumers. I have been unable to
    prompt ANY response to enquiries, regarding the questions and study results
    raised by the Smithsonian study, from primary manufacturing companies in the
    photographic industry. [I will not mention any corporate names here]

    The mail sanitization process is designed for letter mail in bundles rather
    than packages but that is not to say that some quantity of small packages
    are not being "sanitized" as well. As a security matter the USPS simply does
    not say what they actually are treating, when or where, geographically, in
    their system such treatments are being applied. It is known, however, that
    certain zip codes in the DC area, at least, are 100% sanitized - that is,
    every piece of mail is processed - but in other (geographic) areas there is
    no level of detail provided.

    Lastly, there is also a profound lack of data as to any sanitization process
    applied to mail, or anything else (freight, UPS, ect), entering the US or
    the US mail system and originating from outside the US.

    Journalist
    Journalist-North, Feb 28, 2004
    #9
  10. PeterH

    Bill Guest

    Re: US MAIL? RE: Scanning digital cameras at airports?

    Then it seems odd that Dell Computer and QVC, to name but two, ship millions
    of items via US Mail, and that for years, people have been sending film to
    be processed, and receiving their prints or slides back, all by US Mail.

    Bill

    "Journalist-North" <> wrote in message
    news:9yV%b.4082$...
    >
    > "PeterH" <reply to > wrote in message
    > news:SCP%b.79156$...
    > > Is there any adverse effect that airport scanners can have on digital
    > > cameras?
    > >
    > > Should the memory card be removed first? Can the electronics be

    effected?
    > >
    > > I'm thinking back to the days when some airport scanners effected high

    > speed
    > > film.
    > >
    > > regards
    > >
    > > PeterH
    > >

    > -----------
    >
    > DON'T WORRY ABOUT FLYING - WORRY ABOUT USING THE MAILS
    >
    > Recently, I have been investigating, for an article on the subject, the
    > effects of high energy electron beams on cameras and other media...there

    is
    > always a sub-thread here and on many other forums about airport x-ray
    > scanners...but DID YOU KNOW....
    >
    > If you ship photographic equipment or media through the regular US mail
    > system AND it happens to pass through one of the mail sorting offices

    using
    > ANY system to "sanitize" the mail against biological risks you may wind up
    > with, at best, damaged equipment and at worst completely destroyed
    > equipment. This extends widely to other items of photographic materials as
    > well besides cameras.
    >
    > Here is what I have found so far [based on studies conducted by the
    > Smithsonian]:
    >
    > Cameras and image data cards [including electronics generally] - the
    > sanitization process WILL damage or completely destroy electronic

    components
    > at the atomic level - that is, it will so damage image sensors and other
    > micro-electronic components on pc-boards and data cards that they are
    > rendered effectively useless generally by imposing excessive bit dropping
    > and data loss on solid state processing / recording / memory media. This

    MAY
    > include micro-drives and any other disk media (e.g CD's) as well.
    >
    > Lenses / Filters (glass or plastic) - the dose and energy levels applied

    to
    > sanitize mail - hundreds of times more powerful then x-ray scanners, if
    > applied to optics MAY cause discoloration of the glass at the atomic

    level -
    > this is reversible by annealing (heating to a high temperature and then
    > cooling under controlled conditions) but annealing is not an option for
    > camera lenses and other complex optics. Further, colored media, such as
    > colored photographic filters, may see alteration in the colors of that
    > material - the effect WILL occur through-and-through the entire thickness
    > and is not only a surface effect that can be cleaned or polished off.
    >
    > Photographic film (unprocessed) - WILL be fogged and destroyed at the

    first
    > pass through the system
    >
    > Photographic film (processed) - the sanitization process WILL alter colors
    > on any film or similar medium by affecting the dyes and / or chemistry of
    > the images present thereon.
    >
    > Photographic PRINTS - same as films (processed) - dyes WILL be affected

    and
    > the colors altered.
    >
    > Paper (e.g. base material of prints) - discoloring WILL occur. Sufficient
    > energy is imparted to paper to yellow it and local heating may be

    sufficient
    > to soften even the plastic used in toners (e.g. Zerox copies or laser
    > printer copies) according to the Smithsonian study, and to cause transfer

    of
    > toner to the packaging material or the back of a second page in contact

    with
    > the front of the printed sheet. Plastic photographic slide mounts have

    been
    > demonstrated to be damaged or destroyed by the heating effects - also in a
    > test conducted by the Smithsonian study.
    >
    > Progressive effects - from the time of exposure induced chemical

