LED Safety + Infrared Radiation
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skincare Tools & Do-It-Yourself Skincare

Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:50 pm

This discussion has been merged from:

Infrared Radiation - LED Lights
http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=35559
--------

maxon782 wrote:

Found this information posted on another skin care board about infrared radiation and artificial IRA sources (i.e. LED):

www(dot)skintherapyletter(dot)com/2009/14.5/2.html

Vanilj wrote:

Can somebody please in simpler words explain the main conclusion in this article? English aren't my first language, and I'm not sure that I have fully understood this article correctly.. Rolling Eyes

IR saunas are not so good at all then...?
Or devices for skin treatment in the face, with IR lights..?

maxon782 wrote:

From my understanding of the article the IRA radiation, which is in the range of 760-1440nm, has been found to:

(1)increase expression of the collagen degrading enzyme matrixmetalloproteinase-1

(2)and decrease the de novo synthesis of the collagen itself

Basically, this means that IRA radiation may induce the same damage that UV light does to the skin.

So, LED devices that use this range of IRA may be causing damage to the skin in the long term.

ricayhermosa wrote:

This is bad news. Sounds like I'll have to return my LightStim gadgets!

leathal wrote:

Is this hype or someone trying to sell something else? After all, some units are FDA approved. (Not that it means anything Smile

)

lisacollins00 wrote:

leathal wrote:

After all, some units are FDA approved. (Not that it means anything )

Yeh, FDA approval really doesn't mean much when it comes to proving if a product is really effective in its claims. FDA is more for safety and to make sure that products follow certain regulations.

I did a search to see if this information was for real and there are a number of dermatology websites that have this study posted and the actual study is on pubmed and medscape.

leathal wrote:

Ok..read the article, then went back to the Lightstim site and read the technical stuff.

The article, to me, talks about sunlight. It says that most IRA radiation load on the humans skin is of solar origin. When it says that artificial uses are on the rise, I am thinking tanning beds...mmmm..but it says theraputic use. IR radiation is in the 760-4000nm. This is the high end of the UV light. It is also talking aobut taking UV protection and using antioxidents.

For Lightstim, it contains no UV rays. It's light stimulates the body's own cells to build new protein like plants.

Ok, that is my analysis..right or wrong. I just can't convince myself they are the same thing

lisacollins00 wrote:

leathal wrote:

Ok..read the article, then went back to the Lightstim site and read the technical stuff.

The article, to me, talks about sunlight. It says that most IRA radiation load on the humans skin is of solar origin. When it says that artificial uses are on the rise, I am thinking tanning beds...mmmm..but it says theraputic use. IR radiation is in the 760-4000nm. This is the high end of the UV light. It is also talking aobut taking UV protection and using antioxidents.

For Lightstim, it contains no UV rays. It's light stimulates the body's own cells to build new protein like plants.

Ok, that is my analysis..right or wrong. I just can't convince myself they are the same thing

Actually the Lightstim does utilize IR that falls into the IRA range (760 to 1440). The IR utilized in the Lightstim is 880.

It is correct when the study states that most of the IRA radiation on humans comes from solar origin. Just due to the fact that most humans are in some way directly or indirectly exposed to sunlight throughout the day. Since humans spend so much time in the sunlight, that will tend to be the major source for our radiation. But that still does not change the fact that certain radiation, no matter if it’s from the solar sunlight or artificial light, can be harmful.

I remember in the early 90’s when I went to the tanning beds the person that owned the place told me that the beds were completely safe and that they did not cause any harm like the sun did. Well we now know for a fact that tanning beds cause the same amount, if not more, harm as the sun does, and the tanning beds are artificial light/radiation sources. I also do not think there would be too many people who would consider tanning beds as “therapeutic” use knowing the damage they cause to the skin.

When the study refers to “therapeutic” use I would assume they mean infrared light sources/products that are used a lot for sport injuries and other muscle injuries. I know that some companies sale infrared lights that are for these therapeutic uses. There are even hospitals and doctors who utilize these therapeutic infrared sources/products for injury purposes. These therapeutic infrared light sources/products utilize the same sources of infrared light that many of the facial devices are now using.

Although these IR sources may be used for injuries, that still would not mean they are safe for use on the face for anti-aging purposes. And since this study shows that IRA may cause aging of the skin, it would probably be assumed that no matter if it is from the sun or from an artifical light source the IRA radiation would not be good either way for anti-aging purposes.

photoqueen wrote:

I have read so many papers - that have been in academic journals - stating that the research undertaken by NASA - and they discovered that the IR LEDS in their trials delivered some benefits related to collagen production.

This is one paper discussing the negative effects IR, I think we obviously have to be careful, and read more, but this paper has be treated as an individual's - one research aspect on this topic.

I would like to see more peer reviewed articles supporting this argument with evidence and testing. I think then we could send this to the suppliers who produce IR based anti aging equipment for home use and ask them to comment.

We need more facts with comments from suppliers before we panic.

Thoughts?

PQ

ljk wrote:

Thank you PQ. Seems like the age-old, it's good for you/bad for you conundrum!

I love using my AALS and think it makes my skin look good, so I'd be loathe to throw it away, unless there was no doubt IR was damaging my already-damaged skin.

photoqueen wrote:

ljk wrote:

Thank you PQ. Seems like the age-old, it's good for you/bad for you conundrum!

I love using my AALS and think it makes my skin look good, so I'd be loathe to throw it away, unless there was no doubt IR was damaging my already-damaged skin.

I agree!

I don't think we can ignore this paper and then in 5 years know the reason why our skin looks older than it should be and knowing we could have brought this to suppliers' attention.

I am concerned but in the meantime with carry on using IR until we have some more concrete evidence as stated in my previous post.

Let's stick together on this one and see if we can make sure that we are all safe and not damaging our precious skin.

PQ

Hermosa wrote:

These particular researchers seem to have published a few papers on the damage created by LEDs, but (from what I could discern from very quick research) even the papers that cite their research don't have similar conclusions. And there is plenty of other research touting the benefits of IR LEDs.

The earliest publication date I could find was 2003. So this information has been out there for at least 6 years, and not a lot of scientists have jumped on board.

No one really knows, is my impression. There seem to be causal relationships but the exact mechanism is not well understood. And we are the guinea pigs!

lisacollins00 wrote:

photoqueen wrote:

ljk wrote:

Thank you PQ. Seems like the age-old, it's good for you/bad for you conundrum!

