Blu-ray Lasers and Cancer

Hello,
I am doing a build using an HD-DVD player diode, using this set of instructions: I-Hacked.com Taking Advantage Of Technology - Building a High-Power Blu-Ray Laser
Admittedly, I am new to this. I was wondering if the risk for any type of cancer is high with the laser I'm building. I don't plan on shining it at my skin, so take into account only the diffuse reflection and possible accidental direct exposure from trying to focus the beam. I believe the wavelength on these is at minimum 405nm, but usually higher. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also around 100mw power, correct me if I'm wrong. I am using a Dr. Lava flexdrive set to 115mA if that makes a difference.
I've done some research and different sources seem to be nonconcurrent. Looking for the opinion of the experienced laser community.

Thanks in advance for your help!

I'd have to say the small amount of ultraviolet reflection you would be getting is essentially immeasurable compared to 5 minutes in the sun.
Like you said, shining the laser right on your skin is a different story. That can be many, MANY times more powerful than exposure to sunlight and so does a lot of immediate damage as well as (I believe) some long term damage to the tissues involved.
Your eyes are another matter. Goggles on AND safe laser practices at all times.
Have fun with the build bro. Happy lasing

The solution lies in the definitions of ionizing versus non-ionizing radiation. Your concern with a 405nm should lie in thermal damage. Thermal damage does not cause cancer as the amount of heat required to damage the DNA in the nucleus has long since denatured the proteins outside of the nucleus resulting in cell death.

Here's some cell death for you!

http://laserpointerforums.com/f48/laser-tatoo-my-6x-46505.html

All the BR diode's I've put on my spectrometer seem to lase at 408nm.

I'm glad you aren't planning anything ridiculous like the bloke in the thread above! Good luck with your project!

FrothyChimp said:

The solution lies in the definitions of ionizing versus non-ionizing radiation. Your concern with a 405nm should lie in thermal damage. Thermal damage does not cause cancer as the amount of heat required to damage the DNA in the nucleus has long since denatured the proteins outside of the nucleus resulting in cell death.

Click to expand...

Thermal damage would be the chief concern, but there really is no hard line between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. You need to define -what- needs to be ionized before you can determine the minimum photon energy required, and there are plenty of substances readily ionized by visible light.

To alter DNA directly you need light with a wavelength of 300 nm or less, which results in dimers in the dna.

But that is not the only mechanism by which uv light can damage dna: It can also result in free radicals, that in their turn can damage dna. In fact, this mechanism accounts for the vast majority of skin cancers in the real world. The common cause is UVA from sunlight, but its not entirely unthinkable that prolongued exposure to near-UV can also contribute.

Some interesting stuff!
Benm, might the diffuse reflection still be a problem?

Thanks everyone. I'm less worried about it now. Sounds pretty safe.

your name......

My name?

Our names are very similar.
BTW where you from?

Oh yes our names are similar. Haha
I'm from Hawaii

ah thanks for this topic. good info to know. now i can burn every friend i know