Lasers for more efficient lighting?

[Ttark]

This is incorrect. A high powered laser can burn you themally and is a danger to your vision, but the radiation is not in the spectrum that causes ionization of tissue, which as far as we know is the cancer cause in electromagnetic radiation. Better to take guidance on such subjects from a physics professor

That. I'd be seriously questioning your "professor"'s credentials if he actually believed that, if I were you.

Maybe the tip off that the guy didn't know squat was that he coined the word "cancerogen" instead of the accepted "carcinogen."

My dad coined the term "carcerogen". But then, he also thinks kiosks at the mall are "ky-oshes".

[BuiltforSin]

The light passes through a phosphorous lens which is supposed to be safe for human eyes. Pretty complex system, I wonder just how much more efficient it is than LED.

[southernnaturelover]

The LEDs already feel like they’re burning out my retinas. I can’t imagine what an oncoming laser would be like.

[LesLucid]

Again, no one is seeing laser light. The laser is merely used for excitation of a secondary source. Higher energy (shorter wavelength) light is used to excite material which emits at longer wavelengths. The general principle has been around for ages in, for example, fluorescent light bulbs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp

...”excites mercury vapor, which produces short-wave ultraviolet light that then causes a phosphor coating on the inside of the lamp to glow.”

We are not seeing the potentially damaging UV light actually produced inside the fluorescent bulb, just as we are not seeing the laser light used for excitation in the headlight example.

[rjshae]

Ordinary lasers by themselves are very monochromatic. For direct lighting, they would need to be modified to generate a frequency comb.