I love using my AALS and think it makes my skin look good, so I'd be loathe to throw it away, unless there was no doubt IR was damaging my already-damaged skin.

I agree!

I don't think we can ignore this paper and then in 5 years know the reason why our skin looks older than it should be and knowing we could have brought this to suppliers' attention.

I am concerned but in the meantime with carry on using IR until we have some more concrete evidence as stated in my previous post.

Let's stick together on this one and see if we can make sure that we are all safe and not damaging our precious skin.

PQ

It does seem like there is substantial information/studies dating back as far as 1982 about IR radiation.

Kligman LH. Intensification of ultraviolet-induced dermal damage by infrared radiation. Arch Dermatol Res 272(3-4):229-38 (1982).

Dover JS, Phillips TJ, Arndt KA. Cutaneous effects and therapeutic uses of heat with emphasis on infrared radiation. J Am Acad Dermatol 20(2 Pt 1):278-86 (1989 Feb).

Danno K, Mori N, Toda K, et al. Near infrared irradiation stimulates cutaneous wound repair: laboratory experiments on possible mechanisms. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 17(6):261-5 (2001 Dec).

Schieke S, Stege H, Kürten V, et al. Infrared-A radiation-induced matrix metalloproteinase 1 expression is mediated through extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 activation in human dermal fibroblasts. J Invest Dermatol 119(6):1323-9 (2002 Dec).

Frank S, Oliver L, Lebreton-De Coster C, et al. Infrared radiation affects the mitochondrial pathway of apoptosis in human fibroblasts. J Invest Dermatol 123(5):823-31 (2004 Nov).

Kim HH, Lee MJ, Lee SR, et al. Augmentation of UV-induced skin wrinkling by infrared irradiation in hairless mice. Mech Ageing Dev 126(11):1170-7 (2005 Nov).

Kim MS, Kim YK, Cho KH, et al. Regulation of type I procollagen and MMP-1 expression after single or repeated exposure to infrared radiation in human skin. Mech Ageing Dev 127(12):875-82 (2006 Dec).

Schroeder P, Pohl C, Calles C, et al. Cellular response to infrared radiation involves retrograde mitochondrial signaling. Free Radic Biol Med 43(1):128-35 (2007 Jul 1).

Buechner N, Schroeder P, Jakob S, et al. Changes of MMP-1 and collagen type Ialpha1 by UVA, UVB and IRA are differentially regulated by Trx-1. Exp Gerontol 43(7):633-7 (2008 Jul).

Schroeder P, Lademann J, Darvin ME, et al.. Infrared radiation-induced matrix metalloproteinase in human skin: implications for protection. J Invest Dermatol 128(10):2491-7 (2008 Oct).

Jantschitsch C, Majewski S, Maeda A, et al. Infrared radiation confers resistance to UV-induced apoptosis via reduction of DNA damage and upregulation of antiapoptotic proteins. J Invest Dermatol 129(5):1271-9 (2009 May).

I understand that many have had wonderful results from the AALS, but an important question to ask is how much of those results are really from the red and/or amber lights?

I remmber a lot of friends going to the tanning beds because it helped with their acne and because they thought that the darker skin color made their skin look healthier and made the wrinkles less noticeable, but in the long run they were only causing more damage. Is this a similar situation where IRA does produce some nice results in the short term but ultimately hurts in the long term?

Keliu wrote:

I would like to make sure that we're comparing apples with apples. So I'm asking again - is infrared the same as near-infrared?

Anyone come up with anything on this?

maxon782 wrote:

Keliu wrote:

I would like to make sure that we're comparing apples with apples. So I'm asking again - is infrared the same as near-infrared?

Anyone come up with anything on this?

A lot will depend on the specific person's definition of near IR and IR.

IR is usually the LED light that cannot be seen by the naked eye. So IR LED bulbs will not show light when they are.

Near IR is considered by some manufacturers of LED devices to be the red lights since they are near the IR wavelength.

Keliu wrote:

Well the reason I ask this question is because most of the LED devices use near infrared - but they also cannot be seen with the human eye.

Lacy53 wrote:

Infrared (IR) is the broad term used for radiation whose wavelength is longer than visible light. 47% of sunlight is infrared; it is most closely associated with warmth/heat, and is invisible.

Visible light (think of colours) ranges from approximately 400nm to 700nm (some sources site 750 or 760 as the upper limit). Red (visible) light has a wavelength of 620 nm to 750nm or so.

According to the International Commission on Illumination, near-infrared (NIR or IR-A) has a wavelength of 700nm to 1400 nm. It is closest to the red spectrum of visible light (see above).

Infrared light (the broad category) ranges from 700nm to 1 mm. HTH

Keliu wrote:

Ricayhermosa posted the following on the Lightstim thread - it's most interesting.

Steve Marchese, President of LightStim International, Inc., asked me to post his reply on the forum. I hope it answers all your questions and dispells all you doubts.

Be warned: it's very long, so I divided it in two parts.

Hello ladies, gentlemen and manufacturers of the EDS forum. I am joining in on this thread to just give you a couple of the many things wrong with this study. I have included the full study and the MACHINE that was used in the study for your comparison to your LED devices, regardless of what manufacturer you bought from or are thinking about buying from. My statements will have nothing to do with LightStim, as LightStim is not the issue.

These articles and the study were designed as an outright attack on LED Lights using the 833nm or 850nm wavelength Infrared LEDs, which are used in consumer devices. You will see more studies of this type on other wavelengths as time goes on. This study was about going to an extreme, never even envisioned by any of the LED Light Manufacturers, to show some possibility of a negative reaction. The next paragraph will show you just how far they were willing to go.

All LEDs lights that are sold to the public have 1 or 2 SPECIFIC wavelengths, not the FULL RANGE OF 700 to 1440nm all at once. All LED's lights that are sold to the public put out less than 10 watts and less than 12 joules. All LED lights sold to the public have a per location treatment time of 1 to 10 minutes, except Omnilux at 20 minutes. The study used a water cooled MACHINE, it is not a device- it is a machine, and it puts out 360 to 720 Joules and 520 watts!!!! And according to the study they applied it for 57 to 114 minutes and they applied ALL of the wavelengths from 760 to 1440nm. No manufacturer I know of uses above 980nm in a device sold to the public. With that many Joules and Watts I'm surprised nobody was hurt!

This is so irresponsible that a one paragraph totally misleading article was put on the internet. When you look at the above statistics and you look at the machine they used in the test, this would be likened to this: A number of manufacturers put out similarly effective sleeping pills that has a dosage of 1 pill per night and is taken by 5 million people over a 20 year period with not a single instance of someone being harmed.

