Audience Scanning??

[UV99LASER]

BOY Adam YOU need to take a chill pill.
I just raise SOME real concerns and you go off the deep end attacking me.
I have never ACCUSED anybody of anything.
I am not attacking anyone specifically or "all laser shows". I am not attacking you are.
I have been ULTRA careful to not mention ANYONES name. So How could I be accused of libel when I name no names?

But I will name you.
Adam are you actually saying that people are 100% honest in their quest for money? VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX money does funny things to people.
Adam you have brought a lot of very inflammatory words to this discussion that you keep trying to stick in my mouth.
You took this out of context. You left out the preceding phrase " Just my opinion and experience.".
Quote:
Originally Posted by UV99LASER
If Bill from Pango wants to run around blasting retinas more power to him.

I think your statements above border on libel. Bill is not "blasting retinas", and to the best of my knowledge he never has. He has an approved variance sanctioned by the CDRH that *documents* the exposure levels that will be experienced by the crowd when using their technology. It also includes contingency hardware that keeps the show safe in the event of numerous failures. That variance was nearly 2 years in the making."

Why do you keep attacking me when I state my OPINION and concerns.
You are not going to do these shows and you are not going to do commercial shows by your own admission here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UV99LASER
Do you really want to take the risk of permanently injuring or even blinding someone?

Do I? No, I don't. But I don't do commercial shows myself (though I have worked on a few shows with other companies). And if I did ever were to do a commercial show myself, I would not audience-scan. I'm not willing to take that risk. I don't have the knowledge, the equipment, the money, or the time to invest in the quest of obtaining a CDRH variance for audience scanning. That doesn't mean it's impossible, however. Just that it's something that is out of my reach as a hobbyist."

Libel for opinions? Check your law buddy.
I never called anyone reckless.
That is your statement Adam.
You seem to think the FDA and people with commercial interests are infallible.
How naive of you.
Again I never named named until some one brought someone else's specific name into the mud.
Again I am not accusing anyone of anything.
So cool it wacko jacko.

I have NEVER called myself an expert but thanks again.
I am not looking for sympathy for an injury that happened over ten years ago.
I am not looking to sue anyone for a injury caused over 16 years ago.

You said.
"Again, I have to question your judgement here. You are worried about laser exposure when the MPE levels have been set by numerous experts in the field, after exhaustive peer-reviewed research, yet you think nothing about purchasing illicit drugs (and injesting them) with little or no knowledge about the source of those drugs, the quality, or the dose, despite the fact that there is a large body of evidence to support the very real risk that these drugs preset. That just doesn't make sense."

I was 18 THEN, I am 40 now what dose one have to do with the other?
You never made poor choices when you were young. Live in a perfect world do you?

Adam said
"Furthermore, there *are* experts in the field that *have* done the research and *have* published their data, and that information *has* been reviewed by *other* experts in the field, and the resulting consensus is totally at odds with your beliefs. So unless you can counter this vast body of evidence with something more than anectodal stories about your experience with a few unsafe laserists, your statements do not hold water."

Experts used to call Pluto a planet.
Experts are continually shown to be wrong or to have a limited knowledge of their expert field.
Look to history for as many examples as you wish.
Live on a flat planet lately?
Remember everything was declared invented 100 years ago. They wanted to close the patent office.

You should look to James Stewart to learn how to craft a coherent response.

My point is people take drugs at laser shows. This causes severe pupil dilation.
Clinical studies have shown that pupil size can reach 9mm in "normal" people.
7MM is the international standard for safety.
I THINK these two numbers should be the same.
No matter what you do to mitigate the risks they are still there period.

Life must be wonderful with your head in the sand.

It is the sad truth that while I have zero incentive to do ANY audience scanning, I might have to actually do it in the future to stay competitive.
So IF I do need to go down that path it will be with a wider margin of safety that current national and international standards dictate.
I will use 9mm as my MINIMUM standard.
I am after all a business man.

