or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › News - "3D glasses could cause cancer"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

News - "3D glasses could cause cancer"

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
Just the messenger, folks ...

----
3D glasses could cause cancer

Juan Pablo Conti ©RapidTVNews | 06-10-2011

The video entertainment industry should do more to alert viewers about irreversible eye damage that could result from the use of 3D glasses.

The astonishing warning was launched by Doctor Tomás Vargas MartÃ*nez, president of the Institute Against Glaucoma Blindness (INCOCEGLA), a medical institution from the Dominican Republic.

Speaking this weekend during an event organised as part of the fifteenth anniversary celebrations of INCOCEGLA's foundation, its president said he was particularly concerned about the potentially harmful effects of active 3D glasses.

Unlike passive, polarised 3D glasses used by cinemas and some TV systems, active glasses are one of the technologies that 3D TV vendors have been pushing to trick the human brain into thinking that the stereoscopic images displayed by a 2D screen actually depict a third dimension.

Active shutter glasses work by alternately opening and shutting two LCD lenses, so that left and right eyes are shown different images. Early models featured a wired connection, from which the glasses would obtain both their electrical power (needed to operate the shutter) and the signal required to synchronise the lenses with the display.

The alleged health hazard to human vision that the Dominican ophthalmologist is warning about arises from the introduction of the latest generation of active 3D glasses. These devices receive the sync signal wirelessly through an infrared (IR) beam transmitted by either the TV frame or a standalone unit located near it. They are also battery-powered to control the shutter mechanism.

According to Doctor Vargas, there are studies that prove that IR beams can alter both human eye and skin tissue. "These waves might be invisible to humans," said the expert. "But they are present in the user's glasses near the eye and Â- at this stage Â- we can't determine the degree of damage to the conjunctiva, the eyelid skin, the crystalline lens and the retina, with the potential risks being [the occurrence of] degenerative diseases such as skin cancer and tumours of the cornea."

While the warning should of course be taken seriously, the analysis does seem to originate from a conceptual mistake regarding the way that active 3D glasses operate.

Dominican media which covered the presentation quoted the INCOCEGLA president as saying that these devices use "batteries which emit infrared radiation towards the LCD lens inside the active glasses".

As explained above, the IR beams in question (which, by the way, are similar to those of a TV remote or a garage door opener), are not emitted by the 3D glasses, while the batteries inside these devices are there for a different reason.

The IR beams do travel directly in the direction of the eye, however. But could these rays be dangerous to the point that they could inflict the kind of cellular eye damage that Doctor Vargas is warning about?

Let the debate commence.
post #2 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by umenon View Post

Just the messenger, folks ...

----
3D glasses could cause cancer

Juan Pablo Conti ©RapidTVNews | 06-10-2011

The video entertainment industry should do more to alert viewers about irreversible eye damage that could result from the use of 3D glasses.

The astonishing warning was launched by Doctor Tomás Vargas MartÃ*nez, president of the Institute Against Glaucoma Blindness (INCOCEGLA), a medical institution from the Dominican Republic.

Speaking this weekend during an event organised as part of the fifteenth anniversary celebrations of INCOCEGLA's foundation, its president said he was particularly concerned about the potentially harmful effects of active 3D glasses.

Unlike passive, polarised 3D glasses used by cinemas and some TV systems, active glasses are one of the technologies that 3D TV vendors have been pushing to trick the human brain into thinking that the stereoscopic images displayed by a 2D screen actually depict a third dimension.1

Active shutter glasses work by alternately opening and shutting two LCD lenses, so that left and right eyes are shown different images. Early models featured a wired connection, from which the glasses would obtain both their electrical power (needed to operate the shutter) and the signal required to synchronise the lenses with the display.

The alleged health hazard to human vision that the Dominican ophthalmologist is warning about arises from the introduction of the latest generation of active 3D glasses. These devices receive the sync signal wirelessly through an infrared (IR) beam transmitted by either the TV frame or a standalone unit located near it. They are also battery-powered to control the shutter mechanism.

According to Doctor Vargas, there are studies that prove that IR beams can alter both human eye and skin tissue. "These waves might be invisible to humans," said the expert. "But they are present in the user's glasses near the eye and – at this stage – we can't determine the degree of damage to the conjunctiva, the eyelid skin, the crystalline lens and the retina, with the potential risks being [the occurrence of] degenerative diseases such as skin cancer and tumours of the cornea."2

While the warning should of course be taken seriously, the analysis does seem to originate from a conceptual mistake regarding the way that active 3D glasses operate.

Dominican media which covered the presentation quoted the INCOCEGLA president as saying that these devices use "batteries which emit infrared radiation towards the LCD lens inside the active glasses".

As explained above, the IR beams in question (which, by the way, are similar to those of a TV remote or a garage door opener), are not emitted by the 3D glasses, while the batteries inside these devices are there for a different reason.

The IR beams do travel directly in the direction of the eye, however. But could these rays be dangerous to the point that they could inflict the kind of cellular eye damage that Doctor Vargas is warning about?

Let the debate commence.

Faulty statements footnoted and in bold.

1. Both active and passive work identically in this regard (fooling the brain into perceiving depth).
2. As stated, the ir transmission is in the emitter, not the glasses.

Additionally, some active glasses don't use ir at all; mine are rf, and the new Samsungs are bluetooth. Not to mention that greater-magnitude sources of greater ir are prevalent in most home theater systems (remote controls, plasma displays, etc.).
post #3 of 23
Yeah,


Mine are RF not IR.