Then a study summary comes out on the internet and states nothing more than in a test done in Germany they have concluded that some people may die from taking such a sleeping pill. Everybody gets upset. When you finally get to see the whole study, which you have to pay for by the way, you find that the study consisted of giving people 500 sleeping pills in one night! That is how irresponsible PubMed is for putting up this paragraph. It was done to sell the full article and I'm sure they were successful. Why else would they not put up this gross discrepancy and make people think that there consumer LED light might have anything to do with this crazy powerful machine that the FDA would never allow into your hands?

The study itself is completely flawed in that they are treating the whole range of 740 to 1440nm. No machine in our industry does such a thing. Every manufacturer either uses 833nm or 850nm, including LightStim, in their anti-aging devices. Who would even think doing a test like this unless they wanted negative results that they could then use to sell a skin care product? The skin care industry is freaked out that you will all stop buying their products because of the cost and effectiveness of LED. Why would anyone do a study and subject people to 360 joules and 520 watts?

LED's have been being used for 30 years with no side effects. Newborns have been put under them to treat Jaundice for over 20 years with no side effects. Dermatologists have used them for over 15 years to treat acne with no side effects.

All of you on this forum should be proud that you have chosen these safe and effect devices, no matter what company you bought from. They are all good devices. Some might be better than others and some manufacturers might embellish their claims more than others, but they all work to one degree or another and as long as they aren't made in China you won't hear me saying anything bad about any of them. That's would be in poor taste.

You know, I did a similar study on myself. If any of you have ever met me in person you have seen this. From when I was 25 years old on, I never did anything for my skin. No moisturizers, I ate poorly (until I married my wife), I layed in the sun most days and I subjected by face to the radiation of old style computer monitors for about 10 years. Then, at 57 years old, I used my LightStim Anti-Aging Light on the left side of my face on my smile line. I picked the left side because it was much worse than the right. Both sides were deeply creased to where if you run your finger along my cheek, it gets stuck in the fold or crease. I used the Light for about 9 or 10 weeks, everyday and many times for more than the recommended 3 minutes (I'm just being totally honest here). At the end I had reduced that deeply creased fold or wrinkle by about 80% and there was only a line, no crease, left. At trade shows estheticians jaws drop when they spot it. Anyways, then I did not use the light for 6 months and I saw no change, no worsening. I decided to continue and see how long it would go. At 8 months, my wrinkle start to get worse again. So at that point I started using my Light again 2 times per week. The wrinkle went back to the 80% improvement again and I've held it there with 2 applications per week. So I almost totally reversed 32 years of abuse in 10 weeks and then again abused it by not using a maintenance program to hold it there. That was my long term study on myself.

I could have explained this to you in another way, similar to what they have done in this study. I could have said that I used the Light and reduced the wrinkles, but as time went on, particularly in the 7th and 8th month, I noticed some aging in my skin and so conclude that LED use MAY cause aging of the skin (similar wording to what they used in the study). Of course, unless you saw the whole study, you would think my study concludes there may be a problem.

You will find other studies in the future and just remember that LED's have been being used for medical purposes for over 30 years. It did not start with NASA. Most medically oriented devices use Red and Infrared together. To date, there are no side effects.

The question you have to ask yourselves is who would benefit from funding a study that was designed specifically to discredit LED Light Therapy? Nobody in this day and age can afford to fund a study to discredit a technology which has worked for over 30 years with no side effects unless it benefits themselves in some way.

Below it the MACHINE they used in the study. Below that is the whole study.

Best wishes to you all,

Steve Marchese, President, LightStim International, Inc.

http://www.hydrosun.de/en/content/view/9/27/

Click on the following link to see the picture of the machine:

http://www.hydrosun.de/en/content/view/44/78/

hydrosun 500

Technical information for hydrosun® Irradiator
Radiation emitted: filtered infrared-A(wIRA®), no UV-radiation
Irradiation field: up to 25 cm (9.8") diameter (tube by choice) (wahlweise mit Tubus)
Rated voltage: 230 V, 50 – 60 Hz,
Power input: 520 W
Dimensions: length:30 cm (11.8"),width: 27,5 cm (10.8"), height: 23 cm (9")
Irradiance: E = 310 mW/cm² to 400 mW/cm2 (in the optical axis)
Safety switch: automatically, self repositioning after cooling down of the irradiator
Weight: about 4,5 kg (9.9 lbs) net
CE-certification: in compliance with directive 93/42/EWG, EN 60601-1
Classification: active medical device IIa

Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:45 pm

DragoN wrote:

J Biol Chem. 2005 Jun 3;280(22):21061-6. Epub 2005 Mar 29.
Blue light induces mitochondrial DNA damage and free radical production in epithelial cells.
Godley BF, Shamsi FA, Liang FQ, Jarrett SG, Davies S, Boulton M.
Source

Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas 75231, USA. bgodley@retinafoundation.org
Abstract

Exposure of biological chromophores to ultraviolet radiation can lead to photochemical damage. However, the role of visible light, particularly in the blue region of the spectrum, has been largely ignored. To test the hypothesis that blue light is toxic to non-pigmented epithelial cells, confluent cultures of human primary retinal epithelial cells were exposed to visible light (390-550 nm at 2.8 milliwatts/cm2) for up to 6 h. A small loss of mitochondrial respiratory activity was observed at 6 h compared with dark-maintained cells, and this loss became greater with increasing time. To investigate the mechanism of cell loss, the damage to mitochondrial and nuclear genes was assessed using the quantitative PCR. Light exposure significantly damaged mitochondrial DNA at 3 h (0.7 lesion/10 kb DNA) compared with dark-maintained controls. However, by 6 h of light exposure, the number of lesions was decreased in the surviving cells, indicating DNA repair. Isolated mitochondria exposed to light generated singlet oxygen, superoxide anion, and the hydroxyl radical. Antioxidants confirmed the superoxide anion to be the primary species responsible for the mitochondrial DNA lesions. The effect of lipofuscin, a photoinducible intracellular generator of reactive oxygen intermediates, was investigated for comparison. Exposure of lipofuscin-containing cells to visible light caused an increase in both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA lesions compared with non-pigmented cells. We conclude that visible light can cause cell dysfunction through the action of reactive oxygen species on DNA and that this may contribute to cellular aging, age-related pathologies, and tumorigenesis.