Matthew Raftery

P.S.
To James Stewart,
Thanks for the suggestion on the paper. It seems like you actually read what I had to say. Nice to see some here are not after a flame war.
Skipp

[gottaluvlasers]

i must say, i never thought this question i posed would have gotten such a heated debate. i for one, must say i have learned a SHIT load about this from BOTH sides! i think both sides of this question pose very serious and factual arguments. UV99, BUFFO, PANGLOIN, LASERAY, (i know there were a few more) i would honestly like to thank you guys for taking a SERIOUS amount of time to get in depth here and to answer with obvious knowledge and expertise. i know it has kinda turned into a he said, she said (well, a he said, he said...lol...) but the under lying question and the underlying facts here i believe have SERIOUSLY opened up peoples eyes (no pun intended) as to the dangers, "real world" effects and even myths about the audience scanning.

i think some of the heated debate toward other members is not completely neccesary, but hey- thats just me. i think A LOT can be misread, mis-typed and even misunderstood over a long winded post on a forum.

all of you supported your claims and you *OPINIONS* very well in my book. maybe some info was relayed incorrectly or misunderstood, but i dont think ANYTHING was posted here without some sort of validity to it. yes, some im sure was posted as 100% factual, when it in fact it wasnt. or maybe being over zealous, but i would like ot tihnk it was done for a good reason.

i dont think EITHER side of this debate is 100% correct. i think it is way too vast of a generalized topic to provide for a 100% "right" or "wrong" answer.

bottom line-(IMO)
a TON of info has been provided here for everyone. both sides of the debate providing VERY credible evidence and info to support theiur claims.

pangolin (kinda off topic here, sorry...)
would it be possible to post some pics of your projection system that you perform the audince scanning with. and maybe explain some of the parts to us? i am sure some of the "guts" may be confidential or "not for public knowledge," but i fo rone would LOVE to see what you CAN show us and maybe a simple explanation of what that particular part provides for the safety aspect of audience scanning.

-Marc

[clandestiny]

Bill Pango had such a set up at the ilda theater at LDI Orlando this past fall-
I may be able to have him bring the hardware portion to flem mark II.
Although of course there are calculations required as well as the hardware-

[buffo]

BOY Adam YOU need to take a chill pill.

No, you need to learn how to present your ideas coherently, back them up with factual sources that you can cite properly, and stop whining when people call you on the unsubstantiated claims you've been making.

I just raise SOME real concerns and you go off the deep end attacking me.

No, you started the whole discussion with a completely bogus claim that "any laser light entering the eye does SOME permanent damage no matter what." Then you offered some vauge reference to a study done by a friend of yours, but when that person finally joins the discussion, lo and behold, you remembered it wrong, and the study actually had nothing to do with visible laser radiation exposure. That wasn't a "real concern", it was fearmongering, pure and simple, and I called you on it.

Then you attacked Bill Benner of Pangolin, and I called you on it.

Then you went off on the rant about the duration of the human blink response not being long enough. But you had the number wrong, and we called you on that one as well.

Now you're going off on the whole 7 mm vs 9 mm pupil diameter bit. When are you going to stop moving the goal posts? The issue is, can audience scanning be done safely, and I think the question has been answered already.

As for the SPECIFIC issue of pupil diameter, I think James offered you a productive outlet for your concerns. I suggest you take him up on his offer to attend the next International Laser Safety Conference so you can voice your concerns.

But since you don't have any research to back up your assertations that 9mm should be the new adopted standard, I will side with the experts for now.

I have never ACCUSED anybody of anything.

Yes you have. You said that anyone that does audience scanning is "blasting retinas". (Your words) That statement is an accusation. Are you so obstinate that you don't see this?

I have been ULTRA careful to not mention ANYONES name. So How could I be accused of libel when I name no names?

After Jimbo mentioned that Bill Benner was a member here, you came back with "If Bill from Pango wants to run around blasting retinas more power to him" and "It only proves that he has convinced the U.S. government to allow him to do something unsafe" Those statements name Bill by name and are clearly libelous. So how, exactly, have you been "ultra careful" again? (It's irrelevant that Jimbo mentioned the name first, by using Bill's name in your post, YOU HAVE NAMED HIM.)

As for the Vioxx references - enough already. What, exactly, is the correlation between Merk's cover-up of the VIGOR study and the research Pangolin has performed to obtain their audience scanning variance?

