1.2 watts over your entire head is fine.
1.2 watts in a 800nm-diameter cylindrical path is "for some reason we decided to make the outer few millimetres of your skin explode, but we had to be in contact with your skin to manage that because that power density of laser would have ionised the air before it reached you".
Technically it is possible to focus on things a bit smaller than a wavelength, but not by much and some of the options don't even work far from the lens itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system#The...
So it looks like it packs some... Power. But I guess the frequency of the light makes all the difference, or maybe exposure duration?
Static electricity discharges at around 400 to 600W. Yet it's for an extremely brief amount of time. Sub millisecond usually) so the actual energy transferred is minimal.
It takes around 1Wh to heat a liter of water 1 degree just to put things in perspective.
What makes you say that? By what metric?
Asking Google about one watt lasers inevitably produces junk that does not address the question at all.
Sifting and sorting through that junk is tiresome.
AI provides a succinct answer with as much depth is requested and can further clarify or expound on the original findings.
What’s not to like about such interactions? And, furthermore, how is the AI interaction in this case not objectively ‘better’ than a Google search?
The at-best-coincidental correlation with accuracy and truth.