My hide is exposed to enough photons every second of the day.

pleiades wrote:

I have been following the informative SCT thread, 'Thoughts...collagen production'. So, I appreciate you chiming in on this, DragoN.

DragoN wrote:

Thank you Pleidas. It's not what one would call the main stream position on these devices. Unfortunately the thread turned into a scrap heap. The summation below is the synopsis of some of the data I'd posted, and also his own checking out the background of that and his own. A young fellow, and very astute. IToldYouSo oddly enough, is his name on SCT.

1) UV + visible + heat = white blood cell infiltration = elastase release = breakdown of elastin

2) IR + heat = angiogenesis + inflammation = metalloproteases = structural protein breakdown

3) Visible light = vacuolation... indicative of cellular assault.

These things are bad news in the making. Cumulative damage along with the daily doses of old Sol. All the fancy anti ox serums are pretty pointless. Need a good solid SS. Or simply chuck it.

I was asked by a lady whom I respect, to come up with an LED serum with a particular extract, but I hmmed and hawed and slammed the extract [ correctly mind you ] and then, decided when I saw another lady, whom I like very much, and having had skin cancer wanting to know about these machines. That was it. Enough.

This is really going to irritate many co's selling these things. I know that. I don't care. The mistake they made, they were selling *me* this stuff too. I have one..used the photorejuvenation dingus 2x..but, then digging further into the research and double checking with my colleague. FDA approves a lot of things,that perhaps shouldn't be. For hair removal, unfortunately, very effective. But as far as dermal rejuvenation. Pass.

Sarah Vaughter's Rollers may be a tad more expensive, but I don't care. She does a great job on her site and with her products.

ShastaGirl wrote:

DragoN - I appreciate you sharing your perspective and info on the LED devices. I remember thinking if getting sunlight/UV was bad for the skin, how can using an LED be ok?

Nevertheless, I have one...actually I have two - a AALS and a Tanda. I didn't use the Tanda much, it was mostly for my son to use the blue light (he didn't). I have used my AALS for about a year. I do like how it feels (soothing), but I'm not sure it ever did anything for me (sagging and fine lines are my issues).

So, at this point, I'm reconsidering the use of the AALS. I'm going to dig deeper into the research provided and form a conclusion. If anyone else has addition info to share - pro or con, I'm interested.

Lacy53 wrote:

DragoN wrote:

No thanks to the above.

J Biol Chem. 2005 Jun 3;280(22):21061-6. Epub 2005 Mar 29.
Blue light induces mitochondrial DNA damage and free radical production in epithelial cells.
Godley BF, Shamsi FA, Liang FQ, Jarrett SG, Davies S, Boulton M.
Source

Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas 75231, USA. bgodley@retinafoundation.org
Abstract

Exposure of biological chromophores to ultraviolet radiation can lead to photochemical damage. However, the role of visible light, particularly in the blue region of the spectrum, has been largely ignored. To test the hypothesis that blue light is toxic to non-pigmented epithelial cells, confluent cultures of human primary retinal epithelial cells were exposed to visible light (390-550 nm at 2.8 milliwatts/cm2) for up to 6 h. A small loss of mitochondrial respiratory activity was observed at 6 h compared with dark-maintained cells, and this loss became greater with increasing time. To investigate the mechanism of cell loss, the damage to mitochondrial and nuclear genes was assessed using the quantitative PCR. Light exposure significantly damaged mitochondrial DNA at 3 h (0.7 lesion/10 kb DNA) compared with dark-maintained controls. However, by 6 h of light exposure, the number of lesions was decreased in the surviving cells, indicating DNA repair. Isolated mitochondria exposed to light generated singlet oxygen, superoxide anion, and the hydroxyl radical. Antioxidants confirmed the superoxide anion to be the primary species responsible for the mitochondrial DNA lesions. The effect of lipofuscin, a photoinducible intracellular generator of reactive oxygen intermediates, was investigated for comparison. Exposure of lipofuscin-containing cells to visible light caused an increase in both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA lesions compared with non-pigmented cells. We conclude that visible light can cause cell dysfunction through the action of reactive oxygen species on DNA and that this may contribute to cellular aging, age-related pathologies, and tumorigenesis.

My hide is exposed to enough photons every second of the day.

- Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas

- cultures of human primary retinal epithelial cells

Read it; the study is about visible blue light and your eyes (the retina), not your skin.

DragoN wrote:

I know,keep reading about the other light devices. Then consider the following:

Start by firing photons of red light at the skin which in turn causes the skin to emit photoelectrons with maximum kinetic energy Kr. If photons of blue light Kb of the same intensity are now fired at the skin, which of the following is true about the photoelectrons emitted (if any ?)

a. Max Kb < Kr.
b. Max Kb = Kr .
c. No emissions.
e. Min Kb = Kr
f. Min Kb> Kr
g. Min Kb<Kr
h. Max Kb > Kr.
i. all of the above.
j. None of the above.

And, that a Nuclear Medical Physicist, whom I work with at times, is a cancer researcher, and he was negative on the use. Very negative. That's his question.

He's been working with LINAC, and XRay, developing methods to better target tumors and minimize the effects of radiation. Some very fascinating work dealing with nanoparticles. He's my go to man on light/ radiation dynamics when I have questions. I trust his opinion and his knowledge on this one.

Effects of infrared radiation and heat on human skin aging in vivo.
Cho S, Shin MH, Kim YK, Seo JE, Lee YM, Park CH, Chung JH.
Source

Department of Dermatology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract

Sunlight damages human skin, resulting in a wrinkled appearance. Since natural sunlight is polychromatic, its ultimate effects on the human skin are the result of not only the action of each wavelength separately, but also interactions among the many wavelengths, including UV, visible light, and infrared (IR). In direct sunlight, the temperature of human skin rises to about 40 degrees C following the conversion of absorbed IR into heat. So far, our knowledge of the effects of IR radiation or heat on skin aging is limited. Recent work demonstrates that IR and heat exposure each induces cutaneous angiogenesis and inflammatory cellular infiltration, disrupts the dermal extracellular matrix by inducing matrix metalloproteinases, and alters dermal structural proteins, thereby adding to premature skin aging. This review provides a summary of current research on the effects of IR radiation and heat on aging in human skin in vivo. Journal of Investigative Dermatology Symposium Proceedings (2009) 14, 15-19; doi:10.1038/jidsymp.2009.7.

One must draw one's own conclusions and live with the consequences thereof. I won't argue about it. It's not my skin. Not my problem.

