A Worst Case Analysis of Continuous Wave He-Ne Laser Hazards to the Eye. II: Erratum.
This error in Eq. (1) does not alter Eq. (2). However, the expansion of Eq. (1) in the Appendix (p. 1974) which yields Eq. (2) should include the term —21, as shown in the correct version of Eq. (1) above. Correcting Eq. (1) changes some of the numerical results. On page 1974, column 2, line 8, "50 μW" should read "70 μW," and on page 1974, column 2, line 11, "100 μW" should read "180 μW." These corrected values should appear as such in the abstract.