OK, I’ll answer briefly on this thread, as I don’t want to hijack what is an excellent topic about altering beam divergence. I suppose if this is something people want to speak about more, then it’s only fair to start a new thread.
The new European legislation comes from the EU Directive 2006/25/EC. And as the numbering scheme suggests, this has been simmering on the back burner since 2006. The full text can be downloaded from:
Physical Agents (Artificial Optical Radiation) Directive 2006/25/EC
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/lexuriserv/...n0038 0059.pdf
As with most of these types of document, it is a good cure for insomnia. ☺
The goal of the legislation is to provide a minimum level of safety to workers where harmful light sources may be used, in a way that is uniform across the EU. It is therefore up to each member state to implement its own set of rules that meet the requirements of the ‘Directive’. In the UK we are set to have this implemented with the new ‘Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010’ which where published for consultation back in November 2009. Other countries will have their own equivalent regulations. And they may already be in force. France and Romania are two countries I know that have already implemented AORD.
You’ll see that the directive not only covers lasers, but also non-coherent light sources. Initially there were concerns how this would impact the theatre and performance industries which use a wide range of high brightness light sources. But the research so far is indicating that the limits are not going to pose any significant problem. And as bright as some of these other sources may ‘appear’, none come close to having the same power densities of even a modest laser beam.
Unfortunately ILDA does not ‘set’ the standard on MPE limits. An ILDA ‘recommendation’ is not an international safety standard. It never was. It was just a recommendation. ILDA has no regulatory authority to issue safety standards, for they are only a trade association. The MPE data is produced by an international scientific organisation called ICNIRP. It is the EU parliament that has decided upon these values as the legally binding limits.
Unfortunately ILDA have been aware of this legislation for a while. I mentioned it to their safety chairman and director following the Russian incident, but received a rather dismissive reply. (hence my quip in my earlier post referring to them as the ‘American’ rather then ‘International’ Laser Display Association)
Patrick Murphy was also here in the UK in September last year, talking about ILDA’s recommendation at a safety meeting where the EU directive was also spoken about in great detail. At the time I did point the potential problem with ILDA recommending to its membership in Europe the x10 MPE issue, and what it could mean it terms of liability. However, I’m sure they have their own plans on how they are going to advise members on staying within the law.
I’m actually not against the x10 MPE proposal itself, if it is used with reliable equipment and well thought out shows (e.g. no slow moving finger beams from multi-Watt lasers at close quarters). But my point was that people need to be a bit careful about how they approach this if they are not to be seen as irradiating people in excess of the new workplace exposure limits.
Sorry it turned out to not be so brief a response.