I can post positive data. It does exist as well. Unfortunately, this is a 3 for 1 punch at the end of the day and I am not on the train wreck. It's my skin and vanity too.

summer2004 wrote:

DragoN wrote:

......2) IR + heat = angiogenesis + inflammation = metalloproteases = structural protein breakdown ......

DragoN,

I use facial steamer to cleanse my pores every night after OCM ; otherwise, it takes me 30 minutes to use OCM alone to get rid of those sand-like sebum plugs and dead skin from my skin.

The steamer generates steam at 42 deg C; do you think it can break down the protein of my skin?

DragoN wrote:

You only need 43 C to kill a cancer cell in vivo.

Probably not the answer you were looking for. Sorry.

An emulsified OCM, rinses off.

summer2004 wrote:

Dragon,

I do use poly80 + oil to cleanse my skin but am not sure why a lot of sebum plugs are still there. I have been using OCM for 2 years. With continuous use of facial steamer, I can do the cleansing within few minutes; a big difference!

DragoN wrote:

Are you using a microfiber cloth? [gently]

My skin is clear. Nothing. Deadly boring and calm. OCM + Poly80 as yourself, rinse and slap on serums.

I do the Tanaka massage while I OCM and rinse. No sebum plugs have come up in ages. Wonder what is still causing that in your skin. Do you use any gentle acids to help clear out the build up?

In the mean time,turn the heat down on the steamer I would:
The pathogenesis of photoaging: the role of neutrophils and neutrophil-derived enzymes.
Rijken F, Bruijnzeel PL.
Source

Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, The Netherlands. F.rijken@umcutrecht.nl
Abstract

The hallmark of photoaged skin is solar elastosis, which is probably an end product of elastic fiber degradation. Exposure of human skin to a certain threshold of UV, infrared radiation (IR), and heat leads to an influx of neutrophils. These neutrophils are packed with potent proteolytic enzymes capable of degrading collagen and, particularly, elastic fibers. Neutrophil-derived proteolytic enzymes are held responsible for the extracellular matrix (ECM) damage observed in several non-dermatological conditions. Furthermore, neutrophil elastase, a major product of neutrophils, is strongly associated with solar elastosis in mice. Taken together with our data that show in vivo proteolytic activity of neutrophil-derived elastase and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) in UV-exposed skin, we have hypothesized earlier that neutrophils are major contributors to the photoaging process. Although several groups have shown that MMPs are also induced in skin exposed to relatively low doses of UV, IR, and heat, clinical data indicate that high(er) doses of UV, IR, and heat are necessary to induce photoaging or photoaging-like pathology in the skin. Therefore, we propose that MMPs generated by suberythemogenic doses of UV and low doses of IR/heat are involved in cellular processes other than ECM degradation.Journal of Investigative Dermatology Symposium Proceedings (2009) 14, 67-72; doi:10.1038/jidsymp.2009.15.

Lacy53 wrote:

DragoN wrote:

I know,keep reading about the other light devices. Then consider the following:

Start by firing photons of red light at the skin which in turn causes the skin to emit photoelectrons with maximum kinetic energy Kr. If photons of blue light Kb of the same intensity are now fired at the skin, which of the following is true about the photoelectrons emitted (if any ?)

a. Max Kb < Kr.
b. Max Kb = Kr .
c. No emissions.
e. Min Kb = Kr
f. Min Kb> Kr
g. Min Kb<Kr
h. Max Kb > Kr.
i. all of the above.
j. None of the above.

And, that a Nuclear Medical Physicist, whom I work with at times, is a cancer researcher, and he was negative on the use. Very negative. That's his question.

He's been working with LINAC, and XRay, developing methods to better target tumors and minimize the effects of radiation. Some very fascinating work dealing with nanoparticles. He's my go to man on light/ radiation dynamics when I have questions. I trust his opinion and his knowledge on this one.

Effects of infrared radiation and heat on human skin aging in vivo.
Cho S, Shin MH, Kim YK, Seo JE, Lee YM, Park CH, Chung JH.
Source

Department of Dermatology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

There is a thread around here somewhere discussing Infrared Light/Radiation; maybe you (or a mod) can move your posts and continue this discussion there? I know I have cited the above study before on that thread, as well as these:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0781.2003.00054.x/full#f1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687728/?tool=pubmed

http://www.nature.com/jidsp/journal/v14/n1/full/jidsymp20097a.html

With reference to the blue light experiment and it's effect on the retina, I am not saying visible blue light is harmless to the skin (since I really don't know), I am just saying your cited source provides weak evidence to support that argument. I think most people know light in the blue wavelength is harmful to our eyes as is UV light (hence the recommendation for sunglasses when outdoors).

DragoN wrote:

One must draw one's own conclusions and live with the consequences thereof. I won't argue about it. It's not my skin. Not my problem.

I can post positive data. It does exist as well. Unfortunately, this is a 3 for 1 punch at the end of the day and I am not on the train wreck. It's my skin and vanity too.

I have seen studies demonstrating both positive and negative conclusions as well. People at EDS tend to focus only on the positive antiaging studies though. I won't argue the point either but I will say that I don't own an LED, nor do I live in a tropical climate with plenty of natural sunlight and exposure.

DragoN wrote:

Quote:

I won't argue the point either but I will say that I don't own an LED

http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v129/n5/full/jid2008362a.html

Me neither. I suppose we'll have to agree to agree. The above study is really a wonderful hash.

http://warp-photomedicine.com/FacialRejuve.pdf

Lacy53,
Would you mind reading this^^and share your opinion?

Lacy53 wrote:

DragoN wrote:

http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v129/n5/full/jid2008362a.html

The above study is really a wonderful hash.

http://warp-photomedicine.com/FacialRejuve.pdf

Lacy53,
Would you mind reading this^^and share your opinion?

Dragon, if you are looking for a professional or scientific opinion, you are asking the wrong person! I am just an ordinary forum member with no formal education in this area. But I can give you a real quick opinion of the Sommer & Zhu case study (N=1). I have seen the article before; it is informally called the "green tea" study around here. Some people refer to it as the WARP-10 promotional study:

Red LED light (WARP-10; red light @ 670 nm) is considered safe and beneficial, and it will, over time, reduce the appearance of wrinkles. However, it does so by altering water levels in the elastin. It does not appear to increase collagen levels IMO. If it did, the author-subject would not have experienced such extensive sun and pollution damage in such a short period of time. I am assuming he used adequate sunscreen which vacationing, given his profession and area of expertise.