Because the only way your example makes sense is if you are accusing Pangolin of willfully covering up some unpleasant facts related to their variance. (Which, again, is libelous!)

Furthermore, what makes you qualified to question not only the varaince itself, but the international standards upon which the variance limits are based? (You do realize that the Pangolin varaince reduces eye exposure to BELOW Class 3A limits, don't you?)

Adam are you actually saying that people are 100% honest in their quest for money?

Are you specifically claiming that someone else is being dishonest? If so, you better have proof before you start throwing accusations like that.

You took this out of context. You left out the preceding phrase " Just my opinion and experience.".

Please... You've been trying to pass yourself off as an expert throughout this entire thread. You've been dropping countless hints that you've been doing this for a long time, you have lots of friends in the industry, you own lots of different lasers, and that you've experienced audience scanning yourself several times, as if all this somehow qualifies you as an expert. I was simply pointing out that these things are not a substitute for peer-reviewed research.

On the contrary, I have NAMED my sources, because I am not an expert when it comes to laser injuries. Because I am a hobbyist, I have to rely on the work of others to learn what is safe and what is not. Fortunately, there is a large body of information available on the subject. I have also gone to great lengths to provide additional documentation supporting the reasons behind the exposure limit guidelines. I have done this both to support my statements here in this thread and to share the process by which I came to those conclusions.

Personally, I'm far more willing to believe a large group of scientific researchers (who all say pretty much the same thing) than the far-fetched claims of a single laserist who is making claims that run contrary to that large body of evidence. Your irrational risk assesments only add to your credibility problem; downplaying the risks of using illegal drugs (not to mention sky diving!) while ranting on and on about the dangers of laser radiation suggests to me that you don't really have a good handle on estimating risk.

Why do you keep attacking me when I state my OPINION and concerns.

If you had simply said something like, "There are a lot of people out there doing improper audience scanning, and because of the risk of permanent eye damage I have chosen never to attempt this effect no matter how many safety measures are in place", then no one would have argued with you, because it's your opinion.

In fact, if you search the forums, you'll discover that I made a post back int he summer for 2007 that said basically the same thing. The difference is that I left it at that; I didn't tell anyone else that they shouldn't be doing it, or make claims that it couldn't be done safely.

However, you took it a step further and started making factual claims that were clearly wrong. (The first one was regarding the study that your friend did where you claimed that all laser radiation causes eye damage.) That's how this all got started. Then you went on to attack Bill Benner at Pangolin, accusing him of "blasting retinas". Things went downhill from there.

If you wanted to state an opinion regarding Bill, you should have said something like, "I don't know what technology Bill has developed, so I can't comment on whether his shows are safe or not, but I know that *I* would not perform an audience scanning show." But again, you went beyond that, and this long discussion is the result.

I never called anyone reckless.

Saying that someone is "blasting retinas" when they are, in fact, performing a legally-varianced audience scanning show is libel. The charge of "blasting retinas" is a charge of recklessness.

You seem to think the FDA and people with commercial interests are infallible.

No, I don't. But we're not talking about just the people with commercial interests, or just the FDA. We're also talking about the vast body of researchers that have developed the standards for laser exposure. Are you claiming that they, too, have some vested interest in misleading the public? That sounds like a conspiracy theory. I'm not blind to corporate greed, but I'm also not a member of the tin-foil hat club. (And for the record, I've been perscribed Vioxx before, and would take the drug again were it still on the market. I read the VIGOR study, and the risk to me seems to be an acceptable trade-off given the drug's effectiveness.)

I ask you - what do you know about Vioxx? Have you ever been perscribed the drug? Did you read the VIGOR study results? Are you aware of the risk of heart attack with other medications? Have you ever thought about what a .4% increase in risk really means, considering the other risks you encounter in your daily life? Or are you simply repeating what you've read on some social networking site about how all drug companies are evil?

I was 18 THEN, I am 40 now what dose one have to do with the other?

