4 ms·

Based on my reading of the article this laser weapon doesn't (maybe even is not capable of without modification?) cause permanent blindness.

valuearb 6y ago
Correct, it’s got safeguards to ensure it’s only usable at ranges that won’t damage human eyesight.
- beenBoutIT 6y ago
  The company's CEO could really drive this point home in a presentation video where he gets 'dazzled' repeatedly at close range.
  - hajile 6y ago
    And yet, the US military has admitted that their own troops have had permanent eye damage done with this weapon. It would be legal suicide to every say that something similar had happened to enemy combatants even if it happened frequently. The Red Cross still maintains that dazzlers should be banned. The human eye (depending on the person) magnifies light 100,000-500,000 times. The inverse square law means that only minor variations in distance can have large differences in effective light (laser irradiance conforms to this law). Rangefinders aren't perfect and the smaller they are, the harder it is to detect the range accurately. Laser damage happens in just 0.25 seconds, so even a tiny mistake can have catastrophic consequences. There's a CEO famous for shooting himself and others wearing his brand of flak vest. That doesn't mean it always stops bullets (even in premium environments). It means they're idiots. The same applies here. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-police-and-coastguards-use-laser-dazzlers/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p... https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-caused-by-presumed-laser-dazzler-2161-1076-4-191.pdf https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-cau... https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz.htm https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz....
hajile 6y ago
That would imply the use of class 1 lasers, but those lasers wouldn't have the required range. The laser in that picture is definitely capable of much, much higher power output then a few milliwatts of low frequencies light. It's much more likely that the US simply refused to sign that treaty just like they refused to sign treaties about other horrors like land mines or chemical weapons.
- smiley1437 6y ago
  The article and the manufacturer's literature explains that the laser, while capable of fairly high output, automatically reduces power using rangefinders and some sort of smart detection so that it is eye-safe at all ranges.
- navbaker 6y ago
  It seems like you're just choosing to ignore the parts of the article that specifically address the protective measures built in to the device in order to make sensationalist claims about US policy.

valuearb 6y ago

Correct, it’s got safeguards to ensure it’s only usable at ranges that won’t damage human eyesight.

beenBoutIT 6y ago
The company's CEO could really drive this point home in a presentation video where he gets 'dazzled' repeatedly at close range.
- hajile 6y ago
  And yet, the US military has admitted that their own troops have had permanent eye damage done with this weapon. It would be legal suicide to every say that something similar had happened to enemy combatants even if it happened frequently. The Red Cross still maintains that dazzlers should be banned. The human eye (depending on the person) magnifies light 100,000-500,000 times. The inverse square law means that only minor variations in distance can have large differences in effective light (laser irradiance conforms to this law). Rangefinders aren't perfect and the smaller they are, the harder it is to detect the range accurately. Laser damage happens in just 0.25 seconds, so even a tiny mistake can have catastrophic consequences. There's a CEO famous for shooting himself and others wearing his brand of flak vest. That doesn't mean it always stops bullets (even in premium environments). It means they're idiots. The same applies here. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-police-and-coastguards-use-laser-dazzlers/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328516-400-should-p... https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-caused-by-presumed-laser-dazzler-2161-1076-4-191.pdf https://www.longdom.org/open-access/chorioretinal-injury-cau... https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz.htm https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/57jmcz....

hajile 6y ago

That would imply the use of class 1 lasers, but those lasers wouldn't have the required range. The laser in that picture is definitely capable of much, much higher power output then a few milliwatts of low frequencies light. It's much more likely that the US simply refused to sign that treaty just like they refused to sign treaties about other horrors like land mines or chemical weapons.

smiley1437 6y ago
The article and the manufacturer's literature explains that the laser, while capable of fairly high output, automatically reduces power using rangefinders and some sort of smart detection so that it is eye-safe at all ranges.
navbaker 6y ago
It seems like you're just choosing to ignore the parts of the article that specifically address the protective measures built in to the device in order to make sensationalist claims about US policy.