Infrared light from the sun is damaging, especially when combined with pollution, according to the researchers. Antioxidants such as green tea ECGC prevents/protects/reverses this damage, at least on the "visual appearance" level; I have no idea what is happening on the microscopic level since this article didn't include this type of information. The authors clearly state that "the combination polyphenolic component of green tea and red light is not the only possible one; an arsenal of powerful ROS scavengers can be found ... ". IMO the workhorse is the green tea, not the red LED light. I know from reading other articles that sunscreens should always include antioxidants as well as UVA and UVB protection. Many scientists (especially the Germans) claim that photoaging includes damages caused by Infrared light, not just ultraviolet rays. It makes you wonder why so many LED manufacturers include infrared in their devices.

Dragon, have you seen these articles? You may enjoy the second one; I can't really understand it all:

http://www.skintherapyletter.com/2010/15.4/2.html

http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v130/n6/full/jid20109a.html

Final comment (on the Nature "rehash" study you posted) ... the methodology (irradiating skin first with IR-A, waiting 3 hours then exposing to UVB, then analyzing damage/protection) would only occur in an artificial setting, and could never happen in the real world. Perhaps we should be cautious when trying to extend the conclusions to practical situations? Sunshine includes simultaneous exposure to IR-A and UVB, even when a good sunscreen is used.

DragoN wrote:

Quote:

IMO the workhorse is the green tea, not the red LED light.

Agreed.

Had posted similar previously and it was deleted. Senseless controversy was being stirred up, so the whole thing was zapped out of existence.

Re: Paper #1. Have many such papers. Nothing new there. Chemical/ organic SS doesn't work on my skin. Burning eyes, itching skin. Useless to me. Instability issues in the bottle, and worse when exposed to UV light. Pass.

Re: Paper #2 There is more research to back up same.

This study unambiguously shows that IRA radiation-induced gene regulatory effects in human fibroblasts clearly extend beyond the regulation of MMP-1 expression and involve up to 599 genes. Figure 5 summarizes the basic scheme of the cellular response to IRA in human dermal fibroblasts. IRA leads to the production of ROS in the cell originating from the mitochondria as well as from other yet unidentified intracellular origins. This leads to IRA-induced signaling events involving MAPKs, Calcium, and the IL6/STAT3 pathway, which in turn modulate the expression of genes relevant to the ECM homeostasis, calcium signaling, stress signaling, and apoptosis. It is therefore likely that in addition to causing premature skin aging, IRA irradiation exerts a variety of other, currently unknown, biological effects on human skin, which may be of relevance not only for photoaging, but also for photocarcinogenesis. This assumption is supported by the recent observation that IRA radiation in combination with UV can influence the formation of skin tumors in mice (Jantschitsch et al., 2009a).

I think you may find this interesting as well. Further confirmation why not to use such devices.
Thermal aging: A new concept of skin aging

My skin gets more than enough photons in the form of UVA/ UVB and IR assault from the sun on a daily basis. Senseless to add to the chaos.
The discussion is being continued here:
http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=45570

I hope you will share further in that discussion. I very much enjoy reading your thorough summaries.

daler wrote:

what about the regular light from electric bulbs??? Are these aging too? Shock

DragoN wrote:

Yep...same with your monitor.

No matter where you go...there you are and so are your friendly photons.

daler wrote:

DragoN wrote:

Yep...same with your monitor.

No matter where you go...there you are and so are your friendly photons.

that's so depressing, i just turned off my light! but tv and monitor is on, lol

DragoN wrote:

Too cute Daler. I wouldn't panic over it. We evolved to deal with ol sol. Wrinkles, normal signs of aging...we just don't like them. Vanity rules.
SS and call it a day. I Refuse to allow Wrinklophobia get in the way of enjoying my existence. But I won't speed it along either!

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 1:10 pm

Some of you long term members might recall me talking about my skin getting "paler"... I assumed it had something to do with LED treatments, but really thought it was more to do with the UV protection afforded by my antioxidant serums...

Seems that the 850nm wavelength in the LS is the culprit even more so; (Light-emitting Diodes at 830 and 850 nm Inhibit Melanin Synthesis In vitro)

http://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content/?doi=10.2340/00015555-1319

If anybody has a different device with 830nm or 850nm wavelength, please join in with your experience.

If any of my pictures show the difference well after 5 years of use, I'll post them. Be forewarned though, it will just be everyday pictures of everyday life so please don't get on me about "lighting" etc.. I haven't taken purposeful "before + after" pictures for years.. Embarassed

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 3:37 pm

Kassy_A wrote:

Some of you long term members might recall me talking about my skin getting "paler"... I assumed it had something to do with LED treatments, but really thought it was more to do with the UV protection afforded by my antioxidant serums...

Seems that the 850nm wavelength in the LS is the culprit even more so; (Light-emitting Diodes at 830 and 850 nm Inhibit Melanin Synthesis In vitro)

http://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content/?doi=10.2340/00015555-1319

Except the AALS and the new Light for Wrinkles LED don't contain any LEDs @ 850 nm or 830 nm. Here's the complete article, if anyone is interested:

http://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content/?doi=10.2340/00015555-1319&html=1

Also, compare the irradiation dose, as noted in the discussion section of the article:

When the samples were exposed to the LED light source, we considered the irradiation dose in J/cm2. The unit mW/cm2 represents the optical power of the LED light source measured by a detector. The irradiation dose was calculated as follows: J/cm2 = optical power × time (s). A long exposure time is required for low-power LEDs (e.g. 15.8 mW/cm2). By adjusting the exposure time, the irradiation dose produced by LEDs at different wavelengths and optical power was standardized for all samples.

From materials and Methods:

All cultures were irradiated with an LED at ... 830 nm (96 mW/cm2), 850 nm (114 mW/cm2) and 940 nm (55.5 mW/cm2).

From the Abstract:

LED irradiation at 830 nm (dose-dependent, from 1 to 20 J/cm2) and 850 nm (1 J/cm2) significantly reduced melanin production and tyrosinase expression ...

Compare this to the AALS & Light for Wrinkles:

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/K101190.pdf

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 4:32 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

Kassy_A wrote:

Some of you long term members might recall me talking about my skin getting "paler"... I assumed it had something to do with LED treatments, but really thought it was more to do with the UV protection afforded by my antioxidant serums...