Because you mentioned your illicit drug use as if it was a good thing; as if it somehow bolstered your arguement. No where in your post was there any mention of how foolish this behavior was, or how risky it was. Just that you received a possibly hazardous exposure of laser energy, and were so unconcerned about it you attributed it to "bad drugs".

And yet despite all this you continued your rant about laser safety... I was pointing out the dichotomy; you see the danger of the lasers but are blind to other, far more serious dangers. It's a matter of perspective, and you didn't seem to have any. (And still don't.)

Experts used to call Pluto a planet.

Are you for real? Are you seriously suggesting that the relegation of Pluto to a Kuiper belt object has ANYTHING to do with the vast body of evidence surrounding the permissible exposure levels that have been agreed upon for laser radiaiton exposure?

You do realize that the designation of "planet" is IRRELEVANT to what we know and understand about Pluto, right? We didn't just discover something new about the planet. The controversy surrounding Pluto is 2 decades old, and at it's heart it's a controversy over semantics. There is no new science about Pluto. It's all about selecting a logical naming convention so we don't end up calling all small objects planets. (And it makes good sense, because there are several moons in our solar system that are larger than Pluto.)

The rest of your examples are equally insipid; none of them relate to any controversy surrounding the exposure limits for laser radiation exposure. It's not like there has been some recent research that calls into question the limits we're discussing here. All we have is your claims that they are inadequate. With nothing to back those claims up, your statements are worthless.

Note that I said "your claims." Had you instead posed your thoughts in the form of a question, or a call for debate on the subject, that would have made all the difference in the world. But instead, you basically said "They (the vast body of experts in the field) are wrong, and I am right." When you make a factual claim like that, you'd better be able to back it up.

No matter what you do to mitigate the risks they are still there period.

This is absurd! By your logic, you should never drive a car, EVER. Driving is one of the most hazardous activities that people engage in on a daily basis. Likewise, you should never drink alchohol. (The adverse effects of alchohol are well documented.) You should never use illicit drugs. (Do I even need to point that out?) And for sure you have no business jumping out of an airplane.

Yet you do (or have done in the past) each one of these activities. What about the risk? Sure, you wear a seat belt and drive carefully, but THE RISK IS STILL THERE! (Oh no!) Surely you recongnize the absolute absurdity in your arguement here.?.

Risk is everywhere. Of course it will always be there. Risk *management* (or mitigation, if you will) is another topic entirely.

It is the sad truth that while I have zero incentive to do ANY audience scanning, I might have to actually do it in the future to stay competitive.

This is in exact opposition to everything you have posted in this thread up to this point, and makes me seriously question your initial motivation to post in this thread.

Nice to see some here are not after a flame war.

It's only a flame war when you go on the offensive. You managed to do that with your 6th post in this thread when you referenced "P f**king R". And you'll notice that I didn't enter the discussion until after your 11th post in the thread, after you had attacked Bill Benner not once but TWICE.

My first post was # 51 in this thread. Go back and re-read it. Do you think I was looking to start a flame war? Or maybe, just maybe, do you think I was trying to address some of the more inflammatory statements that you had already made? (In other words, to diffuse the very one-sided flame war you had already started.)

What's more, have a look at some of my other posts here (there are plenty to choose from! What am I up to now, 2600+?) and ask yourself if I appear to be the sort of person that starts a flame war... I think you'll see that I am not. Consider the many hours I've spent posting in this thread, and ask yourself if you truely believe I've done all that just because I'm looking to argue with someone.?. (Hell, I have a wife for that!) No, I'm not looking for a flame war, I'm looking to address some real errors, and more than a few attacks, in the things you've posted.

Adam

[Dr Laser]

Where is my popcorn?!?

[cruch]

Well, here is alot of nice reading!

Dr Laser:
Her is some popcorn to you!

[UV99LASER]

bla bla bla adam.
I did back up my findings did you not read my post.
Obviously not I referenced 5 studies on pupil size.
Did you not check my references.

I have repeatedly stated that it is my OPINION that audience scanning is blasting retinas period.
If you want to start litigation over my stated OPINION then go ahead.
It is still my OPINION that varianced or not audience scanning is a bad idea.
It is also my OPINION that there is millions of dollars of commercial interest in being the only varianced audience scanning system provider in the US.
It is my OPINION(and FACT) that humans(none specifically mentioned here) are fallible and that all these safety protocols rely on these same humans.

