129 replies to this topic

[ChiBEARS54]

i bought the exact lamp off of ebay about 6 months ago... and sad to say that it didn't help. in fact it even made my skin worse (a lot of small white heads around my forehead and chin which just added to my existing acne). I used the blue light for 3 months, once a day for 15min.

If your like every1 else on this site that has tried countless products, then go ahead an try it. Everyone is different. lucky for me, i'm finally on accutane!

[blacksheiladog]

i bought the exact lamp off of ebay about 6 months ago... and sad to say that it didn't help. in fact it even made my skin worse (a lot of small white heads around my forehead and chin which just added to my existing acne). I used the blue light for 3 months, once a day for 15min.

If your like every1 else on this site that has tried countless products, then go ahead an try it. Everyone is different. lucky for me, i'm finally on accutane!

Thank you for your feedback on the ebay lights. We need to get a lot of data before we can determine effectiveness, and your report is most appreciated! I am also concerned that you are the second person to say the lights created more whiteheads, without clearing basic breakouts. We need to be sure we do not steer people toward anything that makes things worse (or is ineffective) for sure.... Glad you are getting help from your current treatment. Best of luck to you! -Dan

[countdown2failure]

i bought the exact lamp off of ebay about 6 months ago... and sad to say that it didn't help. in fact it even made my skin worse (a lot of small white heads around my forehead and chin which just added to my existing acne). I used the blue light for 3 months, once a day for 15min.

If your like every1 else on this site that has tried countless products, then go ahead an try it. Everyone is different. lucky for me, i'm finally on accutane!

Thanks for sharing your experience, sorry the lamp didn't work out for you. Out of curiosity, how far did you keep the bulb from your face? And did you have any products on your skin at the time of treatment?

Good luck with the Accutane, I know from first hand experience that is is sometimes the only thing that helps. Please be careful though, I experienced some horrible side effects from it, some of which I still live with to this day.

Best wishes!

[blacksheiladog]

bump to reset missing pages

[phojitsu]

Hmm looks like it's been about 5 months since anyone wrote about this, thought i'd share my experience. I did some research on the subject, which led me to this post. There really isn't much out there about using actinic 03 lights for acne treatment, but I found a light which seems to peak just at the necessary wavelength (415-420nm) without going into the UV range (or any other non-useful wavelength). The light is a coralife actinic 03, 24" I believe it's a 27watt bulb. Got it from a pet store (petco) for like $20... picked up a cheap fixture at walmart for another 10 bucks. From what I understand, p. acnes bacteria become nonviable when exposed to a certain amount of energy of the effective wavelength (415-420nm). Basically it produces an environment which renders the bacteria are unable to reproduce, meaning eventually they just sort of die off slowly. My experience would seem to confirm this- I used the light VERY close to my breakouts, i.e. 2" or less, even resting on the surface for about 2 weeks and i started to see results that were promising. Got pretty busy and started slacking off, and the acne came back stronger than ever. At this point I did some calculations, based off some test data (converted joules to watt-hours) and ended up with about 39 minutes. I committed myself to determining how effective it was. Well flash forward 2 more weeks and there is a huge improvement, my breakouts on my face were essentially gone and the cysts on my chest had dramatically improved (my main concern, it was pretty bad for a while - i've always had breakouts here, and nothing seemed to have much effect, except for accutane).

I'm about 4 weeks in, and I have to say that I'm very impressed with the results, especially considering the small investment. If improvement continues, I'll probably invest in a solution that's a little more convenient. So far, my conclusions seems to be:

1) The light needs to be administered consistently for results. for me, about 40 minutes a day seems to have definite, measurable success

2) I'm using a less intense light, but with more time. I believe with a more intense light i may be able to get away with less time, but it could be that the bacteria need prolonged, intense exposure in order to make them nonviable. At this wattage the light doesn't seem to have any problem getting through the folicles.

3) doesn't seem to make a difference what source the light is from, so long as it's the proper wavelength. Actinic 03, or 415-420nm penetrates water, and presumably skin, better than just about any other wavelength of visible light. I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that perhaps the higher wattages of light people are trying to use may NOT be more effective, simply because increasing intensity could theoretically create "noise" in the spectrum of light that is produced - like when you turn a speaker all the way up, you get distortion - and in this case, other wavelengths of light than the desirable 415-420nm range. If someone who has experience with fluorescent lights would like to chime in here, it would be GREATLY appreciated.

I'd like to hear what other people have to say about this, I know that there are certainly physics and math involved that are simply above my head!

[space55]

Hello, I was looking over the internet and I found two pretty similar products which emit red and blue light simultaneously. The first one is Beautyskin and it used 6 15W bulbs and the other one is Naturebright Clarity, and it uses 6 9W bulbs. For the Beautyskin the instruction say have atleast 6" distance from the face. For Clarity it says to have a distance of up to 4" from your face. The Watts differences between the two is 36W (54W and 90W). I was wondering if I will be okay with Naturebright since I can put it closer to my face and get the same amount of light. Will I get the same result though?

I'm asking those questions because Clarity is little cheaper than Beautyskin and it comes with 6 additional bulbs. That means longer life time. But the output level is lower. so I am debating which to buy

[Jakeman]

I know this thread is really old, but has anyone seen success with the actinic lights? Blue light therapy seems very practical to me. I'm currently taking organic chemistry, and a lot of the concepts relate directly to spectroscopy practices. I just recently was prescribed low-dose accutane but have backed out of taking it. I care about my long-term health too much.

My current thinking is I will drop some money on treatment from a dermatology office. If this treatment fails, I will know bluelight therapy isn't for me. If it succeeds, I will be looking for an at-home option, as long-term professional treatment is much too expensive. I will be opting for treatment with a photosensitizer.