    alterations
    > and the generation of persistent free radicals within the dye chemistry
    > present, in items like film and prints, but also including fine arts
    > paintings and other types of pigmented materials, may be progressive over
    > time - so that initial minor alterations in color, for instance, of film,
    > prints or pigments, will continue to worsen in time with NO additional
    > exposures - not unlike an accelerated aging process.
    >
    > The first study was done by the Smithsonian in 2001-2 [they also did a
    > follow-up study as well to verify the results of the first] and their
    > conclusion in both cases was that using the US mails for shipping valuable
    > photographic; artistic; and scientific materials and equipment likely to

    be
    > injured by the process was untenable; the overall recommendation was to

    find
    > an alternate shipping method for all kinds of materials of value likely to
    > be damaged by the process used by the USPS to sanitize mail, including the
    > above photographic / electronic items, but, also artwork of all kinds,
    > specimen slides, gemstones and mineral specimens and other things not
    > related to photography.
    >
    > Much of this information is apparently KNOWN to government, industry and
    > other entities such as museums and art dealers and even mass advertising
    > companies who use the mails, but NOT to consumers. I have been unable to
    > prompt ANY response to enquiries, regarding the questions and study

    results
    > raised by the Smithsonian study, from primary manufacturing companies in

    the
    > photographic industry. [I will not mention any corporate names here]
    >
    > The mail sanitization process is designed for letter mail in bundles

    rather
    > than packages but that is not to say that some quantity of small packages
    > are not being "sanitized" as well. As a security matter the USPS simply

    does
    > not say what they actually are treating, when or where, geographically, in
    > their system such treatments are being applied. It is known, however, that
    > certain zip codes in the DC area, at least, are 100% sanitized - that is,
    > every piece of mail is processed - but in other (geographic) areas there

    is
    > no level of detail provided.
    >
    > Lastly, there is also a profound lack of data as to any sanitization

    process
    > applied to mail, or anything else (freight, UPS, ect), entering the US or
    > the US mail system and originating from outside the US.
    >
    > Journalist
    >
    Bill, Feb 28, 2004
    #10
  11. Re: US MAIL? RE: Scanning digital cameras at airports?

    "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:OU%%b.14121$TT5.13373@lakeread06...
    > Then it seems odd that Dell Computer and QVC, to name but two, ship

    millions
    > of items via US Mail, and that for years, people have been sending film to
    > be processed, and receiving their prints or slides back, all by US Mail.
    >
    > Bill
    >

    (snip)

    Well, Bill, I don't make this stuff up...read the studies for yourself. The
    Feb 2002 Smithsonian paper is more revealing of the effects of irradiating
    the mail - item by item as I noted. Also, as noted, there is no indication
    of the extent to which the mail is irradiated today EXCEPT the reference to
    the DC area, however, there is information that the USPS purchased 8 such
    systems [possibly 12] in the information below. Where they are sited and how
    they are used is not disclosed.

    http://www.si.edu/scmre/about/mail_irradiation.htm
    November 5, 2001
    The effects on research specimens and museum collection items from electron
    beam irradiation of mail by the US Postal Service

    http://www.si.edu/scmre/about/irradiate_exam.htm
    February 2002
    Recent Examination of Some Irradiated Mail

    http://www.usps.com/communications/news/press/2003/pr03_074.pdf
    U.S. POSTAL SERVICE PROPOSES [in-house] MAIL IRRADIATION FACILITY
    October 15, 2003 Press Release

    http://www.usps.com/history/cs02/1f.htm
    1. SAFETY AND HEALTH
    39 U.S.C. 101(g)
    [undated]
    [extract only]
    "...The Postal Service selected Titan Corp. and Ion Beam Applications (IBA)
    Inc. to provide electron beam systems and services to sanitize mail intended
    for government offices and eliminate the threat of anthrax contamination.
    That government mail was sent to Titan in Lima, OH, and IBA in Bridgeport,
    NJ, where facilities operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The
    irradiation process was adjusted at both locations to avoid damaging the
    mail. The Safety function worked in conjunction with the CDC and NIOSH to
    identify potential health issues with irradiated mail, and implemented
    ventilation and other controls to protect employees and customers...."


    OTHER DOCUMENTS - NOTE THE NUMBER OF SYSTEMS CONTRACTED
    As I suggested there is potentially more than one USPS site irradiating
    mail - the locations, or the extent of the program geographically, are
    unknown.

