Now to the next question.

I leave on Thursday for a work trip to Harrisburg, PA. I made the trip last year with a PC-110 and a VX-1000 because you-know-what wasn't working correctly.

The cameras I took last year sailed through security (well, maybe plodded through is more accurate) and suffered no problems.

Have they upped the power of the carry-on luggage scanners since then? A friend, long-term cameraman, and salesman for a local pro shop says that they are seeing many more bright pixels than ever before in pro cameras that are flown to assignments. He actually suggested that I wrap the camera heads in film shield before I get to the x-ray machine.

So. Any information? How many of you have lately flown your cameras around? Any travel tid-bits you'd care to share?

I don't know how the x-rays affect dv cameras or dv tape, but I do know that new regulations passed this past year in the US that up the x-ray strength of all scanners of checked-in baggage.

There were even warnings that came out of the gov't that if you have sensitive material such as photo film, to put it in your carry-on luggage.

Again, I don't know if that has any affect on DV tape and cameras, but if you have film, don't stick it in your checked-in luggage!

I flew to Oakland and back with my PD150 tucked away in my Pelican case and all went well through baggage handling. You could avoid the more powerful x-rays used in baggage by hand carrying the camera, but bring a battery as you will probably be asked to fire it up for the inspector. That would be a better idea than wrapping the heads in foil, IMHO. Something like that would probably flag you.

Wayne

Microelectronic circuits, including CCD imagers are known to get degraded/deteriorated by heavy ion strikes in space applications. X-ray equips as used in airports don't generate those particles...however, depending on the applied strength they can cause ionization dammage and unwanted thermomechanical effects. Ionisation can cause leakage currents in the CCD photodiodes, and this means damaged(dead) pixels. I have no idea how strong (KeV) those sources are... Also the total dose (Mrads), thus the number of "deep screens" affects the potential dammage. Because this phenmenon also relates to technology details, only the manufacturer could give the right info. It would be good, in the mean time, that frequent flyers keep an eye on dead pixel evolutions and report here.

I've had a chance to evaluate the camera and tape after multiple trips through the airport scanners.

I can report that, at least for the flights I took, there were no bad effects that I can detect.

The new security proceedures were a bit strange. In one case they swiped the camera bag inside and out and scanned the cloth. In the other, they ignored the cameras completely. They opened my checked luggage on the outbound leg because I had a tripod and tripod dolly inside. Left me a note inside to commemorate the opening. Ignored the case on the inbound leg.

Go figure.

Mike did you check for dead pixels by putting the lensdop on, setting the shutter time as long as possible (1/6sec?) and +9db gain-up? No "stars" visible?

I hadn't but I just did.

1/4 sec shutter, 18 dB gain. No dead pixels. Just the random noise one would expect.

Two weeks ago I flew from Orange County (California) to Vancouver by way of Seattle for a ski trip. I carried my GL2 in a Kata bag. In Orange Country they took me aside for a check of my bag because they could not identify the wide angle lens through the scanner. No problem with batteries, etc. The lady was very polite and efficient. Seattle suffered a security breach (and my connnecting flight was cancelled) so we had to go outside and check in at a different airline along with the others on our flight and the Seattle folks checking in. My camera went through the handcarry process without any questions asked. Leaving Vancouver the Canadian agent looked at my wide angle but that was all. Moral of the story: if there is any, each airport is different and each airport personnel is, too. The one thing all had in common was they all reiterated that the scanner would not damage anything in my camera bag.
Sandy

A friend, long-term cameraman, and salesman for a local pro shop says that they are seeing many more bright pixels than ever before in pro cameras that are flown to assignments.


Please don't <b>laugh</b> but the OZONE layer, at certain altitudes on plane flights. actually effect the ccd block causing dead pixels. NIKON now sends their digital still cameras via ground delivery. My friend just contacted them as he had two dead pixels in a new camera. LOU

"Please don't <b>laugh</b> but the OZONE layer, at certain altitudes on plane flights"

I just sent my JVC GY-DV5100 in for services, 4 dead pixels the camera is only 6 months old. Talked to the tech and he said the same thing (the OZONE layer, at certain altitudes on plane flights) if you travel over seas changes are the flight plan will take you close to the north pole making it easer for ion strikes from the atmosphere to damage your CCD. I have traveled over seas 3 time this year w/my GY-DV5100. Is this why I now have 4 dead pixels? The tech seems to think so... or is it the x-ray at the airport? or both?