You obviously think it is worth the risk of permanently injuring someone for some cool effect.
I do not.
Yes I have been in the laser light show business for over 14 years.
I am not an expert on anything other than myself.
I am qualified to question ANYTHING for the simple fact that I am human.

Who are you to question me?
You are a self proclaimed hobbyist.
I am a self proclaimed 14 year commercial laser show operator.
I am in no way an expert on anything other than myself.
I have commercial interests in doing safe laser shows.

It is also the sad truth that while I have zero incentive to do ANY audience scanning, I might have to actually do it in the future to stay competitive.
Remember I am a commercial operator with commercial interests(I do shows for money).
IF I do decide to go the audience scanning(retina blasting) route I will use more stringent safety protocols such as a 9mmfor measuring mpe levels.
As it is MY OPINION that 7mm is not a real world number for maximum dilation of laser show attendees pupils.

You said "Because you mentioned your illicit drug use as if it was a good thing; as if it somehow bolstered your arguement."

No I mentioned it to show what a typical show attendee might know or not know about the laser they are viewing and what they might or might not be doing at said show.
At the time I did not know that the cool green laser could hurt my eyes.
Nor did I know the symptoms of laser exposure either. I experienced these symptoms (itchy eyes and prolonged headaches) after many many shows.
I thought these symptoms were substance related.
I had zero clue that the light could be causing this, most people don't.
Every person I have ever mentioned that the laser would burn their eye has responded "Wow I did not know that".

So if you blow a few hundred rods and cones off some persons eyeball and they never notice anyway, is that OK?
So If your show attendees over enlarge(more than 7mm) their pupils with chemical substances and receive an over dose of laser radiation because you used 7mm to set the MPE limits. Is that OK too?
You must remember that you (well not you since you are a hobbyist) are responsible for each and every eyeball in that show room when it comes to YOUR laser.

Yes I am a FAA certified skydiver.
Yes I hold an expert motorcycle road racing licence.
These are risky endeavors. I understand the risks.
I take great steps to mitigate the risks to the lowest possible level.
The risk of injury or death is still very real.
I take these risks with MY life.
I make the decision to take these risks with my OWN life not anybody else's.

With audience scanning the audience does not get to make that decision.
They are not informed of the risks.
They do not get to proclaim that the risk is worth the reward.
When you perform audience scanning you are risking the very eyesight of each and every audience member.
That is a BIG difference.

Now while you might have an impressive post count but how many laser shows have you performed?
How many have you commercially produced?
Do you work for a commercial laser operator?
Do you know what people look like on ecstasy or LSD?
Have you observed people on these drugs?
Have you EVER been to a RAVE party?
Why are you such a big proponent of laser audience scanning?
Why not use a safer light source?
Safe laser beams would be huge anyways.

High End made a product called an "Emulator". It was a super cool full color moving light with a 20MM light beam coming out the front. It ran on a large set of galvos. It was built to emulate a laser.
It did do exactly that and really well too.
It was designed specifically to do audience scanning with out a harmful laser source.
You could do blades, cones, fans, beams and text.
They were daisy-chainable eye safe DMX lights.

Your absurd argument about driving automobiles and or drinking alcohol is irrelevant to this conversation as there are all VOLUNTARY decisions and actions.
Getting scanned by a laser is not necessarily an informed voluntary decision an audience member gets to make.

Yes I am for real.
Experts in many fields have been known to be wrong.
You just think your experts are right.

Bring it on donkey kong.

Oh let me bow down before the mighty Buffo with 2600 posts.

So take my words out of context some more.
You are really really good at it.

VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX
Is relevant because it too is a COMMERCIAL PRODUCT pushed through the FDA.
Eat as much VIOXX as you want it is after all YOUR decision.
Cant get VIOXX maybe you should try good Ole marijuana to take the pain away.

VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX

No specific person other than ADAM has been mentioned in this post.

[buffo]

Now while you might have an impressive post count but how many laser shows have you performed?

