3 ms·

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....