Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Another illegal laser pointer ad.

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Skywise

unread,
May 4, 2005, 12:05:34 AM5/4/05
to
I had mentioned W****d Lasers had a full page ad in
Astronomy magazine some time ago, but there was another
in the current issue.

I sent a lengthy email to the advertising manager for the
publishing company. Here's part of the response,

"We too share your fear that these products can be
harmful if not used properly. It has been a long
standing policy of our company that 'we do not
knowingly accept any advertisement in our magazines
that may be misleading, deceptive or fraudulent.'
Certainly 'illegal lasers' are items we do not want
appearing in our magazine. We are in the process
of taking additional steps to assure that our readers
will see only safe and useful products with which to
enjoy their hobby."

There are many groups selling illegal laser pointers but
their ads usually only imply at best that they have souped
up versions.

W****d Lasers ads on the other hand are blatent and
undeniably selling illegal power laser pointers. In fact,
the only lasers sold on their website are pointers and as
far as I can tell, all of them are above 5mW and therefore
illegal for sale in the US, despite claims to the contrary
in their FAQ.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Skywise

unread,
May 4, 2005, 9:50:47 PM5/4/05
to
(Apologies if this is a duplicate, the original posting
doesn't seem to have propogated.)

Skywise

unread,
May 5, 2005, 2:14:26 AM5/5/05
to
Skywise <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in
news:117iuvn...@corp.supernews.com:

<Snipola>


> I had mentioned W****d Lasers had a full page ad in

<Snipola>

I just found an article on Photonics.com of relevance
to this issue, even mentioning WL....

'Overpowered' Laser Pointer Sales Prompt FDA Probe
http://www.photonics.com/XQ/ASP/url.readarticle/artid.287/QX/readart.htm

So it appears the FDA is well aware of the issue and is
attempting to take measures to stop it. I guess the best
we can do is to keep doing like what I (and others) have
been doing and to notify those publishing ads for this
company of the illegal nature of the products.

Sam Goldwasser

unread,
May 5, 2005, 8:02:35 AM5/5/05
to
Skywise <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> writes:

> Skywise <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in
> news:117iuvn...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> <Snipola>
> > I had mentioned W****d Lasers had a full page ad in
> <Snipola>
>
> I just found an article on Photonics.com of relevance
> to this issue, even mentioning WL....
>
> 'Overpowered' Laser Pointer Sales Prompt FDA Probe
> http://www.photonics.com/XQ/ASP/url.readarticle/artid.287/QX/readart.htm
>
> So it appears the FDA is well aware of the issue and is
> attempting to take measures to stop it. I guess the best
> we can do is to keep doing like what I (and others) have
> been doing and to notify those publishing ads for this
> company of the illegal nature of the products.

Gad, what moron proof read that article. Most of it is accurate, though
sometimes misleading. But the statement that "a 100 W light bulb produces
100 W (of light)"? :)

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Mirror: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Note: These links are hopefully temporary until we can sort out the excessive
traffic on Repairfaq.org.

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name is included in the subject line. Or, you can
contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

Skywise

unread,
May 5, 2005, 3:36:58 PM5/5/05
to
Sam Goldwasser <s...@saul.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in
news:6wacn9z...@saul.cis.upenn.edu:

> Skywise <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> writes:
>
>> Skywise <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in
>> news:117iuvn...@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>> <Snipola>
>> > I had mentioned W****d Lasers had a full page ad in
>> <Snipola>
>>
>> I just found an article on Photonics.com of relevance
>> to this issue, even mentioning WL....
>>
>> 'Overpowered' Laser Pointer Sales Prompt FDA Probe
>> http://www.photonics.com/XQ/ASP/url.readarticle/artid.287/QX/readart.htm
>>
>> So it appears the FDA is well aware of the issue and is
>> attempting to take measures to stop it. I guess the best
>> we can do is to keep doing like what I (and others) have
>> been doing and to notify those publishing ads for this
>> company of the illegal nature of the products.
>
> Gad, what moron proof read that article. Most of it is accurate, though
> sometimes misleading. But the statement that "a 100 W light bulb
> produces 100 W (of light)"? :)

<Snipola>

HAHAHAHAH!! I missed that. I had found the article via a
Google search and only scanned the article.

