

High-Powered Laser Pointers Pose Risk to Pilots - quizbiz
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/us/22lasers.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1295686880-AA6h5jCEDgUuTKFwBeDElA

======
rubidium
Got to see a 1 Watt blue, handheld laser recently. I cannot think of a much
more dangerous item for $300. I won't link but it's easy to find online.

If one knows how to use it, the risks can be minimized. But you package
something to look like a flashlight and have 1 Watt of 445 nm light coming out
of it... that has bad idea written all over it. 10 microseconds of exposure is
much greater than the max permissible exposure
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IEC60825_MPE_W_s.png>).

100 mW is sufficient for star-gazing purposes. I can't think of any good
reason for someone to have a 1 Watt laser on public property. As much as I
hate regulation, I think a reasonable law at minimum is the battery cannot be
in the laser during transportation over public property. What you do in your
own home is up to you and your cornea.

~~~
Retric
It's still far less dangerous than a gun. The problem is people don't view in
that category. "It's just a flashlight" vs "This is dangerous and if I use it
improperly I can go to jail for a long time".

PS: When you consider how much damage someone can to with a car I think you
will find causing damage for the lulz is not really that common.

~~~
lutorm
The problem is that the beam propagates so far that, unlike if you want to
injure someone with a car or a handgun, you are far removed from the effects
of your actions and are much less likely to be identified.

I'd say that in terms of the combination of the range at which you can
permanently disable someone, the ability to conceal the device, and the low
visibility of "discharge", this is one of the most dangerous things I can
think of.

~~~
3pt14159
Lasers are really hard to aim at long range. Simple trigonometry means you
basically need to set up a computer and a telescope to get anywhere near your
target.

If you want to cause damage there are plenty of ways of doing it. An iron bar
sitting on a thin layer of electric insulation then sitting on the third rail
of a subway will produce a shit ton of casualties once a subway car runs over
it.

~~~
lutorm
They're no harder to aim than a gun at the equivalent distance, and you get
the added benefit of continuous emission rather than a single shot (and no
wind drift or lead).

However, the tech specs for that laser show the "Nominal Ocular Hazard
Distance" at which a 0.25s unprotected exposure does not cause lasting effects
to be 149m. That's far, but not THAT far. So as long as the subject doesn't
stare into the beam (which probably is more likely than you think given the
brain's almost compelling instinct to look at sudden movements), you still
have to get pretty close. (Unless you fit it with a collimator, of course.)

~~~
Retric
Bullets are dangerous when they hit a 1m^2 target, 1w lasers are dangerous
when they hit a 1cm^2 target. Aiming at a 1m^2 target at 150m is hard, aiming
at a 1cm^2 target at 150m is next to impossible.

~~~
lutorm
At 150m, the beam is 1.5m across (the divergence is 1.5mrad). Putting a 1cm^2
target at 150m within a 1.5m beam is not at all hard.

------
mahmud
People who do that are absolute psychopaths.

It's not the same, but I came to know a graffiti "artist" up close and
personal. No, not the clever, cultural-references and political-stencil type,
but the sign-your-name-on-everything fuckwit. Absolute monster! He would look
at the nicest part of town and get physical convulsions, just aching to spray
his name on it (funnily, his real nickname which is also his myspace handle,
in graffiti font) He made absolutely no effort to hide is actions or
intentions.

I bet these people flashing lasers are similar idiots who are bragging about
it to someone. If not in person, then online. The freaks tend to "think aloud"
and can hardly keep it to themselves.

------
wooster
Driving through Gilroy, I had someone light up my car repeatedly from behind
with a high power laser. They must've been in another car, heading in the same
direction. So, it's not just pilots.

If they'd done it from the front, or got a lucky reflection off of one of my
mirrors, there could've been a serious accident.

It's a shame that there are so many people out there who can't act
responsibly.

~~~
dkasper
Sounds like there might be a market for installing one way mirrors in people's
car windows.

