Flash a flashlight in your eye for 3 seconds, then look at the sun for 3 seconds and youll see what Im taking about when I say, there's a difference in regards to"hot light".
...or the more accurate analogy would be look at a flashlight for 3 seconds then at the sun for 1/2000th of a second, because that is the equivalent exposure of a flash firing except of course it is hundreds of times less intense than the sun. If a flash did actually fire for a full three seconds you could argue there is a (low) potential for damage, but even then it is hundreds (thousands?) of times less intense than the sun.
how do you create a laser with a flash? ...You shoot the ray of sun either through a magnifying glass or a crystal ball. Isn't that similar to a lens or the shape of an eyeball? how do you know you're not shooting a f****** Lazer straight into the brain.?
If the lens of the eye focused light on the retina with that kind of intensity just opening your eyes outside would immediately burn a hole in your retina. Ridiculous analogy...once again.
Then add a reflective additional layer to your eyeballs that ricochets from the back of the eyeball to the front of the eyeball bouncing around like a pinball until your eyeballs turn an illuminated color because the layer is designed to take in twice as much light to enhance your night vision ability.
That reflective structure you are talking about is called the tapetum lucidum. It is found in many vertebrates except it is absent in all herps
except for the crocodilians.
you guys won't know this until 30 years from now but it's cool do what you want.
Wait? Are you saying it is something I won't know until I'm well into my 80s?
I think it's obviously a matter of opinion, so on that thought alone there's no reason to be going after the one person that responded on this post with a solution and an answer to the question that the post is asking to begin with.
No one was "going after" Jaxi, just pointing out that Jaxi's fears were unfounded and based on urban legend.
I see you guys frantically trying to relieve your own guilt, i get it,
Uhh, well....how to put this nicely? If one thing has been made eminently clear on this thread....., you don't get it.
I'm the type of guy that believes in telling a squirrel with my mind to hurry up and get out of the road so I don't run it over when I see it up ahead. now I honestly do not want to run over that squirrel. In my heart I would really get hurt if I run it over. doesn't matter how many dead ones I see get run over by other cars or just laying flat on the road. Im always thinking my head " run to the left, or go back to the sidewalk" or, " hurry up keep going"... And it blows my mind how much they always listen. I know that sounds crazy to some people but once you give it a try without just trying to prove me wrong. you'll find that little squirrel somehow knows what you're thinking and you can actually help his frantic thought process in Saving his little ass from getting smashed.
Wow. I didn't know we were dealing with a real life squirrel whisperer!
no you can't change my mind about that because I've been doing it for years and it's a proven fact.
It's a proven fact that we can't change your mind? It has been well established that even in the face of well documented evidence that runs contrary to your pre-existing opinion, you won't change your mind. For once we agree!
back when smoking was not considered to be a health risk, there were still people had enough common sense not to do it. so if any of you guys smoke cigarettes that's already such a lack of concern for your own well-being that you have no position or right to even speak on the matter of a frogs wellbeing. So, if youre a smoker under 40 yrs old, your not qualified to debate in this matter.
I'm not sure how old you are dude, but I quite smoking in 1993. I started sometime in the mid 70s and even then we knew damn well it was a health risk. I wasn't alive in the mid 50's when it wasn't considered a health risk.
that's why there is an already know and controversy on the issue like the woman stated above in her quote from a professional ecologist standpoint.
The reason there is controversy on the issue is that there is a lack of scientific understanding of the principles involved. A professional ecologist is hardly an expert on rhodopsin bleaching, photoreceptors, energy absorption by photoreceptors, thresholds for damage to such receptors, light intensity and duration of electronic flash etc.. I know this because I went to undergrad and grad school with a lot of people who are now professional ecologists and they don't know that stuff any more than they understand modern quantum mechanics. They aren't supposed to know because it isn't their field of expertise or training.
Yet the credible people who do have this experience have published information on this issue that disputes your position. These are physicists and opthamologists with expertise in the field.
You sound like one of the climate change deniers. "I don't want it to be true so it can't be, in spite of the evidence."
it won't be until they discover that iTs causing a problem in humans, that we'll realize about the frog Effects. but then again little babies be getting eye cancer yo... we are already on course.And the possibility could be from sticking your iPhone right in your baby's face as soon as it's born
Well, let's see. Flash photography has been around for a little under 200 years, but probably only been widely practiced by the public for the last 50 or so. So it is safe to assume that hundreds of millions of flash photographs have been taken in the intervening time, particularly of babies. And in spite of this constant bombardment of human and animal eyes with these artificial flash units, there hasn't ever been a single documented case of retinal damage that anyone can find. How much data do you need?
My mother alone has taken hundreds of flash photographs of her stupid cat over the last 15 years and hundreds of photos of the cat before him for 20 years. Yet neither of those cats have ever had eye issues.
Professional models get flashed in the eye hundreds of times per day for decades and I've never seen a retired model with a white cane. Again, how much data do you need?
also comma I do have to point this out... Using articles written by people who are photographing lemurs in trees 30 feet away is not the same as sticking the flash 5 inches in front of the face and like I was saying before, when people come up with a safety guideline stuff for photographing animals, they are not thinking of Little Frogs 5 inches away from the Flash... theyre thinking of an owl sitting up in a tree or a raccoon down by the creek that won't let you get near it.
Actually, they are probably thinking about a group of kids sitting on the couch ten feet away. And don't forget, modern flash units use TTL exposure so they turn down the power when the subject is close. So when you are 5 inches away, the flash may only fire with 10% of its power.
not catching a frog corralling it in front of you with your hands and sticking a sun powered explosion laser into the extra sensory protection layer in its eyeball to help it absorb light twice as much as a non nocturnal animal and sending that message straight to their little brain.
Hyperbole doesn't strengthen your argument, and frogs don't have that "extra sensory protection layer".
And you can't overload the input on a nerve. They achieve threshold and they fire. Really strong signals might make more neurons fire or make then fire more rapidly, but it doesn't destroy anything in the nerve or the brain. That's not how neural transmission works.
and the article you posted for evidence by the eye doctor or whoever he was... He stated that he has been doing and will photography for like 30 years so of course he's going to back up his actions for the last 30 years. no I doctor wants to say I spent 30 years blowing out their eyeballs and brains of frogs.. Not That's not very professional. And since there's no way to prove it he doesn't even know he's just guessing like all of us.
Your right. Why would I believe the professional opinions of a Medical Opthamologist and a Veterinary Opthamologist when we have your expertise to rely on? There is a difference between your type of guess and that of an expert.
we are all entitled to an opinion...
Exactly, and it is important to understand the difference between an opinion based on "kind of how you feel it probably is" and an opinion backed up by data.