... your pejorative attitude...
... despite the obvious lack of evidence...
It's not perjorative, its frustrated. (and that was a really nice pasive-aggressive way of getting the last dig in. It made me smile!)
I deal with people all day long who don't understand engineering or standardization but prefer to base their vocal opinions on "beliefs" with total disregard for the research that exists. Not to blow my own horn, but with over 125 professional publications in engineering including several national standards that are currently in use, I have a bit of insight into standards and the research behind them. BTW, I also did research for FAA on airport security screening for a few years and intereracted with the equipment manufacturers... so I have a few insights that are not just "beliefs".
Some people simply don't want to accept data when presented to them but insist that they be shown "proof that they can see with their own eyes". I have no problem with that except the absence of proof does not necessarily mean there is an absence of radiation effect in all cases.
Have you ever seen the wind? Have you ever seen a molecule of oxygen? Have you ever seen God (or what ever your deity of choice may be)? Despite never having seen wind or O2 or God many people choose to believe anyway, yet some deny the existence of all three. OK, but that position may be questionable in at least two out of the three examples given. There is scientific and engineering data to prove the existence of wind and oxygen. The existance of God (or any other supernatural diety) is much more open to beliefs... and beliefs alone.
Yes, I say again... the effect of xray radiation from carry-on scanners on film is RARE, extremely rare, and even rarer or nonexistent if one follows the guidelines.
You follow the guidelines and have never had a problem. I follow the guidelines and have never had a problem. Lots of other people followthe guidelines and have never had a problem. None of us have evidence of film damage due to xrays to show you. Why keep asking for it?
But Kodak has published pictures of such damage. The damage from CT was posted earlier in this thread. At one time (but it seems to have been removed) Kodak published pictures of damage due to extreme exposure to carry-on baggage scanner xray. Incidentally, if you never saw it, it looked just like jonmanjiro's images, not the banding that most typically comes from CT. [There is some evidence of banding in the carry-on scanner research but it is much rarer than the overall "haze" and contrast loss kind of damage.]
I agree with every thing you've witten and believe except for one -- that there is never, ever a possiblility of film damage. To be clear: the emphasis is only on the "never, ever" part of the statement.
The only change I propose to your statement is "only in the rare occasion of overexposure to xray radiation that might happen if one disregards the existing guidelines for xray exposure to film."
Engineers have measured some Dmin changes in film with 5 to 10 passes through a scanner. To some that would be noticable. To many it quite possibly will not. For me it likely would not. For you I assume it likely would not. Does that still mean it never happened? They measured more Dmin change with more passes, like 25. To many that would be noticable. They measured even greater Dmin changes with 100 passes. To almost anyone that would be noticable.
The data was done by recognized research agency, was reviewed by peers, and has been published. It's no longer available for free on the internet because it has been archived by IEEE. IEEE, like ISO and the other standards bodies charge for copies. They need to in order to fund their standardization efforts... and they aren't cheap either. Just yesterday I spent about $150 to buy a 40-page ISO standard. The data exists if you really want to know... buy it from IEEE if you didn't have the chance in the past to download it free. I copied pertinent section for you already. You've seen the evidence!
That research (film damage) does not continue too much anymore because it has established engineering data that is known to be stable and not changing. That's a good thing because it means we understand the physics and engineering controls to ensure that film does not get harmed IF ONE FOLLOWS THE KNOWN CONSTRAINTS.
What's worse... especially for film users like you and me... film is old skool, obselete technology, niche, has-been, and whatever other words might be used to indicate that we are int he minority. All of the research money in this area, for the past decade or more, been on research of the effects of radiation and screening technologies relative to digital photography equipemnt and digital storage media. Unfortunately that's the state of the world today and in the future.
That's all I'm saying. Just because it has never happened to you or me is good for us, but doesn't mean it never happens to anyone.
I don't think that is perjorative. I don't think you are perjorative either... just stubborn, perhaps a bit short-sighted on this issue, and seeking the unseekable to prove a point that is simply incorrect. If you find that a perjorative statement, I send apologies along with it.
I'm not the one howling in the wind, BTW... nor is anyone else on this thread. There is no Chicken Little attitude here that often occurs in threads of this type. But it is equally faulty logic to act like the proverbial ostrich with his/her head in the sand.