Depends on how you count them. If you want to count large shows (greater than 1000 people), then I have worked with a professional laser company on a half-dozen or so large commercial shows so far. (None of which included audience scanning, btw.) I've also worked on smaller club shows with the same company. If you want to count "shows" that I've done in my home with my own equipment, then obviously the count is much higher.

All this is irrelevant, however. The number of commercial shows I've performed (or rather, assisted with) does not qualify me as an expert. (Nor does it qualify anyone else as an expert, for that matter.)

Likewise, my post count does not qualify me as an expert either. I simply mentioned the number so you could do some checking of your own and see that a "flame war" is not my goal, and never has been throughout my posting history.

How many have you commercially produced?

None. I'm not a laser show producer. Your point? Do you really think that because you've produced laser shows you are an expert on laser damage thresholds for the human eye?

Do you work for a commercial laser operator?

On and off, in my spare time, yes. I've participated in shows for Tiesto (twice), Paul Van Dyke, and Baby Anne (also twice), just to name a few.

Do you know what people look like on ecstasy or LSD?

Yes, I do. I am also trained as an EMT (for the past 14 years), and prior to my involvement with Lasers, I used to work part time at a nightclub treating patrons that got overly doped up. (Not pretty) I also worked part time at a go-cart racetrack (unlimited class, not the sort of carts you buy at K-mart) providing emergency medical services to both the drivers and the crowd. Most of the emergencies there were either heat or alchohol related, but we had a few drug cases too, plus a handful of actual trauma cases from the rare crash.

Have you observed people on these drugs?

Unfortunately, yes. It's not pretty.

Have you EVER been to a RAVE party?

Yes, many times, dating all the way back to 1983, when I lived in Germany for 6 months. More recently, I've been attending raves as a member of the lighting crew rather than as a patron. I have to say that I like being on the other side of the stage a lot better.

Why are you such a big proponent of laser audience scanning?

I'm not. I've made that clear already. (Obviously you didn't read my post that I mentioned above where I explained my thoughts on audience scanning. Pity.)

bla bla bla adam.

"Bla bla bla?" This is how you respond? If you can't even bother to take the matter seriously, then I think our discussion is over. Truthfully I'm growing tired of wasting my time trying to reason with you, especially when you aren't listening.

You obviously think it is worth the risk of permanently injuring someone for some cool effect.

No, I believe that the risk of "permanent injury" is so infinitessimally small WHEN THE EFFECT IS PERFORMED CORRECTLY that it is irrational to think otherwise. Your beef with the pupil size is irrelevant. That pupil size applies to the same class 3A limits that pointers have to comply with. Are you saying that those limits are invalid?

Let me review: Studies have shown that even several seconds worth of exposure at that level (Class 3A) can not cause permanent injury, and that is with a STATIC BEAM. So now, Pangolin comes out with a technology that reduces exposure to below class 3A limits EVEN WITH A STATIC BEAM, and then goes further to make the projector INCAPABLE of projecting a static beam, and still you have a problem with it?

This is the crux of the discussion. You are irrationally clinging to your belief that lasers can not be made safe no matter how low the exposure ; a belief which you first posted earlier in this thread. It has been explained several times already that the Pangolin variance reduces the beam intensity to below class 3A limits (via the lens) even when the beam is stationary. This means it's at least as safe as a laser pointer, which has already been clinically proven to be incapable of causing permanent eye damage. In fact, even over an exposure of 20 seconds, less than 10% of the subjects had *ANY* detectable changes in their retina at all. Note that those changes were only detectable by a close examination of the retina, and they WERE NOT PERMANENT.

Now consider that the Pangolin variance *also* requires that the beam be in motion constantly. This adds another safety level, because now the beam can't impinge the eye continuously. There are numerous safety circuits that come into play here, and all of them have pretty nasty behavior with regard to the projector hardware should they detect anything that isn't right. As Bill said, they set up a trick, make sure it keeps working, kill everything if the trick stops working, and to be extra safe they blow the beam size way up so that even in the unthinkable case of a cascade failure of EVERY OTHER SAFETY DEVICE IN THE PROJECTOR, the beam is still below class 3A limits.