Fleetie

unread,
May 5, 2005, 4:06:23 PM5/5/05
to
>> Gad, what moron proof read that article. Most of it is accurate, though
>> sometimes misleading. But the statement that "a 100 W light bulb
>> produces 100 W (of light)"? :)

What's your problem? It does*. Just that much (~95%?) of it isn't visible light.


Martin

* When it's connected and consuming 100W of power.
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie


Skywise

unread,
May 5, 2005, 5:12:25 PM5/5/05
to
Skywise <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in
news:117kteq...@corp.supernews.com:

<Snipola>

>> Gad, what moron proof read that article. Most of it is accurate, though
>> sometimes misleading. But the statement that "a 100 W light bulb
>> produces 100 W (of light)"? :)
> <Snipola>
>
> HAHAHAHAH!! I missed that. I had found the article via a
> Google search and only scanned the article.

Ah geez....I wish I had read this thoroughly before I posted
the link. There's all sorts of questions raised by this article.
Although my point about illegal pointers being investigated is
still valid.

Anyway, here's my disection of the article, although I'm sure
most regulars of the group will already realize most of this...

=====
"the FDA issued a press release... The light energy that
laser pointers can aim into the eye can be more damaging
than staring directly into the sun,"

So, if a legal laser pointer is at most a class IIIa device,
and they can be more damaging than the Sun, then the Sun is
what, a Class II radiation emitting device? Although I guess
if you lock yourself underground then the Sun could be
considered Class I. :)

=======
"The [Laser Institute of America] and the American Academy
of Ophthalmology have also received reports of people
exposed for longer periods, including two verified retinal
injuries caused by intentionally staring into pointers."

Does this not set the precedent for what it takes to cause
eye damage by a laser pointer? These idiots stared directly
into the pointer for an extended period. Is it not reasonable
to conclude then that damage cannot be caused from a brief
exposure? Temoprary flash blindness caused by photobleaching
of the retina perhaps, just like glancing at any bright light
source.

=======
"'Recent research conducted by the FAA . . . in Oklahoma
City has found that some lasers, when shined into a plane's
cockpit, could temporarily disorient or disable a pilot
during critical stages of flight such as landing or takeoff,'
said Transportation Secretary Norman Moleta at a 'Lasers in
the Cockpit Media Event' held there on Jan. 12. 'Even worse,
in a few cases, these lasers can cause permanent eye damage
for those who look directly into the beam.'

I have no qualms with the idea that a laser can be a very
dangerous distraction to a pilot. But here's that "permanent
eye damge" issue yet again. As I and others have pointed out,
it would take a very sophisticated laser and tracking system
to irradiate a pilot's retina with enough energy to cause
"permanent eye damage."

=======
"The [Visual Warning System] consists of at least seven
turrets, each housing a red and a green laser, placed
around the Capital region. The 1.5-watt lasers are diffused
through lenses to produce wide, low-intensity beams covering
an area roughly 100-feet in diameter 10 nautical miles from
the turret."

Well, if this ain't a kicker! 100 ft (30.48m) at 10 NM (18520m)
equates to a full angle divergence of about 384 milliradians.
A fairly wide divergence.

Also, a 1.5 watt laser spread out to 100ft diameter means only
79.1 NANO watts enters a 7mm dilated pupil. So obviously this
is considered eye safe or else they wouldn't be using it.

A souped up laser pointer of 100mW at a good clean 1 milliradian
divergence at 10 NM would be 9.26 meters across (~28.2 ft). A
dilated 7mm pupil would only receive 14.3 NANO watts, five and
a half times less energy.

The point is, if what the gov't is using as a signaling device
is eye safe, then even a souped up laser pointer is "5 times"
safer! If this is the case, then how on earth are pilots eyes
being permanently damaged?

=======
"[Wicked Lasers] Web site says typical proper applications
include "acupuncture, dentistry, airplane engine bird
deterrent, gun mount, fiber optic cable locator, large-
animal deterrent, presentations, architecture, search and
rescue, forensic science, crop protector, movie laser beam
prop, crystal art jewelry, light shows and gene cell therapy."