A quick background of me:

*23 years old
*moderate/severe acne for 7 years (more moderate)
*topicals irritate face - I almost question if they do more harm than good (including aczone)
*oral antibiotics are extremely effective but not practical long-term
*A very reserved lifestyle keeps me clear (keeping to myself, not getting excited, remaining stress-free), but is very difficult to maintain
*Personal commitment to never use accutane
*Probably will outgrow acne in a few years (as my father and brother did)

Again, any successes, please post!

[hippi123]

I use Acnederm.com lights with good results. I don't know all the specifications, but you can read them on their website. Also, they are very affordable. The blue light by itself is $29, but I use the red one too ($39) and find they work best together.

At first I used them a couple times a day to kill the bacteria that causes acne, but now I use in the morning and night.

Good luck.

Edited by hippi123, 14 March 2010 - 01:22 PM.

[Jakeman]

Okay, I did a tremendous amount of research this past month, built myself a blue light system, and will start in the next few days (as soon as my UV filters come in). I have 8x24W T5 High Output Giesemann PureActinic fluorescent lights in two 600x200x70mm fixtures aimed at both sides of my face. Here are my calculations for irradiation time:


8 Pure Actinic T5 High Output bulbs
95% reflective panels behind bulbs

70% ballast efficiency factor (is ballast efficiency factor the same as input to output efficiency?)

24Wx8=192W


Half light goes up, 95% reflected - 4.8W loss
(192-4.8W)*0.7 = 131W

Approximately 20% output hits face (calculations I accidentally deleted)

26.2W hits face
Facial Area - 17.78x25.4cm = 451.6cm^2

Wattage / area of face = 26.2W / 451.6cm^2 = 0.0580W/cm^2 = 58.0mW/cm^2
PureActinic Output Spectrum:
http://www.specialty-lights.com/531065.html

Based on this and other (different) spectral plots of PureActinic output, I estimate 20% in 410-420nm range.
I am using a UV filter with roughly 72% transmittance through this 410-420 band.

.2x.72x58.0mW = 8.35mW/cm^2

70% efficiency factor may be very high (if Ballast Efficiency Factor is not the right spec) but 20% output hitting face may be very low. I hope they balance each other out.

So, I'm left with 8.35mW/cm^2 irradience on my face.

Compared to 92mW/cm^2 in the British study.


Those are only my calculations. They could be horribly wrong. Intuition tells me I have a much more powerful system.
The British study used 4x15W fluorescent lamps (type HF885). I don't know what that is, but T5 HO fluorescents are new on the market and bragged as being MUCH more powerful than older fluorescents. I am using 8x24W T5 HO fluorescents. So, despite my calculations, I may very well have a system more powerful than in the british study by a long shot. Additionally, the lights were 9 inches from the face in the study. Mine will be an inch away. That increases irradience tremendously. The British study did daily irradiations of 15 minutes. I will be starting at 15 minutes daily for my back and face and very likely bump that up to 30-45 minutes. With my UV filters blocking all but 2% UV, I am not concerned.

If anyone is actually interested, I'll post the specific products I bought. But I would like your advice on my choice of irradiation time (15-45 minutes/day).

[Pax]

Okay, I did a tremendous amount of research this past month, built myself a blue light system, and will start in the next few days (as soon as my UV filters come in). I have 8x24W T5 High Output Giesemann PureActinic fluorescent lights in two 600x200x70mm fixtures aimed at both sides of my face. Here are my calculations for irradiation time:


8 Pure Actinic T5 High Output bulbs
95% reflective panels behind bulbs

70% ballast efficiency factor (is ballast efficiency factor the same as input to output efficiency?)

24Wx8=192W


Half light goes up, 95% reflected - 4.8W loss
(192-4.8W)*0.7 = 131W

Approximately 20% output hits face (calculations I accidentally deleted)

26.2W hits face
Facial Area - 17.78x25.4cm = 451.6cm^2

Wattage / area of face = 26.2W / 451.6cm^2 = 0.0580W/cm^2 = 58.0mW/cm^2
PureActinic Output Spectrum:


Based on this and other (different) spectral plots of PureActinic output, I estimate 20% in 410-420nm range.
I am using a UV filter with roughly 72% transmittance through this 410-420 band.

.2x.72x58.0mW = 8.35mW/cm^2

70% efficiency factor may be very high (if Ballast Efficiency Factor is not the right spec) but 20% output hitting face may be very low. I hope they balance each other out.

So, I'm left with 8.35mW/cm^2 irradience on my face.

Compared to 92mW/cm^2 in the British study.


Those are only my calculations. They could be horribly wrong. Intuition tells me I have a much more powerful system.
The British study used 4x15W fluorescent lamps (type HF885). I don't know what that is, but T5 HO fluorescents are new on the market and bragged as being MUCH more powerful than older fluorescents. I am using 8x24W T5 HO fluorescents. So, despite my calculations, I may very well have a system more powerful than in the british study by a long shot. Additionally, the lights were 9 inches from the face in the study. Mine will be an inch away. That increases irradience tremendously. The British study did daily irradiations of 15 minutes. I will be starting at 15 minutes daily for my back and face and very likely bump that up to 30-45 minutes. With my UV filters blocking all but 2% UV, I am not concerned.

If anyone is actually interested, I'll post the specific products I bought. But I would like your advice on my choice of irradiation time (15-45 minutes/day).

Wow! I'm sure we'd all like to know what became of this experiment. Please post an update and more details on your suppliers, i.e. UV Filters