Your objections in the face of this mountain of evidence are irrational. By your standards, there are numerous other activities (both laser related and otherwise) that should also never be attempted.

It is also the sad truth that while I have zero incentive to do ANY audience scanning, I might have to actually do it in the future to stay competitive.

You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence! If you "have to do it in the future to stay competitive", then that is an incentive. It's statements like these from you that make it increasingly difficult for me to continue this discussion. At some point I have to ask myself if you're a troll. (And if you are, you're a good one.)

IF I do decide to go the audience scanning(retina blasting) route I will use more stringent safety protocols such as a 9mmfor measuring mpe levels.

What other safety requirements will you place on your projector? Because thus far you haven't suggested anything that comes close to the gear that Pangolin has come up with...

So if you blow a few hundred rods and cones off some persons eyeball and they never notice anyway, is that OK?

There you go again... You *consistently* over-state the effects. This is why the whole discussion is becomming increasingly pointless. No, I will not "blow a few hundred rods and cones off someone's eyeball"... How many times do we have to go over this? Even at the limits of class 3A exposure for up to 20 seconds, there are no permanent effects. No rods were blown off. No retinas were blasted. Please stop exaggerating.

You must remember that you (well not you since you are a hobbyist) are responsible for each and every eyeball in that show room when it comes to YOUR laser.

I *fully* understand this responsibility. Even when I was working with that laser company at the raves mentioned above, (and yes, at times I was operating the lasers along with them), I felt that it was my PERSONAL responsibility to make sure everything was correct. (Even though technically it was the Laser Safety Officer's responsibility too.) This was despite the fact that their LSO was sitting right next to me the whole time, and the red "all scram switch" was parked between us.

I *do* take audience safety seriously, and because of the inherent responsibility, I would never attempt an audience scanning show myself. However, if I were to be offered a job working at a show where Pangolin had their audience scaning-approved variance in place, I probably would accept it. I would certainly spend a whole lot more time reading over their variance beforehand, and I'd make damn sure that I understood how everything worked. But I'm not so niave as to think that it can't be done safely. I simply believe that it's beyond my personal abilities, and certainly beyond the abilities of my equipment.

Yes I am a FAA certified skydiver. <snip> I make the decision to take these risks with my OWN life not anybody else's.

What about the business owner that sold you the parachute? The business owner that flies the plane you jump out of? Why do you trust them to do the right thing? What have they done to earn your trust that the International Laser Safety Conference attendees (many of whom do not have a commercial interest in audience scanning) have not? Do you not see the dichotomy here? You trust a business owner that has a vested interest in your patronage as a skydiver, but not a researcher at a university that is curious about laser eye damage? That's irrational.

When you perform audience scanning you are risking the very eyesight of each and every audience member.

How are you risking their eyesight when studies have shown that at certain power levels, the human eye is undamaged? Oh, that's right... You still believe that any laser exposure causes permanent damage. You need to revise that belief, because it is demonstratably wrong.

High End made a product called an "Emulator". It was a super cool full color moving light with a 20MM light beam coming out the front. It ran on a large set of galvos. It was built to emulate a laser.

I've actually spoken about products similar to this with a few lighting producers. Several of them believe that in a few years you'll be able to reproduce atmospheric and beam effects using a DLP projector instead of a laser projector. While it's an interesting idea that may ultimately replace the laser, right now it's not quite ready for prime time. But I agree that there are other solutions that may one day recreate nearly all the effects that are currently possible with a laser projector. My understanding of the specific emulator product you mentioned is that it was considerably more expensive than a laser for the same apparent brightness, but I have never actually seen one in operation.

Bring it on donkey kong.<snip>Oh let me bow down before the mighty Buffo with 2600 posts.<snip>Cant get VIOXX maybe you should try good Ole marijuana to take the pain away.

Now who is attacking whom? And you accuse me of starting a flame war? YGBSM!

VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX VIOXX

Repeating something 10 times doesn't help your arguement, it just makes you look foolish. And a single cover up by a drug manufacturer over a relatively small increased risk on an otherwise excellent drug (which, btw, was voluntarily recalled by the same manufacturer) does not justify your irrational suspicion of ALL the standards in place (including those produced by researchers at universities WITHOUT industry input) that deal with laser safety.