So what do I do now? Take the boat? Rap the camera in led? Go back to film? Not traveling, is not an option... some one has to have an answer.

-patrick

I work at a nuclear power plant and we use video cameras extensivley for monitoring high radiation areas to keep personnel from having to enter. Cameras in these areas don't last long. It usually takes only one to two years before the cameras ccds have been bombarded by enough gamma radiation to produce an image covered with brightly colored dots from dead pixels. The first dead pixel can show up within a matter of days. These cameras are exposed to moderate radiation levels of 2 to 8 rem/hour of mostly 6 MeV N-16 gamma radiation 24 hours a day 7 days a week. An X-ray is basically just a lower energy gamma but in an x-ray machine the radiation levels are much, much higher (for a very short period of time) than they are in the monitored areas in our plant. It's a statistics game. You may have damage the very first time you run it through a machine or maybe not for years but statistically every time you put it through one you increase the chance. The more accumulated exposure your camera recieves the better the chance for noticable image degradation.

I purchased a Nikon D70 in Baltimore over the summer and cringed when I had to put it through the x-ray machine for the trip home.


edit:
Wow, I just noticed this thread was revived from years ago........... Sorry for the late response. :-)

Lamar, if you are at a nuclear powerplant you may know that so called radioactive material radiates (decays) in different ways. One of them are gamma rays. These are electomagnetic waves which do not harm CCD devices at all. That kind of radiation is the only one which is being radiated by X-ray machines (using x-ray tubes...no radioactive material involved) in airports. What harms CCD devices (and may other microelectronic devices if they are not radiation hardened) is the heavy ion radiation (alpha particles) which is present in nuclear plants. Also known as cosmic rays. Living high in the mountains, or close to a poorly shielded powerplant could cause "dead pixels", not x-ray machines in airportds.

Alpha particles cannot penetrate human skin and they won't penetrate the coatings of CCDs let alone the camera housings, etc.

The only thing that is energetic enough to do damage at high altitude are the gammas.

Around the reactor, the Neutron flux might hit the odd component in the CCD and activate it. The decay of that element might emit an alpha or Beta particle that might cause a bit of problem. But I'd think that would be a short term disruption of the CCD.

In all cases, I'd guess the real culprit is the Gamma.

Mike, I never heart that electomagnetic waves (gamma radiation) could damage CCD. I would love to read about gamma radiation destructing semiconductors. Only heavy ions ( belonging to the alpha and beta radiation family)do.

Radiation damage came up in another thread just the other day. Here's my post from that thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=351005&postcount=7

To add to those comments, in everyday life we and our cameras are not exposed to enough high-energy electromagnetic radiation (EM, eg gamma photons) to worry ourselves about. Alpha particles are low energy and not very penetrating, but much of the GCR is highly energetic and very penetrating.

I'd suppose -- without really studying that particular issue -- that high energy neutrons could also occasionally cause a "hit" to a CCD pixel, eg within a nuclear power plant, albeit at a much lower probability-per-particle than GCR. But then, unless we are at a nuclear facility of some kind, that's not an everyday worry for us, either. Anyway, I'm not so sure that EM in the x-ray and gamma frequencies is a practical concern for our cameras.

Pete,

Did I just have bad luck or are the plane flights overseas to blame? Would a led Bag help? What would you do?

-patrick

At 35,000 feet, gamma is fairly strong since one is above a lot of the earth's atmosphere.

gamma/xrays are ionizing radiation and anything that will ionize will cause cancer, semi-conductor damage, etc. X-Ray lasers are just super-sources of ionizing radiation.

Unless you have a neutron field, it is almost impossible to get the Alphas and betas near a CCD in a camera.

Been there (Nuclear Power) still glow faintly.

Gamma radiations are not ionizing in practical life. They are electromagnetic waves (like radiowaves) which could introduce ionization effects at very high energy levels, much higher than the cosmic levels even in the stratosphere (far above 35000feet). Even at still much higher medical diagnostic levels where gamma radiation is used to see through the body, there is no significant ionization involved. What damages electronic devices are the particle based (I called it alpha and beta families ) emissions. Those particles are generated by radioactive materials (nuclear plants, nuclear bombs/weapons..)and in our cosmos. Only particle based "radiation" can destruct the cristal lattices in CCD imagers and microelectronic devices in general, not by ionization, but by (very) local heat when releasing their energy.

