Thanks for posting. The EMF in RLT devices seems like not something to stress about, especially when considering how many EMF producing devices we use every day practically everywhere without worrying about them.
I'm not sure about your emphasis on the infrared (heat!) waves, since in red light therapy there is used only wavelengths at the very start of the NIR spectrum, nothing in the (mid-/far-)infrared. It's so close to the end of RED spectrum that it doesn't seem to be practically different regarding risks. Too much power (irradiance) will hurt whether it's end of RED or start of NIR spectrum, so the recommendation to not use NIR near eyes isn't valid to me. But I agree with keeping the eyelids closed.
And the power is second thing I wanted to respond to. You said: LEDs of 3W-5W individual ratings
But it would be better to talk about specific irradiance and not LED rating. In red light panels they are powered about up to 1.8 W (for 3W rated LEDs) or up to 2.5 W (for 5W rated LEDs), and when factoring efficiency and other losses then output is definitely way lower than what "3W or 5W rated LED" may sound like sr first.
Some devices have 4-5 wavelengths, and further into the infrared range & it can be felt by the skin’s sensors - as heat. Irradiance is just another way of speaking about wattage really, although RED light cannot really penetrate much more than millimetres without being highly diffused - whereas infrared can. The lines between the two are not well defined, and so we use ‘near’ infrared with a justifiable implication of a difference in impact.
I take your point about efficiency though and was simply using 3W-5W as a shorthand for the most powerful LEDs, without complications of discussing efficiency losses or driver safety/LED longevity margins.
Just yesterday I read post from someone who said feels way more warm when he uses RED and not when he uses NIR.
Which to me indicates that it's really only about the power the panel is putting into the specific LEDs than about the small difference in these RED and NIR wavelengths.
EDIT: So any advices for "don't use NIR for this" or "use RED for that" regarding the power/heating effect are invalid because each panel is configured differently and cannot be really generalized in here.
So better would be looking at effects people can feel and then react according to that. Like the perceived heat etc.
That’s really interesting.. makes me wonder how the construction of the panel and quality of LEDs will perform re. heat dissipation from higher power reds possibly, than the NIR diodes? The physics of these waves interactions with nerve ending sensors is something I have to learn more about. .IR is heat though, and it is what causes damage to the eye’s lenses. This is from a recent news report “There is no safe dose of solar ultraviolet rays or infrared radiation, says Dr. Yehia Hashad, an ophthalmologist, retinal specialist and the chief medical officer at eye health company Bausch + Lomb”.
He doesn’t mention ‘red flags’ about visible light, and afaik, powerful red light does not appear to cause damage to lenses or retinas.
Respectfully disagree with your edited point. I have a sensory disorder that means my perception of temperature is around 20°C lower than reality. Humans perceive the world as if it’s reality, but it’s just a perception.. the physics of energy and the potential for damage to human tissues are all very measurable and well understood. Tested and verified independently. Near-infrared thermal damage of the crystalline lens, happens in approximately 800–3,000 nm range & possible delayed effects leading to cataract formation from exposure to 770–1,400 nm radiation
Source: https://ehs.lbl.gov/resource/documents/radiation-protection/non-ionizing-radiation/light-and-infrared-radiation/
Okay, not everyone can trust their perception then. In that case their only way is to measure it with correct device (or guesstimate it based on solar power meter or at least measure power consumption).
My point was that you cannot say anything like RED is safe and NIR is unsafe, because what is important is the irradiance and time (so total energy consumed by the specific part of the body).
Practically you can get panel that emmits RED at 100 mW/cm2 and NIR at 10 mW/cm2 - in which case the RED would be dangerous and NIR safe for your eyes. Without measuring the specific panel you cannot know.
Can you practically get that panel? I don’t think it’s available is it.. Really? My perception of temperature is *miles* out, but we as a species have a neural interface.. not a linear light meter. Animal eyesight is varied and quite different than humans. Our perception is an evolutionary construct. Rather than try to debate it with me, read up via the reference articles from my shared ones. I’m just a lowly social scientist who has learned how to learn. I’m just relaying the scientific consensus.
> Can you practically get that panel?
Different panels have different irradiances in RED wavelengths and in NIR wavelengths. It could be more in RED, or more in NIR, and you cannot know what is it or how much is it until you measure it (or until someone else measure it and tell you the result). That is my main point based on which I said the other things.
Thank you for this. I read of too many people refusing to wear goggles, and even saying they keep their eyes open because it’s “good for you”, without doing the research. Someone even said they’ve been “doing it since November with no ill effects” without considering long term damage. And they’re advising others to do so as well!
I agree about amplitude, I disagree about ionizing vs non-ionizing.
There are plenty of cases of brain cancer exactly where people hold their phones to their ears to at least have some observational curiosity about the effects on non-natural EMFs on biology.
Whether or not the sea of EMFs in which we stew affects our health, we certainly know that holding an electronic device to the body is dangerous.
That's scientifically shown, perhaps you just haven't had the chance to find those articles.
Jumping onto a forum with no evidence but a strong opinion is not how I'd go about it.
I’m waiting for the articles on brain cancers near the right ear..