All of these "proper applications" would be illegal with the
lasers they sell. Most would be considered demonstartion uses
or public displays, all of which would require a variance to
legal proceed. But then the laser itself would not pass muster
as it would not comply with CDRH regs. Some of the applications
listed are medical which ads a new level of regulations that
this laser would fail to meet. All medical devices must be
pre-approved.

=======
"Charles W. Clark, chief of the Electron and Optical Physics
Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)... 'Sixty mW in a decimal representation would be
0.06 watts, or about 1/16th of a watt. A lightbulb in a
fixture in your home puts out 100 watts. That's 1600 times
as much optical power as a laser,' Clark said. 'But if you
hold a balloon up to a lightbulb, you will wait a long time
before it pops.'"

This is the one that Sam was pointing out. How on earth did this
guy get into the position he's in? I'm thinking of trying to
look this guy up and contacting him about his erroneous statement.

=======
Conclusion:

There seems to be a lot of wrong information floating around in
regards to laser pointer safety and especially the issue of
lasers causing eye damage to airline pilots. When such stories
first came out, we were all dubious. But we ran the numbers
anyway. As time has gone by more information is brought forth
but this new data has only served to further question the claims
being put forth. The data does NOT support the claim. Even the
reported altitude and distance from an airport for one recent
incident is in question.

Either the claims are false or the data is false. I'm going to
go way out on a limb here and ask,

"WHO is lying and WHY?"

Mike Anton

unread,
May 5, 2005, 8:06:28 PM5/5/05
to

"Skywise" <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in message
news:117l31p...@corp.supernews.com...<snip>

> =======
> "The [Visual Warning System] consists of at least seven
> turrets, each housing a red and a green laser, placed
> around the Capital region. The 1.5-watt lasers are diffused
> through lenses to produce wide, low-intensity beams covering
> an area roughly 100-feet in diameter 10 nautical miles from
> the turret."
>
> Well, if this ain't a kicker! 100 ft (30.48m) at 10 NM (18520m)
> equates to a full angle divergence of about 384 milliradians.
> A fairly wide divergence.

Ok, I get 30.48m/18520m = 1.645mr full angle, which is not
too bad.


>
> Also, a 1.5 watt laser spread out to 100ft diameter means only
> 79.1 NANO watts enters a 7mm dilated pupil. So obviously this
> is considered eye safe or else they wouldn't be using it.

Yup, I get the same answer


>
> A souped up laser pointer of 100mW at a good clean 1 milliradian
> divergence at 10 NM would be 9.26 meters across (~28.2 ft). A
> dilated 7mm pupil would only receive 14.3 NANO watts, five and
> a half times less energy.

If I use 1mr full angle, this should be 1mr*18520m = 18.52m diameter.
I think you meant to say the radius is 9.26m.
I also get 14.4 nW.
>
<snip>

Mike Anton


Skywise

unread,
May 5, 2005, 8:16:48 PM5/5/05
to
"Mike Anton" <man...@nocompusmart.spamab.ca> wrote in news:8yyee.24168
$0X6.15469@edtnps90:

> "Skywise" <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in message
> news:117l31p...@corp.supernews.com...

<Snipola>

>> Well, if this ain't a kicker! 100 ft (30.48m) at 10 NM (18520m)
>> equates to a full angle divergence of about 384 milliradians.
>> A fairly wide divergence.
>
> Ok, I get 30.48m/18520m = 1.645mr full angle, which is not
> too bad.

<Snipola>

Hmmm...how'd I screw that up? I double checked my calcuations
before pressing send....I must have made the same mistake twice.


>> A souped up laser pointer of 100mW at a good clean 1 milliradian
>> divergence at 10 NM would be 9.26 meters across (~28.2 ft). A
>> dilated 7mm pupil would only receive 14.3 NANO watts, five and
>> a half times less energy.
>
> If I use 1mr full angle, this should be 1mr*18520m = 18.52m diameter.
> I think you meant to say the radius is 9.26m.
> I also get 14.4 nW.

Yes, that was a typo, as I recall seeing 18.52 somewhere in my
calculations.