Adam

[cruch]

Dr Laser: Want more?

[UV99LASER]

Buffo the great spin doctor.
How gracefully you take my words out of context.
I am so happy you have taken it upon yourself to change my opinion.
I have never met anyone so hard headed who is actually willing to argue with an OPINION.

So

I sign a waiver every time I go skydiving or roadracing stating that I hold no one accountable for any injury or death that I might suffer as a direct result of said activities.
Furthermore it also states that if am injured or my death is caused by negligence on the part of the business operator, pilot, equipment manufacture, facilities owner, fellow skydivers or fellow roadracers that I will not hold them liable.
It is the sign your life away clause.
I only use government certified(DOT,FAA,SNELL) and inspected safety equipment in good working condition.
I use this equipment knowing it can fail and lead to my death
I also have taken time to properly educate myself in the dangers and risks inherent with skydiving and road racing.
I understand those risks and still I GAMBLE with one life and one life only, my own.
I am only gambling with my own life after extensive waiver signing and insuring.
I am not gambling with up to 40,000+ lives at a time.

No one ever signs a release of liability prior to viewing a laser show of any kind.
The audience is not informed of the risks however infinitesimal they might be.
They do not sign a waiver prior to viewing said show.


Buffo "Your beef with the pupil size is irrelevant"

This is 100&#37; relevant.
My beef is not with the US laser operator you keep referring to who holds the only us variance for audience scanning.
Or their system of diverging the beam, electronically lowering the power in the audience,eliminating anchor points, corner points and any other stay beam all the while keeping the beam in motion.
I have also seen the euro systems that vary the laser power as it enters the crowd and increases when it leaves the crowd using a/o's for fast acting power modulation.
My beef is with ANY system in any country on this planet that uses 7mm as the basis for maximum pupil dilation.
This is not a real world number.

I have seen pupils close to 13mm. YES 13mm or 1/2 inch.
Yes that would have no color whatsoever.
I have seen people with eyes so black their retinas shimmer like a marsupial.
Literally whites with zero color .
I think Pink Floyd said it best 'you have that look in your eyes like black holes in the sky -- shine on you crazy diamonds".
Oh I know you are going to call me on that one.

Well how do you know how big their eyes are? Did you measure them?
wa wa wa
Well I was a metric motorcycle mechanic from 1984 until 1992.
It was my business to visually size round holes and round rods such as spark plug holes, nuts, bolts ect ect ect.
I still do all of my own work on my cars and the 20 or so metric motorcycles still in the garage.
So yes I can tell at a glance what size your pupils are to within .5mm.
Wana bet me?
I have seen literally millions of people on drugs such as LSD, Ecstasy, Mushrooms, 2CB, DMT and a combination of ALL 5.
I have had very up close contact with these people and have had them tell me what drugs they are on.

I really do not know how many shows I have done .
I think the actual number is somewhere between 1,100 and 1,300.
But again I really do not know.
So when I say I have done 1000 rave parties that is probably an understatement.
Coachella the last 6 years Tiesto last week ect ect ect.
Visit my outdated website uv99.com to see more.

So pupil size is 100% relevant as a 2 millimeter increase from 7mm is a nearly 66 percent increase in the area of the pupil.
Don't believe me.
Do the math.
Area for 9mm pupil = 4.5 x 4.5 x 3.14= 63.585 square MM
Area for 7mm pupil = 3.5 x 3.5 x 3.14= 38.465 square MM
Difference 25.120 square MM
This is more than a 65.25% increase in the area of the pupil.
That would also correlate to a 65.25% increase in radiation dosage.
A 10MM pupil the difference would be 102%.
These pupil sizes are not at all uncommon.


If you do not believe me then the next rave you attend take a pupilometer with you.
You can buy one here that goes to 10MM for $8.09. http://www.copquest.com/20-1200.htm
The item is called the drug influence ID card.
I have included some photos of your typical laser show attendee.

Skipp
Oh yeah VIOXX