    MEMO TO MAILERS - NOVEMBER 2001
    Volume 36 Number 10
    Confidence in the mail

    USPS awards contracts to sanitize mail

    "...The Postal Service awarded a contract to The Titan Corp. of San Diego,
    CA, to provide electron beam systems and services to sanitize mail.

    Titan will subcontract with its subsidiary SureBeam to provide the
    proprietary electron beam systems. The contract award, for approximately $40
    million, is for the purchase of eight systems and includes an option to
    expand the order to purchase 12 additional systems.

    In addition to providing the equipment, The Titan Corp. will operate and
    maintain the systems. The Postal Service also has contracted to use a Titan
    facility to sanitize mail using electron beam technology.

    The Postal Service also announced a contract award to Ion Beam Applications
    (IBA) Inc. of Chicago, IL, to provide electron beam and x-ray technology to
    sanitize mail. IBA will dedicate its irradiation facility in Bridgeport, NJ,
    to the sole purpose of sanitizing mail...."

    ----------

    Lastly there is this more recent article originating with the Associated
    Press - take particular note to the last paragraph:

    http://www.medtech1.net/todays_news/todays_health_news.cfm/1393
    September 27, 2003
    Mail Irradiation Part of Anthrax Legacy
    By LAURENCE ARNOLD
    The Associated Press
    [extracts]
    LOGAN TOWNSHIP, N.J. - That letter to your congressman takes a curious
    detour these days, a 115-mile road trip to a sprawling industrial park in
    southern New Jersey.

    In a ritual that has outlived the anthrax scare that prompted it, 9,000
    pounds of mail addressed to congressional offices and federal departments -
    letters, petitions, invitations, junk mail, photographs, grant applications,
    newspaper clippings - arrive here each day to be exposed to enough radiation
    to neutralize any germs that might be lurking.

    The process costs the government about $10 million a year and has altered
    how lawmakers keep in touch with the public. Many urge their constituents to
    e-mail, fax or call rather than send mail, which can arrive slightly burnt,
    melted or foul-smelling.

    [break in text]

    In the early months of irradiation, dozens of postal workers and Capitol
    Hill staffers reported skin and throat irritation, headaches and nausea
    after opening treated mail.

    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found no evidence
    of long-term health risk, and American Postal Workers Union spokeswoman
    Sally Davidow said the complaints subsided after the dosage was reduced and
    the Postal Service began airing out irradiated mail.

    Opening the mail can still bring unpleasant surprises, though.

    "We're still getting yellowed, brittle letters, stuck together, some with a
    bad odor to them, and booklets with the pages fused together," said Dave
    Yonkman, spokesman for Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.

    The radiation can destroy lab samples, affect the potency of pharmaceutical
    products, scorch paper, fog glasses, damage film and wipe information from
    electronic "Smart Cards," the General Accounting Office reported.
    [break in text]

    --------------

    My notes:

    In line with the Smithsonian study and the statement above in the USPS H&S
    document I will note that the statement "...The irradiation process was
    adjusted at both locations to avoid damaging the mail..." refers to the mail
    physically NOT the contents of the mail - though from the September 27, 2003
    AP item not always successfully. To claim otherwise would be to say, in
    effect, that the process was adjusted to a point that it would not be
    effective. You can't have it both ways - either you zap it sufficiently to
    kill bacteria, ect, which, according to the Smithsonian will cause damage
    [to certain kinds of contents]...or you don't.

    As a final note...the process of electron beam irradiation is also know as
    what is called "cold pasteurization." The sensitivity of the public to ANY
    reference to "radiation" or "irradiation", whether that is referring to the
    irradiation of food or mail, has prompted several of the affected
    industries to refer to "cold pasturization" in various documents that might
    be seen by their members, colleagues, or the public. The Direct Mail
    association, for one, has used the phrase in internal documents when they
    referred to the 8 [possibly 12] systems ordered by the USPS, though the
    postal service refers to them as electron beam [aka "e-beam"] technology in
    their document "MEMO TO MAILERS - NOVEMBER 2001" [included above].

    I also have evidence from the electronics industry, but especially data
    recovery firms, that they do NOT recommend to their customers the shipping
    of data storage devices [e.g. hard drives; smart media such as flash media;
    or even data CDs] via the US mail.


    Journalist
    Journalist-North, Feb 28, 2004
    #11
  12. PeterH

    Nibbler Guest

    Re: US MAIL? RE: Scanning digital cameras at airports?

