20

This story in the Daily Mail talks of a case where a newborn baby lost its eyesight due to the camera flash.

Doctors said the three-month-old, who has not been named, has suffered irreparable damage from the flash of the camera, which was held about 10 inches away from the baby boy.

Is this possible, or is it a coincidence?

Bravo
  • 341
  • 2
  • 8
  • 4
    From Photography SE: [Is camera flash actually harmful to infants or newborns?](http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/16411/is-camera-flash-actually-harmful-to-infants-or-newborns) – Philip Kendall Aug 07 '15 at 13:53

1 Answers1

28

Snopes lists it as unproven.

http://m.snopes.com/camera-flash-blind-baby/

The Daily Mail pointed to the unreliable People’s Daily Online as the source of this information, who in turn sourced their story from Guangming Daily, who sourced their reporting from QQ.com, who cited DAHE.com, who got their information from Henan TV. At no point in this game of misinformation telephone did any of these sources provide specific details about the story, such as where the incident occurred, the names of the parents, the identities of the “experts” quoted, or the name of the hospital where the baby was treated.

Furthermore, none of the articles linked above provided any evidence (such as a quote from an ophthalmologist or other knowledgeable medical source) indicating that the baby’s alleged blindness was caused by a camera flash.

In fact, several reputable sources have stated that a camera flash is not harmful to a baby’s eyes. The Orange Regional Medical Center, for instance, encourages new parents to take photographs of their babies in the NICU:

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/is-it-possible-to-blind-a-baby-with-a-camera-125356546417.html

Scary stuff, for sure, but highly unlikely, according to Dr. Alex Levin, chief of pediatric ophthalmology and ocular genetics at Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia. “If this story were true, there would be lots of blind babies out there,” the ophthalmologist tells Yahoo Parenting, calling the events detailed “inconceivable.”

“We operate on young babies and shine a very bright light directly on the most sensitive parts of their eyes for up to 30 minutes at a time, and even that doesn’t cause blindness,” says Levin. “Retinas are made to last, and it’s highly unlikely that this kind of light would cause damage.”

It’s more likely, the doctor surmises, that the infant was already blind in that eye and physicians discovered his condition when they examined him. “To attribute the blindness to the taking of a photograph would be incorrect,” Levin insists. “There’s no way that a camera can cause such damage.” Flashes are diffused light, he explains, “so they’re harmless.”

The same rule applies to flashlights and even super-bright sunlight. Staring directly at the sun, on the other hand, isn’t a good idea as far as protecting your vision, “but babies won’t intentionally fix their gaze on the sun anyway,” he says.

Checking the credentials listed on yahoo news: http://www.willseye.org/doctors/alex-v-levin

Dr. Alex Levin

"Speciality: Pediatric Ophthalmology & Ocular Genetics"

"Director, Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Service"

