<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Laser Pointers and Eye Damage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://drkisling.com/2009/07/02/laser-pointers-eye-damage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://drkisling.com/2009/07/02/laser-pointers-eye-damage/</link>
	<description>Breaking News- Eye Treatments,Contact Lenses, Dry Eyes, Glaucoma, LASIK Vision Surgery,Eye Supplements, Pinkeye,Eyecare and Eyeglasses</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:47:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://drkisling.com/2009/07/02/laser-pointers-eye-damage/comment-page-1/#comment-3042</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:44:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drkisling.com/?p=544#comment-3042</guid>
		<description>Hi Jon, 

There are no known damaging effects on the eye from the lasers used in checkout scanners. These are classified as type 2 lasers and typically require over 1000 seconds of uninterrupted exposure to the same spot on the eye to cause any damage. Two things prevent this level of exposure:
    1. There is a normal aversion reflex after 1/4 second of viewing any object
    2. These are scanning lasers and are constantly moving 

There are two types of radiation:
    1. Ionizing as found in x-rays and microwaves. These have enough energy to disrupt electrons from atoms and cause cumulative damage that adds up with each exposure
    2. Non ionizing radiation. This the type that the infrared light in the bar-code scanners could potentially cause. Non ionizing radiation creates damage with intense enough exposure but is considered to be related only to each incident and not cumulative from exposure below damaging levels.

All of the above aside, it is just plain stupid to aim the things at people. Even visible light we are exposed to on a daily basis outside probably has some damaging effects that are cumulative over the course of a lifetime. These are small effects and walking by a road is much, much worse for your health. I would still try to get everyone on board with using them in a more cautious manner. As a consumer I don&#039;t like getting a bar code flash in my eyes, and that is bad business for a lot of folks. 

Best Wishes</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jon, </p>
<p>There are no known damaging effects on the eye from the lasers used in checkout scanners. These are classified as type 2 lasers and typically require over 1000 seconds of uninterrupted exposure to the same spot on the eye to cause any damage. Two things prevent this level of exposure:<br />
    1. There is a normal aversion reflex after 1/4 second of viewing any object<br />
    2. These are scanning lasers and are constantly moving </p>
<p>There are two types of radiation:<br />
    1. Ionizing as found in x-rays and microwaves. These have enough energy to disrupt electrons from atoms and cause cumulative damage that adds up with each exposure<br />
    2. Non ionizing radiation. This the type that the infrared light in the bar-code scanners could potentially cause. Non ionizing radiation creates damage with intense enough exposure but is considered to be related only to each incident and not cumulative from exposure below damaging levels.</p>
<p>All of the above aside, it is just plain stupid to aim the things at people. Even visible light we are exposed to on a daily basis outside probably has some damaging effects that are cumulative over the course of a lifetime. These are small effects and walking by a road is much, much worse for your health. I would still try to get everyone on board with using them in a more cautious manner. As a consumer I don&#8217;t like getting a bar code flash in my eyes, and that is bad business for a lot of folks. </p>
<p>Best Wishes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jon pierce</title>
		<link>http://drkisling.com/2009/07/02/laser-pointers-eye-damage/comment-page-1/#comment-2798</link>
		<dc:creator>jon pierce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drkisling.com/?p=544#comment-2798</guid>
		<description>As a checkout cashier working with lasers I&#039;m concerned about the long term affect from the lazers at work. We use scanning beds on counters and hand guns to scan merchandise. My concern is about long term exposure from the lazers over a period of five years or more years.
 I began to be concerned when I saw the teenager cashiers pointing the lazer gun at their friends or a customer and zapping them as a form of horse play. Also I began to notice alot of cashiers lay the hand guns on it&#039;s side aimed towards another cashier. Then they use the bed scanner it causes the hand gun to flash in the direction of the other cashier. There have been times this happened to me. I felt nausea and got a headache immediately after the beam aimed at me, flashed at me. I moved to a different register out of the line of the flashing hand gun and the heachade went away. I&#039;ve told management the lazer gives me a headache and that is why I moved to another area.
We have alot of cashiers and high volume sales, every day. Management does not train us at all on using the hand held gun or the counter flat bed lazer. They never instructed any cashiers not to point the guns at customers or assocoiates. Nor do they instruct cashiers to set the guns on the counter with the beam  facing the counter rather than facing customers/fellow associates. I noticed some retail stores have a cradle for the gun to be placed. Our gun can be moved across the counter because it has a long cord.  This is to scann large merchandise to big to be put on the counter. Our store has a long cord but no cradle, and no training.
Because this is a new possible health hazard in the work place no one has medical data to give a diagnosis which would set regulations in place. I am very concerned because it seems employers are not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a checkout cashier working with lasers I&#8217;m concerned about the long term affect from the lazers at work. We use scanning beds on counters and hand guns to scan merchandise. My concern is about long term exposure from the lazers over a period of five years or more years.<br />
 I began to be concerned when I saw the teenager cashiers pointing the lazer gun at their friends or a customer and zapping them as a form of horse play. Also I began to notice alot of cashiers lay the hand guns on it&#8217;s side aimed towards another cashier. Then they use the bed scanner it causes the hand gun to flash in the direction of the other cashier. There have been times this happened to me. I felt nausea and got a headache immediately after the beam aimed at me, flashed at me. I moved to a different register out of the line of the flashing hand gun and the heachade went away. I&#8217;ve told management the lazer gives me a headache and that is why I moved to another area.<br />
We have alot of cashiers and high volume sales, every day. Management does not train us at all on using the hand held gun or the counter flat bed lazer. They never instructed any cashiers not to point the guns at customers or assocoiates. Nor do they instruct cashiers to set the guns on the counter with the beam  facing the counter rather than facing customers/fellow associates. I noticed some retail stores have a cradle for the gun to be placed. Our gun can be moved across the counter because it has a long cord.  This is to scann large merchandise to big to be put on the counter. Our store has a long cord but no cradle, and no training.<br />
Because this is a new possible health hazard in the work place no one has medical data to give a diagnosis which would set regulations in place. I am very concerned because it seems employers are not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