    "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    news:c20ecc$ist$...
    > "Journalist-North" <> wrote in message
    > news:9yV%b.4082
    > >
    > > Much of this information is apparently KNOWN to government, industry and
    > > other entities such as museums and art dealers and even mass advertising
    > > companies who use the mails, but NOT to consumers.

    >
    > Might want to check the tin-foil hat - seems like it may be a little

    tight.
    >
    > Mike
    >


    You must be right, that anthrax scare and knee jerk reactions were all a
    hoax. condition orange, all is calm, nothing to see here, move along,
    nothing is happening, proceed with your normal *free*[tm] lives...

    I'd say, "what cave were you living in", but that would actually increase
    chances you'd know what he was referring to, considering the average concern
    and/or awareness these days...
    Nibbler, Mar 1, 2004
    #12
  13. PeterH

    Nibbler Guest

    Re: US MAIL? RE: Scanning digital cameras at airports?

    "Nibbler" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    > news:c20ecc$ist$...
    > > "Journalist-North" <> wrote in message
    > > news:9yV%b.4082
    > > >
    > > > Much of this information is apparently KNOWN to government, industry

    and
    > > > other entities such as museums and art dealers and even mass

    advertising
    > > > companies who use the mails, but NOT to consumers.

    > >
    > > Might want to check the tin-foil hat - seems like it may be a little

    > tight.
    > >
    > > Mike


    some decon systems that sterilize large shipments en' mass use microwaves.
    look it up. try putting your camera in with your coffee (or at levels that
    would sterilize anthrax) and let me know how things turn out.

    Cubic is exploring how to adapt its smart card technology, already
    implemented in mass transit cards, to limit access into secure areas. Pitney
    Bowes offers secure mail technology products and services. Following the
    anthrax mail attacks during fall 2001, the company made available its
    publication, "Mail and Document Security: A Pitney Bowes Executive Advisor,"
    free of charge.

    In October 2001, Noel Pearman of St. Paul, Minnesota, obtained a patent for
    a "method and apparatus," related to safeguarding workers in a building in
    the event of biological or chemical attacks. Also, Pearman and collaborators
    at Honeywell Corp. were awarded another patent for a "method and apparatus,"
    focusing on plugging up an edifice's ductwork should a biological or
    chemical attack occur, utilizing microwaves.



    > >

    >
    > You must be right, that anthrax scare and knee jerk reactions were all a
    > hoax. condition orange, all is calm, nothing to see here, move along,
    > nothing is happening, proceed with your normal *free*[tm] lives...
    >
    > I'd say, "what cave were you living in", but that would actually increase
    > chances you'd know what he was referring to, considering the average

    concern
    > and/or awareness these days...
    >
    >
    Nibbler, Mar 1, 2004
    #13
  14. PeterH

    Nibbler Guest

    Re: US MAIL? RE: Scanning digital cameras at airports?

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:DqP0c.4941$...
    > [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <> on Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:04:37 -0400,
    > "Nibbler" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    > >news:c20ecc$ist$...
    > >> "Journalist-North" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:9yV%b.4082
    > >> >
    > >> > Much of this information is apparently KNOWN to government, industry

    and
    > >> > other entities such as museums and art dealers and even mass

    advertising
    > >> > companies who use the mails, but NOT to consumers.
    > >>
    > >> Might want to check the tin-foil hat - seems like it may be a little

    tight.
    >
    > >You must be right, that anthrax scare and knee jerk reactions were all a
    > >hoax. condition orange, all is calm, nothing to see here, move along,
    > >nothing is happening, proceed with your normal *free*[tm] lives...
    > >
    > >I'd say, "what cave were you living in", but that would actually increase
    > >chances you'd know what he was referring to, considering the average

    concern
    > >and/or awareness these days...

    >
    > I'd say you're not paying attention to the actual level of risk. For

    example,
    > there's demonstrably far more risk from driving to the market for a quart

    of
    > milk than from (say) Anthrax (or Mad Cow Disease). Public hysteria is

    *way*
    > overblown.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas
    > [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    > <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]


    I agree, and you are more likely to die in a car crash than by a terrorist
    knocking down your building. The point is it is and does happen, and the guy
    is not a kook for sugesting so. and since when does the us not overreact to
    potential threats? Public hysteria or not, when the gov feels things merit,
    (or perhaps to control perception - another thread entirely) Mail does
    undergo mass irradiation. Fact.
    Nibbler, Mar 1, 2004
    #14
  15. PeterH

    Mike Kohary Guest

    "Don" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > While it's true that the short answer is "no," the correct answer is that
    > there is a very slight effect.