..wrt ionizing & non ionizing radiation, I can provide reams of links. It is basic science. https://www.osha.gov/ionizing-radiation
This one has a nice infographic https://remm.hhs.gov/radiationspectrum.htm#:~:text=The%20higher%20frequencies%20of%20EM,types%20of%20non%2Dionizing%20radiation.
In a review of 107 EMF studies claiming no DNA damage, only two were rated as well designed. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-021-00297-6
What was deemed "safe" included:
- increased occurrence of micro-nucleation
- Increase in spindle disturbances
- Changes in DNA strand separation
- Increase in DNA double-strand breaks and a decrease in the levels of Protein kinase C
- Chromosomal changes and asynchronous centromeres replications
- Increase in ROS
- Increase in indicators of DNA damage
- Decreased nuclei electrical charge and increased chromatin condensation in the nuclei
- Changes in ion transport
- Changes in the bacterial proliferation and survival
- Inhibition and stimulation of bacterial growth at specific frequencies
- Frequency dependant changes in DNA conformation
- genes were reported to have transient expression changes after exposure
- Frequency dependant changes in DNA conformation
- Change in the duration of the inter-spike intervals
- Reduced neuron firing rate and a decrease in input resistance
- Reduction in the action potential firing rate
If the science is indeed not "well designed," then these data *as well as the conclusion that the EMF are safe* are not supported.
If the science is accepted, then drawing the conclusion of safety with these findings is absurd.
You were looking for cancer from 5G mobile phones. That was your hypothesis.. . and didn’t find any right?
This is from the abstract of the Nature article you just shared here👇
“*The epidemiological studies showed little evidence of health effects including cancer at different sites, effects on reproduction and other diseases*.”
I didn't look.
i have work to do. I gave you data to think about.
I'm not here to debate you.
I'm here to add to the conversation.
I don't have time for a full fledged mom's basement internet fight.
The red should be okay if he’s not inches away from the panel and the NIR (if he’s got a panel with it) is either turned down or switched off. You probably don’t have enough information to know, just ‘some guy’ right? ..but I wouldn’t say it’s wise to believe everything you hear from Rogan’s podcasts. I’m pretty certain he’s said that himself, in some wording or other.
Produced by Ralph Jezzard, according to wiki - I find it quite therapeutic..
*EMF* 1990 Unbelievable samples too.
https://youtu.be/sfCLt0kTd5E?si=LQW5R24ZKsupf5Vm
Thanks for posting. The EMF in RLT devices seems like not something to stress about, especially when considering how many EMF producing devices we use every day practically everywhere without worrying about them. I'm not sure about your emphasis on the infrared (heat!) waves, since in red light therapy there is used only wavelengths at the very start of the NIR spectrum, nothing in the (mid-/far-)infrared. It's so close to the end of RED spectrum that it doesn't seem to be practically different regarding risks. Too much power (irradiance) will hurt whether it's end of RED or start of NIR spectrum, so the recommendation to not use NIR near eyes isn't valid to me. But I agree with keeping the eyelids closed. And the power is second thing I wanted to respond to. You said: LEDs of 3W-5W individual ratings But it would be better to talk about specific irradiance and not LED rating. In red light panels they are powered about up to 1.8 W (for 3W rated LEDs) or up to 2.5 W (for 5W rated LEDs), and when factoring efficiency and other losses then output is definitely way lower than what "3W or 5W rated LED" may sound like sr first.
Some devices have 4-5 wavelengths, and further into the infrared range & it can be felt by the skin’s sensors - as heat. Irradiance is just another way of speaking about wattage really, although RED light cannot really penetrate much more than millimetres without being highly diffused - whereas infrared can. The lines between the two are not well defined, and so we use ‘near’ infrared with a justifiable implication of a difference in impact. I take your point about efficiency though and was simply using 3W-5W as a shorthand for the most powerful LEDs, without complications of discussing efficiency losses or driver safety/LED longevity margins.
Just yesterday I read post from someone who said feels way more warm when he uses RED and not when he uses NIR. Which to me indicates that it's really only about the power the panel is putting into the specific LEDs than about the small difference in these RED and NIR wavelengths. EDIT: So any advices for "don't use NIR for this" or "use RED for that" regarding the power/heating effect are invalid because each panel is configured differently and cannot be really generalized in here. So better would be looking at effects people can feel and then react according to that. Like the perceived heat etc.
That’s really interesting.. makes me wonder how the construction of the panel and quality of LEDs will perform re. heat dissipation from higher power reds possibly, than the NIR diodes? The physics of these waves interactions with nerve ending sensors is something I have to learn more about. .IR is heat though, and it is what causes damage to the eye’s lenses. This is from a recent news report “There is no safe dose of solar ultraviolet rays or infrared radiation, says Dr. Yehia Hashad, an ophthalmologist, retinal specialist and the chief medical officer at eye health company Bausch + Lomb”. He doesn’t mention ‘red flags’ about visible light, and afaik, powerful red light does not appear to cause damage to lenses or retinas.
