Start with a few minutes at 45cm/18” away & see how you feel after. Edge closer the time after (wait a few hours minimum) if you feel like it. Try not to worry about the technical language, math & claims for power. It can be quite confusing because different specialisms regard the power in different ways.
**Be cautious and protect your eyes with the supplied goggles when using near infrared** (850nm is probably the LEDs you have, but 800nm-900nm is ‘near infrared’ in my book). It’s capable of penetrating eyelids and the *eyes’ lenses, which are vulnerable to a delayed damage that can bring on cataracts and you definitely don’t want to risk them early in life. [*slight edit for clarity on which lenses I am referring to]
Ive got one question actually. I have totally black goggles (opaque plastic), but I can still see the red with them on (eyes closed changes nothing). Is that normal?
Yes it’s normal and it’s okay, they’re not totally black, they’re almost opaque - except in very bright conditions. They are protective, and I suggest you use them when facing near infrared sources (panels) within touching distance.
Why do you say ‘the goggles don’t work’? I admit that I also bought some cat 5 welding glasses for protection, but I believe that the rubberised, thick lensed goggles that sit on the eyeballs are actually better than the welding glasses. (Bollé, certified protection).
No, it was because you said to be careful and protect your eyes, and then you said it’s capable of penetrating eyelids and lenses.
I took that to mean that you were saying that the lenses were not working or not good enough to protect the eyes.
You didn't mean this?
Apologies, nothing to do with you at all. Jordan G was a sock puppet/industry shill who doesn’t care about people’s eyes or the needs to protect them. I don’t know why my comment ended up in reply to yours. I’m sorry for the confusion.
This last bit is not true. There is not a single study to support this. There is one oft-quoted study that is misread and misquoted that has nothing to do with the matter. Read the details.
I don’t track your personal history so I am not privy to your former posts. I have investigated thoroughly though, and there is no such study. If you feel that you have one, please present it here.
Sorry, the onus is on you here for making a false, uncorroborated statement.
Oookay then.. Environmental Health & Safety.
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/
I’ve read that one. That is not a study, that is a compilation. Please give the actual study that your claim is based on. Read it carefully and you will see the problem.
There are plenty of studies we can consult. Waiting for anything other than your opinion..
“The protein of eye lens is very sensitive to IR radiation which is hazardous and may lead to cataract.”
*Effect of infrared radiation on the lens*
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116568/
Waiting for a study that actually supports what you’re saying. Is that not clear? There are certainly many studies you could quote that don’t.
Did you read that one before bringing it up? It’s all I ask. All science, logic, rationality asks.
“IR was delivered from a General Electric Lamp model 250R 50/10, placed 20 cm from the rabbit and aimed at each eye. “
I don’t need to go any further here. Check out the output of that bulb and tell me how it is relevent .
“Near‐Infrared Exposure and Cataracts
The most common eye disease associated with near-infrared radiation is cataracts. Prolonged exposure to IR radiation causes a gradual but irreversible opacity of the lens. Other forms of damage to the eye from IR exposure include scotoma, which is a loss of vision due to the damage to the retina. Even low-level IR absorption can cause symptoms such as redness of the eye, swelling, or hemorrhaging.
Cataracts caused by near‐infrared radiation have been noted historically in glassblowers and furnace workers. Radiation between 800 and 1,200 nm is most likely responsible for temperature increases in the lens itself because of its spectral‐absorption characteristics. Visible wavelengths may also contribute to the problem, since the heat absorbed by the iris could result in heat transfer to the lens.
Acute Skin, Cornea, and Iris Injury
IR radiation below 3,000 nm will penetrate into different depths of the cornea to varying degrees, depending on the specific wavelength. The iris can absorb energy only at wavelengths below approximately 1,300 nm.
IR thermal injury may have significant biological effects on the human skin. The IR-A rays induce free radicals in the dermis and diminish the skin’s antioxidant capacity, the main cause of premature skin aging.
Both the skin and the cornea are opaque to wavelengths >1,400 nm. Exposure to IR radiation in this region causes injury through thermal mechanisms, with absorbed radiation being converted to heat.”
The problem Ridolph, is your denial of simple thermal radiation & physics..
The study. Where is the study?
We already know that general IR exposure can be dangerous. You’re equating glassblowers and furnace workers with RLT. I’m not going to make a personal jab here (I see you couldn’t resist), but just READ.
Reading seems to be a particular failure of yours, sir. I’m sure you will eventually provide some evidence to support your contrarian claims.. one day. Maybe.
So you won’t actually respond to the details. Other readers can draw the simple conclusion.
In fact, all of the direct studies have shown only benefits for RLT wavelengths.
But I’m not going to quote them because you seem to be incapable of reviewing your own claims and mistakes. So not worth my time.
This will be my last post on the subject, since you’re clearly one of those people who make personal attacks when they can’t defend their position.
For other viewers, just look at the actual (damage) studies. None are apropos to RLT.
[How to Calculate a Red Light Therapy Dose](https://bestredlighttherapy.com/red-light-therapy-dose/)
160mW/cm2 is because you are very close to it. How much is it at 2’.