This article proves some Dr's don't like 3D.

Being alive in general can lead to Cancer... this much is true.

-Brian
post #4 of 23
So can....

Cell Phones, Cigarettes, Sunlight, Changing your vehicle Brakes, Alcohol, Poor Diet, Viruses, Bacteria, Hormones, Red Meat, Teeth Whitener, Moisturisers, Talcum Powder, Pringles, Mouthwash, Hair Dye, Soup, Red Dye in Sausage and Burgers, Vitamin E, Airport Scanners, Aspirin, Bacon, Peanut Butter, Tea, Growing Old, and hundreds of other things (claimed by one expert or another).

Reference:
https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=269512464297
(Daily list of "Things that cause cancer") with Sources.
post #5 of 23
Just great, all this time I thought the only issue was a kitten died everytime I see a movie in 3D. Now I have to also worry about cancer too?

Swell
post #6 of 23
The man is claiming that ir emitters can cause cancer. While I'd be the last to believe that my government is keeping me safe, is there anyone here ready to believe we have ir emitters in our homes blasting dangerous radiation into our eyes?

If so, we have padded rooms where you can be very safe.
post #7 of 23
Thank you for wasting my time...
post #8 of 23
Pure speculation - with zero basis. Does this doctor have any large study to prove his allegation ?
post #9 of 23
This is funny! The sun itself emits IR wave lengths much stronger than an IR emitter.
post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronomy View Post

This is funny! The sun itself emits IR wave lengths much stronger than an IR emitter.

Why just Sun - all hot bodies emit IR. Including a fireplace (and humans) - better not sit near a fireplace.
post #11 of 23
Quote:


An important distinction that affects the health risks from radiation is whether the energy is ionizing or non-ionizing.

Ionizing radiation is high-frequency radiation that has enough energy to remove an electron from (ionize) an atom or molecule. Ionizing radiation has enough energy to damage the DNA in cells, which in turn may lead to cancer. Gamma rays, x-rays, some high-energy UV rays, and some sub-atomic particles such as alpha particles and protons are forms of ionizing radiation.

Non-ionizing radiation is low-frequency radiation that does not have enough energy to remove electrons or directly damage DNA. Low-energy UV rays, visible light, infrared rays, microwaves, and radio waves are all forms of non-ionizing radiation. Aside from UV rays, these types of radiation are not known to increase cancer risk.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerC...ure-and-cancer
post #12 of 23
You 3D geeks are in denial. If you can't trust a Dominican doctor...who can you trust?
post #13 of 23
Quote:

Good link, Lee! End of discussion, right there.
post #14 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dropkick Murphy View Post

You 3D geeks are in denial. If you can't trust a Dominican doctor...who can you trust?

I know you are joking - but here is a link for anyone really interested.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

Search for original research and understand exactly what the risks are, how large the study was, how well were the controls etc. Popular press (and apparently some doctors) are a poor source of information. They are just into sensationalism.
post #15 of 23
Is there anything that we know for SURE doesn't cause cancer?
post #16 of 23
Kryptonite
post #17 of 23
I've read some pretty stupid articles by MD's. You'd think to become an MD they would require a class in science.

One of the funniest ones I read was an article about Alzheimer's Dementia. An MD concluded that the disease is a direct result of living long enough to acquire it. He actually stated that old age is hazardous to your mental health.

In regards to active shutter glasses, I do believe that many people suffer from eye fatigue and headaches as a result of active shuttering for long periods of time. Some may even suffer various forms of epilepsy and seizures with active shuttering of the eye. But this would fall into an individual tolerance level testing. People should test whether they are prone to these issues before buying an active shutter system 3D TV.
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by evnow View Post

Why just Sun - all hot bodies emit IR. Including a fireplace (and humans) - better not sit near a fireplace.

Or go to strip bars. And all along I thought the fatigue I got in my eyes from sitting too close to the pole dancers was from the guy's cigarette sitting next to me.
post #19 of 23
By using 3d glasses the IR beams do travel directly in the direction of the eye, however. But could these rays be dangerous to the point that they could inflict the kind of cellular eye damage but not a cancer.

3d technology solutions tx
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahpaul View Post

By using 3d glasses the IR beams do travel directly in the direction of the eye, however. But could these rays be dangerous to the point that they could inflict the kind of cellular eye damage but not a cancer.

3d technology solutions tx

No. See my post with link above. IR is really nothing more then heat and the concentration is so low as to cause none at all. Just aim your remote at your hand and hold down a button, feel any heat? Plus you have the glasses in front of your eyes that will act as a partial shield.
post #21 of 23
Yet another plus for DLP and DLP-link. No crosstalk, no cancer!
post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by evnow View Post

Why just Sun - all hot bodies emit IR. Including a fireplace (and humans) - better not sit near a fireplace.

or my mother in-law.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahpaul View Post

By using 3d glasses the IR beams do travel directly in the direction of the eye, however.

Do you know how much IR you get by going out in the Sun ?

Another thing to keep in mind is IR actually has less energy than visible light. So they would cause less damage than normal visible light !

BTW, skin cancer is from UV not IR. That is why all the sun-screens block UV.

Bottomline - that weird doctor has no idea what he is talking about. The title needs to be changed - this is not "news" - it is speculation by one single doctor in some country not known for a great deal of medical research. The title is very misleading - we have enough myths about 3D already. Don't need anymore.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › News - "3D glasses could cause cancer"