>>
> <snip>
>
> Mike Anton

Christoph Bollig

unread,
May 6, 2005, 6:33:47 PM5/6/05
to
Hi,

I thought I shouldn't get involved in this, but anyway:

> "the FDA issued a press release... The light energy that
> laser pointers can aim into the eye can be more damaging
> than staring directly into the sun,"
>
> So, if a legal laser pointer is at most a class IIIa device,
> and they can be more damaging than the Sun, then the Sun is
> what, a Class II radiation emitting device? Although I guess
> if you lock yourself underground then the Sun could be
> considered Class I. :)

I just have to do this quick calculation:

The power density of the sun after it's gone through the atmosphere is
roughly 1 kW / m2. This is 1 mW / mm2.

Now its actually more difficult than I thought. The maximum pupil size
is 7mm, more typically 5mm in darkness. However, when staring into the
sun, the pupil will be much smaller. I really have to guess now, and
since it is in the middle of the night here at the moment, I can't
even look into the mirror to find out. Let's just assume the minimum
pupil diameter under bright conditions is ~2 mm. This would be an area
of ~3 mm2. If we assume a diameter of 2.5mm, we get an area of 5 mm2,
and with a diameter of 1.5 mm it would only be 1.8 mm2. With a power
density of 1 mW / mm2, we get about 2 to 5 mW of sun light into our
eye on a very bright day with the sun high above the horizon.

That's actually turning out to be far more interesting than I thought.
The sun is like a class IIIa laser: Normally safe but can be dangerous
when staring into it purpusefully. Nature has done a good job here,
since this works for the vast majority of us ;-)

The main difference to a laser is that the laser is focused to a
smaller spot on the retina. I would therefore conclude that the
statement "The light energy that laser pointers can aim into the eye
can be more damaging than staring directly into the sun," is true.

> "The [Laser Institute of America] and the American Academy
> of Ophthalmology have also received reports of people
> exposed for longer periods, including two verified retinal
> injuries caused by intentionally staring into pointers."
>
> Does this not set the precedent for what it takes to cause
> eye damage by a laser pointer? These idiots stared directly
> into the pointer for an extended period. Is it not reasonable
> to conclude then that damage cannot be caused from a brief
> exposure? Temoprary flash blindness caused by photobleaching
> of the retina perhaps, just like glancing at any bright light
> source.

IIRC, the definition for class IIIa (up to 5 mW and visible spectrum))
was "safe for accidental viewing" which basically means it's safe as
long as you don't inforce staring into it for an extended period. I
think they assume 1/4 s for the natural reflex to avoid the light when
accidentally viewing the beam.

Class II (up to 1 mW) should be safe even for the idiots.

> "Charles W. Clark, chief of the Electron and Optical Physics
> Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology
> (NIST)... 'Sixty mW in a decimal representation would be
> 0.06 watts, or about 1/16th of a watt. A lightbulb in a
> fixture in your home puts out 100 watts. That's 1600 times
> as much optical power as a laser,' Clark said. 'But if you
> hold a balloon up to a lightbulb, you will wait a long time
> before it pops.'"
>
> This is the one that Sam was pointing out. How on earth did this
> guy get into the position he's in? I'm thinking of trying to
> look this guy up and contacting him about his erroneous statement.

Considering the position he is in, it seems more likely that he didn't
make this statement but was mis-quoted.

Christoph

--
Important: Emails sent to me which contain my full name
in the "to:" or "cc:" field will bypass my spam filter.
With most programs "Reply" should do the job.

Skywise

unread,
May 6, 2005, 7:21:30 PM5/6/05
to
Christoph Bollig <laser...@gmx.net> wrote in
news:96sn7116k60nit7d3...@4ax.com:

> Hi,
>
> I thought I shouldn't get involved in this, but anyway:

<Snipola>

Your first two comments I agree with, once it's looked at
the way you did.


>> "Charles W. Clark, chief of the Electron and Optical Physics
>> Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology

<Snipola>

> Considering the position he is in, it seems more likely that he didn't
> make this statement but was mis-quoted.

I can readily accept that idea. There's been many scientists
that I've heard the media misquote in an attempt to shorten
the statement or dumb down the statement to the least common
denominator of intelligence (LCDI) and it comes out meaning
something else entirely or just totally wrong. But now it
not only still means gibberish to the LCDI, but it also means
gibberish to those who actually know something of what's
being reported.

If the media woudl just stop trying to edit things, we'd all
be much better and smarter for it.

> Christoph

0 new messages