Seems that the 850nm wavelength in the LS is the culprit even more so; (Light-emitting Diodes at 830 and 850 nm Inhibit Melanin Synthesis In vitro)

http://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content/?doi=10.2340/00015555-1319

Except the AALS and the new Light for Wrinkles LED don't contain any LEDs @ 850 nm or 830 nm. Here's the complete article, if anyone is interested:

http://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content/?doi=10.2340/00015555-1319&html=1

Also, compare the irradiation dose, as noted in the discussion section of the article:

When the samples were exposed to the LED light source, we considered the irradiation dose in J/cm2. The unit mW/cm2 represents the optical power of the LED light source measured by a detector. The irradiation dose was calculated as follows: J/cm2 = optical power × time (s). A long exposure time is required for low-power LEDs (e.g. 15.8 mW/cm2). By adjusting the exposure time, the irradiation dose produced by LEDs at different wavelengths and optical power was standardized for all samples.

From materials and Methods:

All cultures were irradiated with an LED at ... 830 nm (96 mW/cm2), 850 nm (114 mW/cm2) and 940 nm (55.5 mW/cm2).

From the Abstract:

LED irradiation at 830 nm (dose-dependent, from 1 to 20 J/cm2) and 850 nm (1 J/cm2) significantly reduced melanin production and tyrosinase expression ...

Compare this to the AALS & Light for Wrinkles:

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/K101190.pdf

Lacy, wow, great catch!! Just quickly looking at the current LEDs for sale, I can't find any that match those used in the study. Makes me very curious to know more. What I really wonder is if the LED man could perhaps develop a unit based on the above study? hmm

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 5:45 pm

I'd encourage everyone to read the full link to the abstract I posted;

http://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content/?doi=10.2340/00015555-1319&html=1

Bottom line: In conclusion, we demonstrated that LED irradiation at wavelengths of 830, 850 and 940 nm effectively reduce melanin synthesis, not only in a normal human melanocyte monoculture, but also in a 3D multiple cell type co-culture model, without any cytotoxic effects

Cytotoxic effect: An influence on cells that is detrimental or destructive.

What was left out of importance: Although melanogenesis was inhibited at lower doses in case of irradiation at 850 and 940 nm, repeated exposure to the same doses at these wavelengths reduced tyrosinase expression more remarkably than by a single exposure (Fig. 2B); this can be attributed to the synergistic or combined effects of repeated irradiation.

As for the wavelengths in the AALS, Steve himself shared them at the forum to be "605nm, 630nm, 660nm & 850nm"... He actually corrected me (long ago) when I wrote 855nm on one of the threads... (Not a biggy either way though.. Just like 630nm + 633nm wouldn't be..)

Anyway, after almost 5 years of consistent use with the AALS I can tell you that I am paler than I was 5 years ago.. Laughing

(Not necessarily my favorite LED result BTW..)

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 5:54 pm

Luminosity wrote:

What I really wonder is if the LED man could perhaps develop a unit based on the above study? hmm

The study simply tested all of those different wavelengths. They were NOT in just one device.

FYI regarding the LEDman, I asked him if he could make me a panel device with the wavelengths in the AALS and he said 'not exactly'.. That was a couple of years ago though, so who knows now?

If you do contact the LED man and want to incorporate one of those wavelengths just ask for the 830 or 850... Then you'll want to decide which other wavelength to add.. Have a look at this website for everything you ever wanted to know about LED's;

http://heelspurs.com/led.html#skin

I believe 940nm is in the original LS (which is now called the "Therapy Light".

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 6:21 pm

Oh my, this is getting confusing! Is the "Lightstim for Wrinkles" from QVC equivalent to the AALS, Kassy? Or is this (third?) generation from the original less optimal I wonder...

I keep reading about how customer service friendly the LED-man is, but I've asked him a question via email and never heard back a peep. However I did mention in the email that I already had a LS and was looking for his recommendation for which of his units best complimented or added to that.

I wonder if that put him off? Oh well. It's good to know I have a device that does a great job on its own.

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 6:33 pm

Kassy_A wrote:

As for the wavelengths in the AALS, Steve himself shared them at the forum to be "605nm, 630nm, 660nm & 850nm"... He actually corrected me (long ago) when I wrote 855nm on one of the threads... (Not a biggy either way though.. Just like 630nm + 633nm wouldn't be..)

Not sure what your point is Lacy ...

Either Steve misinformed the forum, or he changed the specs after that particular post was written. I say that because I am assuming his 510K filing with the FDA is accurate (perhaps you are assuming it isn't). I will link to it again, for convenience. Skim down to Section 4 (Device Description) and Section 5 (Substantial Equivalency).

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/K101190.pdf

855nm vs 850nm might be "a biggie", because the study definitely showed that 830nm vs 850nm is very different. 855nm was not part of the study, so no one can say one way or the other. Besides, you are completely over-looking dose per treatment.

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 7:42 pm

More to the point, beyond manufacturer error and what not, one needs to consider the photon itself.

Quote:

First, it is evident that both SSB
and DSB are produced at all energies studied. Second, it can be noted that the
shape of the action spectrum is similar for SSB and DSB induction.
The observation that DSB were produced reasonably effciently in dry DNA
by photons with energies as low as 7 eV is surprising. This suggests that a single
ionization is suffcient to break both strands of the DNA helix, within a few base-
-pairs of each other.

DSB= double strand breaks in DNA.
DSB = BAD.
SSB, single strand breaks

Then ask yourself what a photon of red light is equivalent to?

Red: 850nm= 1.4586 eV
Blue: 450nm= 2.7551
UVA ~ 4.1327 eV
UVB~ 6.199 eV

And the UVA and UVB are right there with you while you are adding the 1.4586 eV to the deal.

Anyone care to take a stab at this :
Let's start by firing photons of red light at the skin which in turn causes the skin to emit photoelectrons with maximum kinetic energy Kred [ Blue[b] and Red[r] to keep it simple]. If photons of blue light of the same intensity are now fired at the skin, which of the following is true about the photoelectrons emitted (if any for that matter)?

a. Max Kb < Kr.
b. Max Kb = Kr .
c. Flat line~No emissions.
d. Min Kb = Kr
e. Min Kb> Kr
f. Min Kb<Kr
g. Max Kb > Kr.
h. None of the above.

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 6:01 am

Personally, I'm getting a bit sick of all the science speak which is being dished out knowing that most of us haven't a clue what it all means. I'm all for relevant scientific input if it's put in layman's terms that we can all understand.

We all have various spheres of expertise - I can read and write Chinese (very badly) but that doesn't mean that I'd post in Chinese. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, all this science speak is "Greek to me!"

