2

I accidentally pressed a button on the remote control while it was pointing towards my eyes. Could that cause any problems?

iwsnmw
  • 121
  • 2
  • 4

3 Answers3

1

No. The infrared light is not intense enough. If it was, the controller would be labeled with a warning sticker.

I've been criticized for giving a short argument. But it was a choice between recommending a method to measure the IR intensity or giving a credible argument from a design perspective.

There are just logical barriers that make a dangerous intensity highly improbable; legislation and power efficiency are in 99.99% the prime reasons why it should be safe.

jiggunjer
  • 492
  • 2
  • 11
  • While I agree with the "No", that seems like a strange argument. For one thing, we don't even know whether the OP is in a country that would issue these warnings. Again, I agree with the conclusion, but "there's no warning on it" isn't a good explanation... – YviDe Mar 14 '16 at 22:44
  • -1 for the lazy answer. I also agree the answer is no but it should be trivial to find a better justification. – Carey Gregory Mar 15 '16 at 01:12
  • @CareyGregory updated. – jiggunjer Mar 15 '16 at 01:15
  • @YviDe Feel free to suggest how OP can measure his remote control light. But in my opinion some things should just be written down to common knowledge. – jiggunjer Mar 15 '16 at 01:16
  • I wouldn't expect you to suggest measuring the device, but I would expect there are standards published on IR device safety. You can bet the manufacturers of those products know exactly what those standards are. – Carey Gregory Mar 15 '16 at 01:22
  • @CareyGregory that makes an assumption on legislation, just like I did. You say there should be standards. I say there should be too, they include stickers. – jiggunjer Mar 15 '16 at 01:22
  • Following JohnP's link in the comments, there is this: http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ask_astronomer/faq/radiation.shtml – Carey Gregory Mar 15 '16 at 01:24
  • Health standards are themselves misleading, because they'll have build in safety margins that in many cases are huge. While that would strengthen the argument made in this answer, saying that something is safe because the intensity is below the health limit of X suggests that X is not safe, while it may well be that 20 times X has shown to be possibly not safe in some experiments that may well be controversial, the scientific consensus may be that 250 times X is capable of causing damage. – Count Iblis Mar 15 '16 at 16:58
  • How about some reliable references, which are strongly encouraged here? – Lucky Mar 16 '16 at 13:41
  • @Lucky the Google keyphrase is "consumer IR". Feel free to edit. While I think research and medical related references are important, I feel safety standards are easily found online. I can't cover global legislation. Unless I'm really bored ;) – jiggunjer Mar 16 '16 at 14:35
1

Even looking directly into a 1 mW infrared laser beam would be safe. This article reports about the results of an experiment where volunteers looked into an infrared laser beam. They were able to perceived the infrared light as if they were looking at light with half the wavelength. This is caused by single photoreceptors absorbing two infrared photons at once, which then leads to the same result as when it would absorb a single photon with half the wavelength. Needless to say, the required intensity of the infrared light needed for this (safe to perform) experiment is massively larger than the infrared light emitted by your remote control.

Count Iblis
  • 2,270
  • 8
  • 11
0

Infrared light is invisible and in remotes it is not as intense the sun's rays or welding, so there is no immediate danger. Over exposure (long period) to intense Infrared penetrates inside the eye and damages the retina and can cause cataracts (an opaque retina).

user8890
  • 1
  • 1
    Welcome to health SE :-). Since health is an important topic, it is required that all answers are supported by references. For more information on site policies, please take our [tour] and visit the [help] and [meta]. Thanks! – Lucky Apr 13 '17 at 14:57