Light at the end of the tunnel?

In its search for new nonlethal weapons, the U.S. Air Force has been examining two hand-held devices that emit a strobe-like beam of light - one red, the other green - designed to disorient but not injure an attacker. The two technologies are fighting it out to see which one can gain the favor of law enforcement, the military, corrections officials, and others. But it turns out that there may be room in the "ring" for both flashlight-like products.

In the green corner, weighing in at five pounds and expected to become available in the third quarter of 1999, is the Laser Dazzler, manufactured by LE Systems, Inc., Glastonbury, Connecticut. in the red corner, weighing a bit less than three pounds and available since early November 1998, is the Laser Dissuader, by Science and Engineering Associates, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

At the request of the departments of Defense and Justice, the Air Force tested both technologies to see whether either was worth examining further as potential tools. The tests showed that both products could serve the needs of law enforcement and the military. But each technology has its pluses and minuses.

Green light produces more glare and flash effect than red - and thus is much more disorienting - because green light is brighter than red light, explains Captain Bill Cooly of the Air Force's Phillips Laboratory, who conducted some of the tests. But, he notes, green photons are more susceptible to temperature and environmental changes.

Red may have a more powerful psychological effect than green, acknowledges Cooly, who has heard that argument from proponents of the red technology. It is also less expensive. The green technology costs twice as much as red, though Dick Nelson. a senior engineer at LE Systems, says the company is trying to get the Dazzler's price below $1,000.

The government's interest in each product steins not only from its potential as a weapon of disorientation, but also as a tool for tasks such as illuminating someone from a distance and signaling that he or she has been spotted, as at a border crossing (the distance at which the devices are effective varies by factors such as atmospheric conditions and brightness). The products might ultimately have uses for private security, including as a light source that would disorient robbers in a convenience store without disrupting a CCTV camera's view, as a riot control tool, and even as a way to identify latent fingerprints.

Jim Ball of the Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization, which is also interested in the technology, notes that concerns about eye safety have arisen. But he points out that the lasers are made to meet safety requirements specified by ANSI.

One of the lingering concerns, however, is that damage could occur if someone looks at the light through binoculars or a telescope, both of which magnify the light's effects. And Cooly recognizes the potential liability created by the technology. "We know the lawsuits are going to come," he says. "Our job is to articulate clearly enough and have the data to back up what we are doing so that a judge and jury can see that what we are doing is right."

Did You Know

* In FY 1998, the most commonly cited OSHA violation was failure to provide a written hazard communication program.

* According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 67 percent of survey respondents believe fraud is worse now than five years ago, and 75 percent believe that management doesn't allow adequate resources to detect and deter fraud.

* Frost & Sullivan reports that the radio frequency identification market will grow at an annual rate of more than 30 percent through 2004.

* The Coupon Information Corporation (CIC) reports that convicted coupon fraudsters owe the average member manufacturer $200,000.