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 9:13 am

DragoN, can you please interpret the science you described in your post? Where does that leave the Lightstim in terms of the study? (if your opinion differs from Kassy).

Thu May 10, 2012 9:35 am

Just a reminder to please keep the discussion friendly without any condescension, personal references or inflammatory language or they too will be removed regardless of any useful content they may contain.

Please do not post any comments to the moderation itself. Thank you.

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 9:57 am

Ooooh, just heard back from V (LED Man).

I sent him the article mentioned here and this is part of what he replied:

"Good to hear from you. I may have missed your email. My inbox sometimes gets totally out of hand.

Well I have 830 850 and 940 infrared available and I can make a dual unit with red and any of of those infrared wavelengths you like."

Now that is quite interesting! But, not being very scientific (read as in not at all) I wouldn't know how to direct him... Thoughts?

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 11:50 am

Ask him for a lead umbrella...??

You two are not going to like the answer. But you did ask...Layman's terms. Bad plan long term. Some would like to magikally wish the facts to the side. Doesn't work like that.

It's a 3 for 1 punch. You cannot pick what you want and disregard the facts. Or you can...and it's your problem.

Basics.

Photons = energy, each wavelength has a calculated eV. That is a little bit important where your DNA is concerned. [ it's your DNA, not mine, so you may choose to disregard the rest, but the rest is unassailable fact ] It's not common knowledge, because were it so, these things would not sell as well as they do.

UVA and UVB, follow you everywhere you go...get used to that thought.It doesn't "disappear" when you start your lightstim session.

UVA ~ 320-400nm

320 nm =3.87451
360 nm = 3.44401eV
400 nm = 3.09961

UVB ~ 320-290nm

290= 4.27532 eV
305 = 4.06506 eV
320= 3.87451 eV

We know that UVA and UVB cause DNA damage, cancer, mutations etc etc. BELOW 7 eV.

And we Know 7 eV will cause a double strand break in DNA as well as single strand breakage, which has a higher than average potential of leading to unpleasantness of the skin.

LightStim for Wrinkles proudly boasts 72 high-grade, high output Amber, Red & Infrared LEDs of varying wavelengths between 600 and 900nm.

600 nm= 2.06640 eV
900 nm=1.37760 eV

The LightStim Acne Light mixes medical-grade, blue LED lights along with red and infrared LED lights. There are a total of 72 high-grade, high-output individual lights encompassing 3 varying wavelengths between 450nm and 850nm.

450nm= 2.75520 eV
850 nm= 1.45864 eV

UVA and UVB are ubiquitous and right there with you and your LED although not 100% additive, there is a work factor , but the energy of one photon transfer to the other. And where are you now? A photon is a particle, a wavelength, energy.

And:
Investigating Mechanisms
of Radiation-Induced DNA Damage
Using Low-Energy Photons
M. Folkard and K.M. Prise
Gray Cancer Institute, Mount Vernon Hospital, P.O. Box 100
Northwood, HA6 2JR, UK
Central to any mechanistic biophysical model of radiation damage to DNA is the relationship between the amount and distribution of energy
deposited in the DNA helix and the subsequent production of DNA damage. It is now clear from a number of studies that the minimum energy required to produce bond breaks in DNA is significantly lower than might be expected.
For example, some biophysical models have assumed that it takes several 10s of eV to produce a double-strand break in DNA. However, using low-energy photons, we have shown that energy depositions as low as 7 eV can induce
double-strand break and that this is enhanced when the DNA is hydrated, showing that free radical damage is also important.

1. Apply the Light directly to the skin and hold it in place for 2 to 3 minutes. There are roughly 10 areas to be addressed on the face.
You are welcome to use the Light more often than once a day if you desire.
Pass

Case closed.

It's your skin..not mine, and not my problem.

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 12:17 pm

Going to order the lead umbrella now...

And...

YIKES!!!!! Brick wall

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 2:50 pm

All I can gather from DragoN's posts is a dislike of the LightStim. Please DragoN, explain everything in terms that those with unscientific minds can understand. Yes, I plead ignorance. The information in your posts is starting to worry me.

I don't want to read back through this whole thread. I think we had a discussion about this topic before.

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 2:54 pm

I think just like sun is bad for skin, so is the light from other sources... that"s what I got from Dragon's postings...

Thu May 10, 2012 2:57 pm

Yikes, is right! Having just bought a Lightstim, I'm worried about longterm effects now. Sucks, because I'm loving the refined texture I'm seeing over the past few weeks of use.

Thanks for putting your opinion out there, DragoN. (even though I understand little of the techno jargon.)

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 2:58 pm

daler wrote:

I think just like sun is bad for skin, so is the light from other sources... that"s what I got from Dragon's postings...

Yes, that's about all I can gather from the posts. I just don't understand the scientific explanations for this.

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 3:00 pm

packratmack wrote:

All I can gather from DragoN's posts is a dislike of the LightStim. Please DragoN, explain everything in terms that those with unscientific minds can understand. Yes, I plead ignorance. The information in your posts is starting to worry me.

As far as I can figure all the LED's we are using are irradiating us to the same extent as the sun according to those posts.

I am not swearing to that as exactly what is being said, but it appears that is the gist of what has been claimed?

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 3:07 pm

Hi DM, this would have to come up right after we got you to board the SS LightStim with us. Smile

Is it time to abandon ship? Not fair, you just got here.

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 3:18 pm

I would personally like another professional's opinion on this rather than just one naysayer posting studies.

Dr. J?

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 3:28 pm

erg wrote:

I would personally like another professional's opinion on this rather than just one naysayer posting studies.

Dr. J?

I have seen this recommended by several plastic surgeons and dermatologists, I posted a huge number of positive studies.

Then we have members who have used these devices for years, without developing skin cancer.

So at the risk of being tarred and feathered nope I am not tossing my LightStim based on one study and the calculations of a few!

We each have to decide what makes sense to us!
Smile

free skin care · Thu May 10, 2012 3:39 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

erg wrote:

I would personally like another professional's opinion on this rather than just one naysayer posting studies.

Dr. J?

I have seen this recommended by several plastic surgeons and dermatologists, I posted a huge number of positive studies.

Then we have members who have used these devices for years, without developing skin cancer.

So at the risk of being tarred and feathered nope I am not tossing my LightStim based on one study and the calculations of a few!

We each have to decide what makes sense to us!
Smile

Totally agree! I am using my AALS right now as I type this!

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.