    While it's true the the short answer is "no" to whether or not you can win a
    6-number lottery, the correct answer is that there is a very slight chance.
    ;)

    Seriously, in the same way a mathematician would say that your chances of
    winning the lottery at 1-in-7-million odds are "approximately equal to
    zero", the correct answer to this question is a flat, "no". There's no need
    to confuse the issue - airport scanners simply will not hurt your digital
    camera or storage media.

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, Mar 1, 2004
    #15
  16. PeterH

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Re: US MAIL? RE: Scanning digital cameras at airports?

    "Journalist-North" <> wrote in message
    news:9yV%b.4082
    >
    > Much of this information is apparently KNOWN to government, industry and
    > other entities such as museums and art dealers and even mass advertising
    > companies who use the mails, but NOT to consumers.


    Might want to check the tin-foil hat - seems like it may be a little tight.

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, Mar 1, 2004
    #16
  17. PeterH

    John Navas Guest

    Re: US MAIL? RE: Scanning digital cameras at airports?

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:04:37 -0400,
    "Nibbler" <> wrote:

    >"Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    >news:c20ecc$ist$...
    >> "Journalist-North" <> wrote in message
    >> news:9yV%b.4082
    >> >
    >> > Much of this information is apparently KNOWN to government, industry and
    >> > other entities such as museums and art dealers and even mass advertising
    >> > companies who use the mails, but NOT to consumers.

    >>
    >> Might want to check the tin-foil hat - seems like it may be a little tight.


    >You must be right, that anthrax scare and knee jerk reactions were all a
    >hoax. condition orange, all is calm, nothing to see here, move along,
    >nothing is happening, proceed with your normal *free*[tm] lives...
    >
    >I'd say, "what cave were you living in", but that would actually increase
    >chances you'd know what he was referring to, considering the average concern
    >and/or awareness these days...


    I'd say you're not paying attention to the actual level of risk. For example,
    there's demonstrably far more risk from driving to the market for a quart of
    milk than from (say) Anthrax (or Mad Cow Disease). Public hysteria is *way*
    overblown.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Mar 1, 2004
    #17
  18. PeterH

    John Navas Guest

    Re: US MAIL? RE: Scanning digital cameras at airports?

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:28:59 -0400,
    "Nibbler" <> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >news:DqP0c.4941$...


    >> I'd say you're not paying attention to the actual level of risk. For example,
    >> there's demonstrably far more risk from driving to the market for a quart of
    >> milk than from (say) Anthrax (or Mad Cow Disease). Public hysteria is *way*
    >> overblown.


    >I agree, and you are more likely to die in a car crash than by a terrorist
    >knocking down your building. The point is it is and does happen, and the guy
    >is not a kook for sugesting so.


    I disagree. The probability of a terrorist knocking down my building is so
    low as to be indistinguishable from zero.

    >and since when does the us not overreact to
    >potential threats?


    I don't. I can even recall reading a silly story on Mad Cow disease while
    wolfing down a very good hamburger, and how I got some very good buys on beef
    thanks to all the silly hysteria. My freezer is full -- how about yours?

    >Public hysteria or not, when the gov feels things merit,
    >(or perhaps to control perception - another thread entirely) Mail does
    >undergo mass irradiation. Fact.


    Whatever. I'm personally no more worried about radiation damage to a mailed
    digital camera than I am about the threat of a terrorist attack against my
    building, but, as always, YMMV.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Mar 1, 2004
    #18
  19. PeterH

    Nibbler Guest

    Re: US MAIL? RE: Scanning digital cameras at airports?

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:6ZP0c.4947$...
    > [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <> on Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:28:59 -0400,
    > "Nibbler" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    > >news:DqP0c.4941$...

    >
    > >> I'd say you're not paying attention to the actual level of risk. For

    example,
    > >> there's demonstrably far more risk from driving to the market for a

    quart of
    > >> milk than from (say) Anthrax (or Mad Cow Disease). Public hysteria is

    *way*
    > >> overblown.

    >
    > >I agree, and you are more likely to die in a car crash than by a

    terrorist
    > >knocking down your building. The point is it


    Ed: it =mail irradiation

    is and does happen, and the guy
    > >is not a kook for suggesting so.

    >
    > I disagree. The probability of a terrorist knocking down my building is

    so
    > low as to be indistinguishable from zero.


    wouldn't that mean you agree? you say you are more likely to die in your
    car, by your own statement?


    >
    > >and since when does the us not overreact to
    > >potential threats?