~~~
cstross
Not going to work. "One way mirrors" aren't -- they're just glass with a
partially reflective metallic coating. Turn back 90% of the incident light and
you've effectively got a window tinted about as much as a pair of mirrorshades
(which isn't going to help with night driving). But the jackasses can just use
a more powerful laser for their potentially-lethal lulz. Up the power tenfold
and they can deliver the same amount of energy to the driver's eye.

The only really appropriate response is to enforce criminal sanctions against
-- people who shine lasers into other peoples' eyes. Assault should cover it;
no need for any new legislation. The issue is detection and enforcement.

------
splat
I wonder if it would be feasible to coat airplane windshields with some sort
of narrow-band filter which would block light at the specific frequencies of
commercial lasers, but let light at other wavelengths pass.

~~~
lutorm
Probably more feasible to make pilots wear goggles when landing. Though the
number of frequencies are increasing, so such goggles may not be easy to make
without making them prohibitively dark.

------
smellyrobot
The article is so poorly written as to be distracting. From the non sequitur
in the first paragraph to "20 times as powerful than what the law allows".
NYT!

------
DanielBMarkham
Talk about mixed feelings.

As a libertarian I'm completely against the idea of some new set of laws about
what I can or can't do with light, for cripes sake.

But as a pilot, and a passenger, hell if we can put up with people attacking
airliners in this way.

We've reached a point where each individual has a lot more power over the rest
of us simply because of technology and population density. For instance, 100
years ago if you lived in a cave up in the mountains I could care less if you
had six tons of dynamite up there with you. Now the kid down the street going
to online laser stores with his mom's VISA card is a bigger threat. Some
random jackass hurts a bunch of people with tech, then we all collectively
punish ourselves in an effort to prevent future random jackasses. It's a
feedback loop that doesn't look so healthy for society.

It's interesting that for many decades scientific doomsayers have been saying
the Earth cannot support the expected population growth due to lack of ability
to grow food, or provide power, or some other problems. But what may actually
be the hard-stop in terms of growth isn't actually providing for the people:
it's having an increasing number of increasingly powerful individuals living
in increasing close proximity to each other. It's as if you found a saloon
full of drunken cowboys in the 1800s, locked the doors, then handed them all
pistols. If they live through that their reward is that you cut off their
dominant hands (to prevent future use of pistols) and then hand out hand-
grenades, if they live through that, you cut off their other hand (to prevent
future use of hand grenades) and then distribute foot-operated laser weapons,
etc. The situation both cannot remain the same and it cannot keep changing the
way it is. Fascinating problem.

------
Havoc
Damn bastards. I heard its very common at the Dubai airport too.

Presumably a couple of frequencies are favoured by these devices, so can't
they kit out the pilots w/ safety goggles for approach? Sure its a band-aid
fix, but its a start.

~~~
rubidium
I'd be surprised if some pilots aren't already doing this.

There are only really 2 or 3 wavelengths right now with commercially available
>100 mW lasers. However, they also happen to span the visible spectrum (red,
blue, green). So you'd need a narrow band filter for each of those wavelengths
so as not to block vision entirely. Narrow band filters get expensive fast.

~~~
sorbus
> Narrow band filters get expensive fast.

Way less expensive than a new airplane, though.

------
psadauskas
Been meaning to get one of these now that they're only a few hundred dollars.
Guess I'll have to do it soon before they're banned...

------
d2viant
I hear about this happening all the time, but what amazes me is that people
actually get caught. Days and weeks after the incident. If you're thousands of
feet in the air, sure you can get a generally vicinity of where it's coming
from on the ground...but how then do authorities actually track it down?
Presumably the person is long gone...

------
Dinoguy1000
This was covered years ago in an episode of CSI: Miami, believe it or not (I
don't remember too much else of the plot, though - something about an
exploding manila envelope, IIRC).

------
snes
I think what we need is some stylish safety glasses for every day use.

Yesterday some workers were grinding some metal in a busy street. I was just
waiting for the shrapnel.

And the ever lasting threat of old ladies with umbrellas with steel rods just
in eyes range, got one on my nose some time ago and keeping waaay clear after
that.

