Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
The Great Reizo

Blue Light and UV

I have been reading threads about how blue light therapy is on the bleeding edge of technology, as well as the light itself being on the bleeding edge of the UV spectrum! Right next to it in fact. We all know that UV exposure is BAD. It cause aging, burning, and all kinds of unpleasantness. We also know that sun damage occurs in the VERY first minute of unprotected exposure. Now based on that, let's break it down...I think I read somewhere that fifteen minutes of blue light therapy is equal to roughly one minute of sunshine...Based the model of course. Now knowing that, we have 1 minute of sun damage repeated weekly, monthly, and yearly if one continues it regularly...So I am wondering, is this sort of UV from these lights so low that the skin instantly fixes the damage done?...Or do we have the problem of small, yet steady photoaging? I am all ears!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you should bring this up today! I had a lengthy chat with the woman who runs Sci\ART (the company who distribute the Enlux lamps) yesterday, and she was advocating the use of a UV lamp for the treatment of acne. Not blue light (415n wavelength) but actual UV.

The lamp in question is marketed by a company called sperti.com and is called a Vitamin D lamp (although I understand it is a straight-forward UV unit). It incorporates a timer to administer a 5 minute dose (daily). She says her daughter, who didn't respond to blue/red light treatment, has totally cleared after using this unit.

She also said she thinks the attitude to UV is in the process of being re-assessed by the medical and scientific community, and expects to see it being used for the treatment of several disorders in the near future. Interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lamp in question is marketed by a company called sperti.com and is called a Vitamin D lamp (although I understand it is a straight-forward UV unit). It incorporates a timer to administer a 5 minute dose (daily). She says her daughter, who didn't respond to blue/red light treatment, has totally cleared after using this unit.

vitamin D is produced by UV-B. UV-B creates the worst type of DNA damage- it causes distortion of the DNA helix which tends to jam up during copying. The risk of inducing cancer is higher than the other types.

The 415 nm light is near the UV-A, UV-A is much less damaging, AIU it tends to trigger clean breaks in the DNA which are quickly fixed by enzymes in the cell and are far, far less likely to cause cancer.

P.Acnes is particularly susceptible to UV-B, but I'm not sure you want to take the risk, with most treatments you're trying to minimise any toxicity to skin, and increase toxicity to bacteria, and UV-B is pretty toxic to both; if you need vitamin D, pills are both cheap and safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I were to get one of these blue light devices at 415...would any photoaging be pretty much instantly reversible...considering that the DNA breaks are quickly fixed? If so I would like to build my own! I don't know how though. I read the threads about building your own but it looked complicated. I need this to be broken down into dummy terms as electricity is not my forte.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if I were to get one of these blue light devices at 415...would any photoaging be pretty much instantly reversible...considering that the DNA breaks are quickly fixed? If so I would like to build my own! I don't know how though. I read the threads about building your own but it looked complicated. I need this to be broken down into dummy terms as electricity is not my forte.

Take a look at the thread called "internet alternatives to expensive blue light treatments" as we are investigating the best 415 nm light sources.

http://www.acne.org/messageboard/Internet-...ts-t172034.html

Actinic 03 lights have virtually no UV components, and it turns out that 415 nm light penetrates water very well, so it penetrates skin cells well, as they are mostly water. This frequency is completely safe even for long exposure, but you still want to protect the eyes from bright blue light.

You can get a real good dose of light from aquarium lights we discuss on there in my opening thread, a fixture about 2 feet long can deliver 2 x 65 watts (130 total) Actinic 03 fluorescent which is equivallent to 600 watts of regular bulb light. No one yet has tested this and reported back yet. It's drawback is that the fixture is a bit bulky at 2 feet long, and would have to propped up on legs in order to lie under it (some mechanical abilities are needed to make a stand). We are also testing a acne blue light sold on ebay, which is 27 watts compact fluor. It fits in desk lamp fixture that can be had for 19 dollars US at home depot stores. But the ebay seller auctions the light and fixture and it can cost up to 150 on ebay (sometimes more, sometimes less). Extra bulbs are available once you buy his light, and then you can buy a second fixture yourself. All told, it might cost around 200 for a two light setup, like I set my daughter up with. She has had pretty good results, but we are still testing this option with another user on that thread before we start recommending to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if I were to get one of these blue light devices at 415...would any photoaging be pretty much instantly reversible...considering that the DNA breaks are quickly fixed.

By definition, skin ageing is irreversible, if it's reversible, it's not skin ageing.

I think occasionally the fix will mess up though; the DNA strand tends to unravel a bit while it is snapped, and the fixing enzymes won't always do a perfect join.

But this is mostly theory- there's been little research on the effects of light above 400 nm (which is the cutoff for UV-A). But the trend is in exponential decline from the UV curves below 400 nm.

As I understand it, there's about one instance of DNA damage in every cell of your body every day anyway; and you have to trade off the damage to yourself you would get from other treatments, accutane, benzoyl peroxide etc. etc. as well as the normal level of skin damage you get from every day living and light exposure (normal fluorescents in general produce not insignificant levels of UV that over a lifetime cause a measure of skin ageing, and most bulbs these days are fluorescent.)

I haven't noticed any significant levels of skin ageing myself from blue/red light- ymmv, and if so let us know.

One guy here got a slight tan when he held the lamp within millimeters of their skin, but it faded in hours. That has to be a good sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×