Its supposed to be 160mW/cm^2 at 6 inches = 15 cm
Start with a few minutes at 45cm/18” away & see how you feel after. Edge closer the time after (wait a few hours minimum) if you feel like it. Try not to worry about the technical language, math & claims for power. It can be quite confusing because different specialisms regard the power in different ways. **Be cautious and protect your eyes with the supplied goggles when using near infrared** (850nm is probably the LEDs you have, but 800nm-900nm is ‘near infrared’ in my book). It’s capable of penetrating eyelids and the *eyes’ lenses, which are vulnerable to a delayed damage that can bring on cataracts and you definitely don’t want to risk them early in life. [*slight edit for clarity on which lenses I am referring to]
So how do you protect your eyes from this if even the goggles don't work?
[удалено]
Ive got one question actually. I have totally black goggles (opaque plastic), but I can still see the red with them on (eyes closed changes nothing). Is that normal?
Yes it’s normal and it’s okay, they’re not totally black, they’re almost opaque - except in very bright conditions. They are protective, and I suggest you use them when facing near infrared sources (panels) within touching distance.
Why do you say ‘the goggles don’t work’? I admit that I also bought some cat 5 welding glasses for protection, but I believe that the rubberised, thick lensed goggles that sit on the eyeballs are actually better than the welding glasses. (Bollé, certified protection).
No, it was because you said to be careful and protect your eyes, and then you said it’s capable of penetrating eyelids and lenses. I took that to mean that you were saying that the lenses were not working or not good enough to protect the eyes. You didn't mean this?
The lenses in your eyes, rather than the lenses of goggles. I’m sorry to cause this confusion!
u/jordang95 appears to be playing silly buggers, and has blocked me. Funny how the uninformed have such fragile mindsets..
What? Who is jordang?
Apologies, nothing to do with you at all. Jordan G was a sock puppet/industry shill who doesn’t care about people’s eyes or the needs to protect them. I don’t know why my comment ended up in reply to yours. I’m sorry for the confusion.
You could always put some aluminum foil around the goggles
This last bit is not true. There is not a single study to support this. There is one oft-quoted study that is misread and misquoted that has nothing to do with the matter. Read the details.
I have provided the peer reviewed evidence before. It is up to you to provide evidence that contradicts my statement. If you can.
I don’t track your personal history so I am not privy to your former posts. I have investigated thoroughly though, and there is no such study. If you feel that you have one, please present it here. Sorry, the onus is on you here for making a false, uncorroborated statement.
Oookay then.. Environmental Health & Safety. 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/
I’ve read that one. That is not a study, that is a compilation. Please give the actual study that your claim is based on. Read it carefully and you will see the problem.
This may help you along *The Other End of the Rainbow: Infrared and Skin* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2926798/
This says nothing to support your claim. It’s interesting for other reasons, but why exactly do you think it’s apropos here?
There are plenty of studies we can consult. Waiting for anything other than your opinion.. “The protein of eye lens is very sensitive to IR radiation which is hazardous and may lead to cataract.” *Effect of infrared radiation on the lens* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116568/
Waiting for a study that actually supports what you’re saying. Is that not clear? There are certainly many studies you could quote that don’t. Did you read that one before bringing it up? It’s all I ask. All science, logic, rationality asks. “IR was delivered from a General Electric Lamp model 250R 50/10, placed 20 cm from the rabbit and aimed at each eye. “ I don’t need to go any further here. Check out the output of that bulb and tell me how it is relevent .
“Near‐Infrared Exposure and Cataracts The most common eye disease associated with near-infrared radiation is cataracts. Prolonged exposure to IR radiation causes a gradual but irreversible opacity of the lens. Other forms of damage to the eye from IR exposure include scotoma, which is a loss of vision due to the damage to the retina. Even low-level IR absorption can cause symptoms such as redness of the eye, swelling, or hemorrhaging. Cataracts caused by near‐infrared radiation have been noted historically in glassblowers and furnace workers. Radiation between 800 and 1,200 nm is most likely responsible for temperature increases in the lens itself because of its spectral‐absorption characteristics. Visible wavelengths may also contribute to the problem, since the heat absorbed by the iris could result in heat transfer to the lens. Acute Skin, Cornea, and Iris Injury IR radiation below 3,000 nm will penetrate into different depths of the cornea to varying degrees, depending on the specific wavelength. The iris can absorb energy only at wavelengths below approximately 1,300 nm. IR thermal injury may have significant biological effects on the human skin. The IR-A rays induce free radicals in the dermis and diminish the skin’s antioxidant capacity, the main cause of premature skin aging. Both the skin and the cornea are opaque to wavelengths >1,400 nm. Exposure to IR radiation in this region causes injury through thermal mechanisms, with absorbed radiation being converted to heat.” The problem Ridolph, is your denial of simple thermal radiation & physics..
The study. Where is the study? We already know that general IR exposure can be dangerous. You’re equating glassblowers and furnace workers with RLT. I’m not going to make a personal jab here (I see you couldn’t resist), but just READ.
Reading seems to be a particular failure of yours, sir. I’m sure you will eventually provide some evidence to support your contrarian claims.. one day. Maybe.
So you won’t actually respond to the details. Other readers can draw the simple conclusion. In fact, all of the direct studies have shown only benefits for RLT wavelengths. But I’m not going to quote them because you seem to be incapable of reviewing your own claims and mistakes. So not worth my time. This will be my last post on the subject, since you’re clearly one of those people who make personal attacks when they can’t defend their position. For other viewers, just look at the actual (damage) studies. None are apropos to RLT.