    >
    > I don't.



    you don't. I don't. but we have no control *what-so-ever* of the nations
    alert status level and Homeland Security's pre-emptive actions, do we?



    > I can even recall reading a silly story on Mad Cow disease while
    > wolfing down a very good hamburger, and how I got some very good buys on

    beef
    > thanks to all the silly hysteria. My freezer is full -- how about yours?


    I still make mine rare on the grill and put real cheese on them :)
    another mass hysteria thing up this way. mass bulk purchases of milk, bread,
    and eggs - when snow is mentioned on the news.

    >
    > >Public hysteria or not, when the gov feels things merit,
    > >(or perhaps to control perception - another thread entirely) Mail does
    > >undergo mass irradiation. Fact.

    >
    > Whatever. I'm personally no more worried about radiation damage to a

    mailed
    > digital camera than I am about the threat of a terrorist attack against my
    > building, but, as always, YMMV.


    me either, just saying there are other "legitimate kooks", (good oxymoron)
    and the poster need not put on his aluminum foil hat for thinking mail gets
    zapped. He just mentioned it can and does happen, though the chance is slim
    (especially when not under condition red) And I simply wanted to point out
    this is *not* a conspiracy theory crackpot remark.

    re: quote"
    Recently, I have been investigating, for an article on the subject, the
    effects of high energy electron beams on cameras and other media...there is
    always a sub-thread here and on many other forums about airport x-ray
    scanners...but DID YOU KNOW....

    If you ship photographic equipment or media through the regular US mail
    system AND it happens to pass through one of the mail sorting offices using
    ANY system to "sanitize" the mail against biological risks you may wind up
    with, at best, damaged equipment and at worst completely destroyed
    equipment. This extends widely to other items of photographic materials as
    well besides cameras."

    and

    "Might want to check the tin-foil hat - seems like it may be a little tight.

    Mike"

    There is nothing false about the above statement to merit that. I don't want
    to come off as alarmist, but you even mention half the stuff that goes on,
    1/2 the time people *deny* it ever happened, and call you a crackpot for
    mentioning it. (such as most states now have digital voting and no paper
    trail, and think it will never be abused... hey! remember Florida? Hello?!
    but I digress)


    and of course...

    "Then it seems odd that Dell Computer and QVC, to name but two, ship
    millions
    of items via US Mail, and that for years, people have been sending film to
    be processed, and receiving their prints or slides back, all by US Mail.

    Bill"

    known (non-suspect) mass mailers are considered a lower risk than unknown
    lesser senders, not? It's also a matter of economics and logistics of decon
    and distribution... and film *has* been damaged. Remeber all those the
    warnings in the news a few years ago? remember the mail delays as mail was
    re-routed to mass decon? remember announcements listing things not to mail
    until the alert level dropped, else risk damage? Na? it was for a few
    months... to busy watching "reality TV" instead of watching or reading the
    news I suppose ;-) (not to you specifically John, you seem to know what I'm
    talking about... and I agree, risk is low... very low at this moment... but
    more probable than my house falling - when at high alert, that is. but
    definitely non-zero depending on political climate)

    regards,
    HarĀ²


    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas
    > [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    > <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    Nibbler, Mar 2, 2004
    #19
  20. PeterH

    Nibbler Guest

    Re: US MAIL? RE: Scanning digital cameras at airports?


    > <http://www.consumerfreedom.com/madcowFAQ.cfm>:
    > According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk

    of
    > contracting the disease from eating beef and beef products, even when

    infected
    > cows are in the food supply, "appears to be extremely small, perhaps about

    one
    > case per 10 billion servings."
    >



    My god! That's *like* 1/3 of a McDonalds customer ;-)


    http://164.109.33.187/corp/news/fnpr/cpr07292003.html
    Nibbler, Mar 2, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Frenchy

    Free WiFi at Airports, how to use?

    Frenchy, Jul 23, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,983
  2. Chris_D

    UK Airports and 802.11a/g

    Chris_D, Aug 10, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    568
    David Taylor
    Aug 16, 2005
  3. Pauline Johnson

    Floppies and CDs in X-Ray machines at airports?

    Pauline Johnson, Nov 3, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,659
    revengemeister
    Jul 27, 2012
  4. Rosedco

    CF Cards at the airports?

    Rosedco, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    430
    Ron Hunter
    Jan 10, 2004
  5. Alan

    x ray scan Airports

    Alan, Sep 6, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    531
    Alex Clayton
    Sep 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page