In the Nuclear Power industry (and the U.S. Navy) they are considered strong contributors to whole body ionizing radiation dosages. In fact, when the reactor is shut down, they are, unless something is contaminated, the only source of radiation.

Alpha and Beta particles are indeed strongly charged particles but they cannot get inside to do anything to the semiconductors Even a sheet of paper will stop them. So unless someone sprinkles them like fairy dust directly onto a CCD after stripping off the inert covers over the CCDs, they are very improbable candidates.

Gamma and xrays don't reach the lower atmosphere, for all practical purposes:

http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/gamma.html

Lead shielding won't help during those polar route flights and may actually cause more secondary radiation -- when a high energy particle like GCR, hits it.

With rare exception, where we humans take our cameras (excepting, for example, astronauts and nuclear tech workers), any damage caused by radiation of these various types is just too rare and random to worry about. Sometimes, no doubt, a CCD hit is actually due to an unlucky high energy particle (and even less likely, EM radiation like gamma or xray) but other causes including slight manufacturing defects and whatnot are undoubtedly more likely causes...though in any given instance, it is unlikely that one would know the actual cause. Can airport xray machines damage high speed film? Yes. Your camcorder? I really would doubt it. Flying over the poles? Hmmm, possible, but in any one trip it would still seem pretty unlikely.

We all like to describe the world around us in absolute terms...black is black, white is white and betwixt the two no gray to be seen. But our universe is made up of the gray stuff of mathematical probabilities.

Like I already mentioned, heavy particles(wrongly mentioned as alpha particles) are known as causes for CCD defects Gamma ray are not involved in CCD degradation.. See:
http://www.fullcircleresearch.com/Radiationhardening.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening
A lot more is available about microelectronic "device hardening", so I will not spent more time to inform some people about CCD defects.

Thanks for the links, Andre. Good stuff and a quick read. Recommended to all following this thread!

Very interesting, professor. I learn new things (or relearn) them all the time.

Thanks Pete :)

Hey Mike, are you an ex Navy Nuke? Ex-Submarine ELT here. I then worked as an HP Tech at Plant Hatch for 14 years and now am in Operations.

Yes, RC Div, Swordfish & Robert E. Lee

Andre,
How do you explain our plant's camera degradation in purley gamma radiation fields? I have spent most of my adult life working in the field of Health Physics and have been on the pratical side of gamma, beta, nuetron, and alpha radiation trying to minimize their negative effects. If what you say is true then how do you explain how an ion chamber measures gamma radiation? And the definition of Roentgen? Gamma and X-Rays are both electromagnetic radiation, just different energy levels. They are both ionizing radiation.

I could tell..... :-) Guardfish here.

Yes, RC Div, Swordfish & Robert E. Lee

Lamar, maybe don't fully understand your questions. What did I write what countradicts Geiger counter behaviour? Gasses get easely (slightly) ionized in gamma radiation environments, and of course in nuclear plants gamma rays are also around. On the CCD deterioration (death pix) I already mentioned the known reasons (particale inpact). The only other things known in microelectronics and gamma radiation is some shift in MOS transistor properties (not a defect) if the TID (total ionizing doze) is sufficiently high. Also in floating gate microelectronic devices (e.g. flash memory) there is a memory loss risk at high doses. Roentgen rays (only historic value) relate to the first discovery of radioactivity (alpha beta and gamma rays...nuetrons were not yet "discovered" at that time). Today X-ray is related to (mostly) electronically generated gamma rays. In a nuclear plant (as you certainly know) it's a matter of controlled bombardements of uramium by nuetrons. In the "dangerous" zones, neutron are not fully screened off and it is still possible now and then they travel around and cause CCD death pixels.

Perhaps I didn't understand your statements but it seemed as if you were saying that ccds would not be affected by gamma / x-rays because they were not ionizing radiation. This is not true. My field concentrates mainly on the biological effects of radiation. I have not studied much about the effects of radiation on electronics but I work with radioactive material and radiation every day. I know where it comes from, how it behaves, and how it interacts with matter. I know that we see ccd degradation in our cameras that are exposed to purely gamma fields. No measurable neutron dose rates in these areas. No Beta or alpha radiation present and neither would present a problem if it were because it would be shielded by the environmental housings. Alpha particles won't even penetrate the dead layer of skin on your body so how, if they were present, could they present a problem to a ccd buried deep in a camera body.

