fpc3

Wow!! Those lamps must be extremely bright. I sincerely hope you guys treat them with respect and do not look into them directly. I just emailed the eye safety article to the guy representing the manufacturer of the baby monitoring video system. We shall see if he has comments. I wish he would open up a bit. The fact that he is keeping his cards so close to his vest concerns me. It is hard to believe that they just gave this issue no thought whatsoever to begin with. It does seem, however, that he is not providing information intentionally. - Maybe an attitude of Don't Rock the Boat. Perhaps we will hear more "real world" examples, such as yours, of what people have experienced in this regard. Frank

Thanks for the link to Extreme rory. I just read it and find it very close to the point. Like any test, it has to make a lot of assumptions, but, in my uneducated opinion, the assumptions seem reasonable. The conclusion of the tests conducted are as follows: 1. There is no infrared hazard to the cornea or crystalline lens at any reasonable exposure distance. 2. There is no risk of retinal injury 3. The infrared radiant exposure and time of exposure for the worst case scenario fall below the recommended threshold limiting values; there is no risk of thermal injury to the cornea, or of possible delayed effects to the ocular lens, or to the retina. This appears to be good news.

I just received a second reply from the manufacturer: "I do not have any documentation on the computer that I can send you. The Vice President of the quality dept informed on this behalf. I do apologize. Thanks," Wouldn't one think that this is serious enough to at least have some sort of documentation to show that some sort of testing has occurred? --> That assumes, of course, that some sort of research was conducted prior to the manufacture and sale of the products. Collin - Good point regarding exposure to IR light everyday even though your pupil is quite small, IR light does get in. That makes me think that the amount of IR light you are exposed to daily would exceed the amount of IR light you would "see" from a low power LED. You mentioned seeing spots when you work with IR light a lot... These are spots that do not heal? And they come about from dealing with some sort of high power IR light source? Thanks, Frank

thanks for all your comments and replys. Infrared LEDs are typically either 850 nm or 920 nm. The 850's emit a very (very) faint red glow - not enough to affect the pupil - the pupil stays completely open. The 920's are totally invisible and, again, do not affect the pupil. The power of the strongest LED I have seen is 5 watts. But the ones used for lighting in the cameras in question are more like 25 to 50 mW... .025 watts. They are at room temperature to the touch. But some of the cameras use 30 of those. Some use 6. So, I think the power is quite low. But the distance to the face is pretty short. The dispersion angles of LEDs range from 10 degrees to 40 ... 20 is pretty typical. The IR "blocker" filter is removed from the little cameras to allow the IR image to strike the cmos or CCD sensor. UV light is on the opposite end of the visible light spectrum, so there would be no UV light emitted from an IR LED. But I do think that a part of this stigma is that we have always been told not to look at UV light because it can damage our eyes. And the laser light is back into the visible spectrum so that is not tied to IR. Hadn't thought about and don't know about coals -- I would think the spectrum emitted from them is nowhere near the 900 nm range. It would be more into the thermo spectrum... (?) Are cautions stated for the use of IR halogen light? From what you are saying, IR halogen light is much more intense than an LED. I would think that someone who gave little credence to or didn't appreciate the danger of the heat and brightness of a halogen lamp, could use one for a pet's or baby's sleep area (??) -- A whole new, but related area for concern. I imagine they run on 110vac, so they would be easier to deal with than an LED. Is the IR light emitted from a halogen light visible? Thanks again for the help with this issue. While I would like to take full advantage of technology, I do not want to risk damage to a person or pet. Frank

I agree with erring on the side of caution. I am just surprised that there isn't more definitive evidence to support the issue either way. The only concrete information we have so far is that many companies are willing to sell products that indeed shine Infrared light into eyes of babies, pets, and others. I don't know that I have read any note of caution regarding the pointing of remotes into ones eyes. And further, it seems that the companies are not being badgered by legal proceedings. That would tend to indicate that the public has not addressed the issue formally, which would further indicate that no damage to eyes has been tied to infrared light exposure - at least not that we know about. The search for knowledge continues... Frank

Thank you for the reply. Since I sent the previous post, I received the following from a Customer Care Rep from one of the video baby monitor manufacturers: "The infrared lighting for the monitor is not harmful to the baby’s eyes. They have been tested for the safety of the babies. You should have nothing to worry about. Thanks, Robert ..... [last name removed] Customer Care Representative" I had asked for some sort of varifiable link to address my concerns. I don't know that his response has made me feel any better. However, I would imagine that the video monitor manufacturers have documented evidence that no damage is caused by infrared lighting... (maybe??) Frank

I am concerned with the number of video baby monitors being sold with infrared lighting... It seems all of them have IR LEDs. When you state that "intense" IR light can be damaging, would several LEDs emitting IR be considered intense? And can you provide a link to the source of your statement regarding your IR lighting concerns? Can it be said that a "limited" amount of IR light is safe to a baby's or to a pet's eyes? The "limited" amount would have to be an amount sufficient to provide adequate lighting for one of the cheap 1/4" CMOS devices. Thank you, Frank