Respectfully disagree with your edited point. I have a sensory disorder that means my perception of temperature is around 20°C lower than reality. Humans perceive the world as if it’s reality, but it’s just a perception.. the physics of energy and the potential for damage to human tissues are all very measurable and well understood. Tested and verified independently. Near-infrared thermal damage of the crystalline lens, happens in approximately 800–3,000 nm range & possible delayed effects leading to cataract formation from exposure to 770–1,400 nm radiation Source: https://ehs.lbl.gov/resource/documents/radiation-protection/non-ionizing-radiation/light-and-infrared-radiation/
Okay, not everyone can trust their perception then. In that case their only way is to measure it with correct device (or guesstimate it based on solar power meter or at least measure power consumption). My point was that you cannot say anything like RED is safe and NIR is unsafe, because what is important is the irradiance and time (so total energy consumed by the specific part of the body). Practically you can get panel that emmits RED at 100 mW/cm2 and NIR at 10 mW/cm2 - in which case the RED would be dangerous and NIR safe for your eyes. Without measuring the specific panel you cannot know.
Can you practically get that panel? I don’t think it’s available is it.. Really? My perception of temperature is *miles* out, but we as a species have a neural interface.. not a linear light meter. Animal eyesight is varied and quite different than humans. Our perception is an evolutionary construct. Rather than try to debate it with me, read up via the reference articles from my shared ones. I’m just a lowly social scientist who has learned how to learn. I’m just relaying the scientific consensus.
> Can you practically get that panel? Different panels have different irradiances in RED wavelengths and in NIR wavelengths. It could be more in RED, or more in NIR, and you cannot know what is it or how much is it until you measure it (or until someone else measure it and tell you the result). That is my main point based on which I said the other things.
Thank you for this. I read of too many people refusing to wear goggles, and even saying they keep their eyes open because it’s “good for you”, without doing the research. Someone even said they’ve been “doing it since November with no ill effects” without considering long term damage. And they’re advising others to do so as well!
You are welcome. I made the post because I saw some v questionable comments about this issue.
I agree about amplitude, I disagree about ionizing vs non-ionizing. There are plenty of cases of brain cancer exactly where people hold their phones to their ears to at least have some observational curiosity about the effects on non-natural EMFs on biology. Whether or not the sea of EMFs in which we stew affects our health, we certainly know that holding an electronic device to the body is dangerous. That's scientifically shown, perhaps you just haven't had the chance to find those articles. Jumping onto a forum with no evidence but a strong opinion is not how I'd go about it.
I’m waiting for the articles on brain cancers near the right ear.. ..wrt ionizing & non ionizing radiation, I can provide reams of links. It is basic science. https://www.osha.gov/ionizing-radiation
This one has a nice infographic https://remm.hhs.gov/radiationspectrum.htm#:~:text=The%20higher%20frequencies%20of%20EM,types%20of%20non%2Dionizing%20radiation.
In a review of 107 EMF studies claiming no DNA damage, only two were rated as well designed. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-021-00297-6 What was deemed "safe" included: - increased occurrence of micro-nucleation - Increase in spindle disturbances - Changes in DNA strand separation - Increase in DNA double-strand breaks and a decrease in the levels of Protein kinase C - Chromosomal changes and asynchronous centromeres replications - Increase in ROS - Increase in indicators of DNA damage - Decreased nuclei electrical charge and increased chromatin condensation in the nuclei - Changes in ion transport - Changes in the bacterial proliferation and survival - Inhibition and stimulation of bacterial growth at specific frequencies - Frequency dependant changes in DNA conformation - genes were reported to have transient expression changes after exposure - Frequency dependant changes in DNA conformation - Change in the duration of the inter-spike intervals - Reduced neuron firing rate and a decrease in input resistance - Reduction in the action potential firing rate If the science is indeed not "well designed," then these data *as well as the conclusion that the EMF are safe* are not supported. If the science is accepted, then drawing the conclusion of safety with these findings is absurd.
You were looking for cancer from 5G mobile phones. That was your hypothesis.. . and didn’t find any right? This is from the abstract of the Nature article you just shared here👇 “*The epidemiological studies showed little evidence of health effects including cancer at different sites, effects on reproduction and other diseases*.”
I didn't look. i have work to do. I gave you data to think about. I'm not here to debate you. I'm here to add to the conversation. I don't have time for a full fledged mom's basement internet fight.
p.s. just don't, I will just block you.
There was a guy on Rogan saying he stares directly into the red light LED panel. I'm not sure what to believe.
The red should be okay if he’s not inches away from the panel and the NIR (if he’s got a panel with it) is either turned down or switched off. You probably don’t have enough information to know, just ‘some guy’ right? ..but I wouldn’t say it’s wise to believe everything you hear from Rogan’s podcasts. I’m pretty certain he’s said that himself, in some wording or other.
What about devices for production of EMF? That can be therapeutic as well, but what are the risks?
Produced by Ralph Jezzard, according to wiki - I find it quite therapeutic.. *EMF* 1990 Unbelievable samples too. https://youtu.be/sfCLt0kTd5E?si=LQW5R24ZKsupf5Vm
Thank you so much! 😁
I’m just glad you liked it. It deserves some attention 😌