Regarding ion chambers, they are different from Geiger-Mueller tubes. They rely on the same basic principle of ionization occurring in the detector but with ion chambers you can measure the actual energy deposited in that chamber where as with a Geiger-Mueller tube you can only measure interactions (ionization events).

Roentgen is a non-SI measure of radiation here in the US. Like Sv are used there, we use Rem, Rad, and Roentgen. My reference to the roentgen was to emphasize that it is a unit that was used to measure x-ray radiation levels and its original definition is: “That amount of x-ray radiation that will deposit 1 erg of energy in one gram of dry air.” So how could you characterize x-rays as being non-ionizing when this unit of measure was originated to measure them?

I might add that in my experience you must be careful about believing or trusting sources on the web. I have seen many false statements regarding radiation and its effects from seemingly reliable sources. Just today I saw a site that states, and I quote, "there are currently no SI units for measuring radiation." Wonder where that guy has been.................



Lamar, maybe don't fully understand your questions. What did I write what countradicts Geiger counter behaviour? Gasses get easely (slightly) ionized in gamma radiation environments, and of course in nuclear plants gamma rays are also around. On the CCD deterioration (death pix) I already mentioned the known reasons (particale inpact). The only other things known in microelectronics and gamma radiation is some shift in MOS transistor properties (not a defect) if the TID (total ionizing doze) is sufficiently high. Also in floating gate microelectronic devices (e.g. flash memory) there is a memory loss risk at high doses. Roentgen rays (only historic value) relate to the first discovery of radioactivity (alpha beta and gamma rays...nuetrons were not yet "discovered" at that time). Today X-ray is related to (mostly) electronically generated gamma rays. In a nuclear plant (as you certainly know) it's a matter of controlled bombardements of uramium by nuetrons. In the "dangerous" zones, neutron are not fully screened off and it is still possible now and then they travel around and cause CCD death pixels.

-Geiger Muller counters are indeed slightly different in applied acceleration voltages. In low to normal radiation density situations they give exactly the same results (hit/sec)
-Gamma and X-ray are ionizing radiation forms. I think I never said they aren't
-Gamma/xrays don't destruct microelectronic devices. Semiconductors are not biological/watery structures or gasses. They are made out of specific/robust cristaline lattice structures. Photodiodes is another story and are radiation sensitive by definition, and pA leakge is very important there.
B.t.w. many electronic devices/boards are inspected by Xray machines. See e.g. http://www.empf.org/empfasis/july05/inspect705.htm
-Lemnar I am very much intrested how you veryfy that yr high risk zones, (where your cams are located), are free of radioactive particles.
-I know the different radiation standards which popped up through the years.
-When I said "Roentgen rays" it had nothing to do with standards or ionization, only the historic context was meant.

We use industry standard meters. Eberline RO2A or RO20's (ion chambers) for beta-gamma dose rates. Eberline PNR-4's for neutron dose rates. We do periodic checks for smearable alpha contamination in areas where there is a potential but we have had good fuel and have not had any alpha problems. Besides, if you have alpha dose rates, you have REAL problems. There are many other instruments we use but the ones mentioned are the mainstays for determining dose rates.

These cameras are in areas where the vast majority of dose is from N16 that is carried over with the steam, we are a BWR. There may be some small contribution from other isotopes but if you were to do a gamma spectrum you would only see the N16 peaks. We aren't using cameras inside containment during operation. They wouldn't last very long considering the neutron flux to which they would be exposed.


-Geiger Muller counters are indeed slightly different in applied acceleration voltages. In low to normal radiation density situations they give exactly the same results (hit/sec)
-Gamma and X-ray are ionizing radiation forms. I think I never said they aren't
-Gamma/xrays don't destruct microelectronic devices. Semiconductors are not biological/watery structures or gasses. They are made out of specific/robust cristaline lattice structures. Photodiodes is another story and are radiation sensitive by definition, and pA leakge is very important there.
B.t.w. many electronic devices/boards are inspected by Xray machines. See e.g. http://www.empf.org/empfasis/july05/inspect705.htm
-Lemnar I am very much intrested how you veryfy that yr high risk zones, (where your cams are located), are free of radioactive particles.
-I know the different radiation standards which popped up through the years.
-When I said "Roentgen rays" it had nothing to do with standards or ionization, only the historic context was meant.

Thanks Lamar