Murphy
  • 9,486
  • 1
  • 47
  • 45
  • 12
    Granted, it's not the kind of thing people would care to test for empirical evidence just in case the answer turns out to be "Yes, and what would you like to do with the two dozen blind infants from Test Group One?" – Shadur Aug 07 '15 at 11:56
  • 7
    @Shadur: "and how many more babies do you need to figure out what's different between the human infant retina and that of every other mammal we tried it on before doing humans, none of which were blinded?" – Steve Jessop Aug 07 '15 at 15:52
  • 1
    _Flashes are diffused light, he explains, “so they’re harmless"._ Eh hang on that doesn't follow at all – Lightness Races in Orbit Aug 07 '15 at 21:00
  • 4
    "The Daily Mail pointed to the unreliable People’s Daily Online as the source" Because the _Daily Mail_ is sooooo reliable when it's not pointing to the _People's Daily_ as a source... – David Richerby Aug 07 '15 at 22:58
  • 4
    "If this story were true, there would be lots of blind babies out there." But really. Incredible claims require incredible evidence. This is certainly an incredible claim, based on common experience with photography and babies. – Paul Draper Aug 07 '15 at 23:03
  • 3
    These sources are quite bad: snopes has no references and yahoo news is not a reliable source on medical matters. I am amazed about the bad voting here. – Sklivvz Aug 08 '15 at 06:58
  • 2
    @Shadur theoretically you could test just one eye (covering the other one), so they'd be only one-eye blind. Of course it would be insane anyway, just _much less_. – o0'. Aug 08 '15 at 14:32
  • 2
    @Sklivvz But you yourself can verify that `The Daily Mail pointed to the unreliable People’s Daily Online as the source of this information, who in turn sourced their story from Guangming Daily, who sourced their reporting from QQ.com, who cited DAHE.com, who got their information from Henan TV. At no point in this game of misinformation telephone did any of these sources provide specific details about the story, such as where the incident occurred, the names of the parents, the identities of the “experts” quoted, or the name of the hospital where the baby was treated.` – Daniel F Aug 08 '15 at 16:27
  • @Lohoris, or have a flash that is half as bright, so they go only half-blind. – Paul Draper Aug 08 '15 at 18:10
  • @Sklivvz, true, but when there is an assertion with evidence this tenuous, the bar for contradictory evidence is quite low. – Paul Draper Aug 08 '15 at 18:16
  • 1
    @dan Given that the purpose of this site is examining evidence, my expectation is that an answer checks its sources. Also, quoting one newspaper "against" another adds basically nothing. I'd prefer better evidence from a +22 question. – Sklivvz Aug 08 '15 at 18:56
  • @Sklivvz You are correct about the weakness of the evidence, but I believe that the lack of evidence for something, in addition to evidence against it, is not terrible. Do you have a better answer? – Daniel F Aug 08 '15 at 18:59
  • @DanielF on skeptics it is customary *not to answer*, if the evidence is not good. It is also expected that bad evidence gets downvoted, and good evidence upvoted. – Sklivvz Aug 08 '15 at 21:06
  • @Sklivvz After taking a break for a while I see I am wrong. I have removed my upvote. – Daniel F Aug 08 '15 at 21:53
  • @Sklivvz I didn't quote the yahoo news article just because it's an article which disagrees. I quoted it because it contained the opinion of Dr. Alex Levin. The site generally accepts quotes from experts in the field and I can't think of a more suitable person than an expert on "pediatric ophthalmology and ocular genetics" for this claim. There is not and will never be any RCT where they attempt to blind babies so the only evidence that's going to be available in humans is expert opinion. – Murphy Aug 10 '15 at 08:04
  • It is the opinion of an MD, whether it is an expert remains to be verified, by the answerer. Furthermore his argument as presented is logically fallacious (it says that a single baby can't have a problem otherwise many others would) and therefore invalid. Finally, while we do accept this sort of arguments, we do so knowing they are very weak evidence, as they are arguments from authority. The answer should contain a caveat in that regard. – Sklivvz Aug 10 '15 at 08:24
  • @Sklivvz "whether it is an expert remains to be verified" from the linked hospital website http://www.willseye.org/doctors/alex-v-levin "Speciality: Pediatric Ophthalmology & Ocular Genetics" "Director, Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Service" so if he's not an expert then he somehow is listed as such and listed as the director of a paediatric eye related disease service. – Murphy Aug 10 '15 at 08:40
  • @Murphy Please add the comment to your answer, it would make it better :-) – Sklivvz Aug 10 '15 at 08:53
  • Having set off a high powered flash directly in my eye by accident before, it will cause temporary eyesight issues, but doesn't seem likely to cause blindness. That said, the response snopes got from an actual doctor is also only accurate for lower powered flashes and LEDs. A high powered photography flash is brighter than direct sunlight for the instant it is on for at distances up to 12 feet. They are not even remotely similar to the operating lamps that he describes. That said, I still have my doubts about the original claim, even though I have no better alternative sources to back it. – AJ Henderson Aug 12 '15 at 20:21
  • Oh wait, that said, the original article talks about a camera flash, which is not actually a flash at all, but rather just an LED, so the doctor is correct. – AJ Henderson Aug 12 '15 at 20:22