Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
diljs

blue light acne treatments

I'm getting more and more interested in blue light acne treatmetns.

so far I've heard about the dermalux, acnelamp, beautyskin, and the happyskin "doesn't do anything" lamp.

Personal experiences seem to be sparse here or on google, so I just wanted to see if there was anyone her who has any experience with these.

I was sort of leaning towards the acnelamp for its price, but then I did a search here and saw "kelly banks" and a few other new names made just to spam every single blue light topic with how good the acnelamp is. If that's their marketing technique, I'm not so sure I trust that company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or if you're in the US where you have 110V, you can buy the 150PAR/FL/B and perhaps 150PAR/FL/R, which are two much cheaper and probably stronger bulbs, from this site. Those lamps are sold as acne lamps on http://www.kaliszincolor.com/, but those people charge about twice the price!

A few people on this site has bought the blue one, but I have only heard from one of them, and he said that it works good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm getting more and more interested in blue light acne treatmetns.

so far I've heard about the dermalux, acnelamp, beautyskin, and the happyskin "doesn't do anything" lamp.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that new study (I think it came out like 2 years ago) said that exposure to visible spectrum light can be damaging as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IRC I think it was more of a skin aging effect, but we're still talking a lot less damage than you get with UV. So you need to compare it with sunbed use.

I thnk the total amount of light radiation you get from the lamp is a lot lower than the total visible radiation you would get if you worked outside, for example. And sunlight has extra UV for good measure that these lamps simply don't give you.

Let's face it, nothing is absolutely safe, even glucose is thought to be potentially carcinogenic due to glycation. But you need that to live; without it your brain dies.

And none of the antibiotics are absolutely safe (e.g. long term use of minocycline seems to cause lupus), accutane (not noted for its safey). BP removes the top layer of skin and so sensitises the skin to UV... skin cancer again.

But even acne itself is dangerous- people with it tend to get arthritis, and occasionally heart disease (some of the microbes can occasionally make it to the heart valves and joints...)

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Personally, I think the visible light treatments give the best mix of safety and effectiveness. YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2) the power of the light from machines is less than the power of light from the sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other point I just thought of- if these treatments really were chopping up DNA to any really significant degree then they would be expected to have a tanning effect... like UV-A does, since it's DNA damage that triggers tanning with UV-A.

But I haven't noticed *any* degree of tanning.

So personally I wouldn't sweat it too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I knew the research was out there, and if you did the research like I asked you to, you might have located several credible research results indicating that we can not rule out visible spectrum light as a cause for cancer. In fact, this one researcher believes that UVA plus visible spectrum light cause 90% of all melanoma skin cancers in humans:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=10537007

Mind you, there are lots more studies on other types of animals indicating that high-UVA or low UVB radiation is the primary culprit instead:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=15245436

I read a current events article a while back, probably around the year 2000 describing a latest discovery that scientists had underestimated the effects of visible spectrum light on skin cancer, saying that it's likely a much more potent cause than they had thought in the past. That stuck in my head.

All of the research is really suspect, however, since they use animal experiments, and animals are notoriously bad models for humans. The first article I linked to above goes so far as to say that, "At present, the only suitable model is a backcross hybrid of small tropical fish of the genus Xiphophorus, bred to have only one tumor suppressor gene." I'm not sure how correct the researcher is, however. But if the researcher is correct, then it calls into question results based on guinea pigs, mice, and other animals. Still, I would think that those animals are closer to humans than any sort of fish. So at this point I'd just throw my hands up in confusion.

There seems to be more research pointing to low-UVB / high-UVA as the biggest contributor to skin cancer than any sort of research pointing to low-UVA / high-visual spectrum. So I'd say that it's reasonable at this point in time to say that visible spectrum light is going cause less skin cancer than UVA/UVB. However, we need to qualify that by saying that this visible spectrum light needs to be "low intensity" (daylight). When you turn up the strength of the visible spectrum light, you may see skin cancer effects similar to UVB. That is what I'm worried about. These light therapy devices are outputting a very intense visible spectrum light at greater strength than would be seen in daylight, and people are putting it right up to their faces for 30 minutes to an hour each day. It's not as simple as just waiving it off by saying that visible spectrum light doesn't cause skin cancer. That's overly simplistic, and it could fail as a rule of thumb when the intensity of visible spectrum light is greater than daylight.

Buyer beware.

Steve

Austin, Texas USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you turn up the strength of the visible spectrum light,  you may see skin cancer effects similar to UVB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well,  you might be right.  I'm not sure.  I'm an electrical engineer,  so I know what you mean when you say that light can release an electron from its outer orbital shell.  BUT,  I'm not sure it's NOT doing that also with visible light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eusa_wall.gif Yes, well. I have a degree in Physics so I actually *do* know what ionisation means, and why there's a threshold wavelength. It's related to Einstein's photoelectric effect, for which he got the Nobel prize. And that's why your stuff is pure FUD. You don't actually know what you're talking about. Blue light can't ionise; except for certain molecules like chlorophyl and porphorins. Even UVA doesn't ionise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that the FDA has approved it for use in acne really doesn't mean much.  It just means that maybe they've found no evidence so far that the devices cause cancer.  That doesn't indicate that they've done any experiments to prove that.  Nor have they studied the long term effects of the devices.

Basically,  what they've LIKELY done,  and I don't know for 100% certainty,  is that they probably reasoned like you that visible spectrum light doesn't cause cancer,  so it must be okay for these machines to be marketed.  But it's flawed reasoning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure why you keep mentioning that you haven't seen any evidence of tanning.  Of course you're not going to see tanning.

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


×