Hi A,

I do not think so because he IR penetrates quite deep. you can put it on the
side of your head for example and it will still get through to the eye. it can
go right through bone. So even if you look up or to the side the IR will still
go right into the eye through the side of the eyeball if its not covered with
foil. the good part is that it has a narrow beam so you can be quite precise on
where it goes, for example shining it right below the eye with the edge of the
array at a downward slight angle will miss the eye itself., it comes out in a
pretty straight line out the front so even being off angle a bit from the beam
and its gone. Let me know if this helps

Take care,
  V




>   V,

>   It is my understanding that near infrared, espesially 800+ nm, will
>   also damage the eyes. If 880 is used for the head area will just not
>   looking into the diodes be enough protection ???

>   Thanks,

>   Andre....



--

Hi Cyteen,

Yes but they are made to protect from UV ( ultraviolet) and the LEDS put out IR
(infrared) I don't think the will protect unless you add the foil. Because Foil
blocks Infrared which may go right through the UV filter they put on those.

Take care,
  V


> I'd think the ones you can get at a tanning salon would do the
> trick. There are many different sizes and styles available



>

--

Hi Holly,

You only need to use those for the infrared. just get some cheap tanning goggles
and put a little bit of aluminum foil over them and your all set to go.

Take care,
  V


> Does anyone have a recommendation for suitable eye protection when
> using an LED device on the face?
> I have seen ads from LED companies with models wearing some type of
> tiny goggles, but don't know what or where they are to be found.
> Thanks.
> Holly




--

Does anyone have a recommendation for suitable eye protection when
using an LED device on the face?
I have seen ads from LED companies with models wearing some type of
tiny goggles, but don't know what or where they are to be found.
Thanks.
Holly

Hi realdoggymouse,

I did have some on my website at one time but they are no longer there. it would require some searchnig to find them again.
websites change al the time so I have not found some new articles.
So I don't have any handy at this time. I may be able to dig some up however.

Take care,
 V


> ok, i'm interested in purchasing the mixed unit (660 and 880).  Are
> there any studies you can point me to that discuss depth of
> penetration?
> thanks!

>

Hi realdoggymouse,

I did have some on my website at one time but they are no longer there. it would
require some searchnig to find them again.
websites change al the time so I have not found some new articles.
So I don't have any handy at this time. I may be able to dig some up however.

Take care,
  V


> ok, i'm interested in purchasing the mixed unit (660 and 880).  Are
> there any studies you can point me to that discuss depth of
> penetration?
> thanks!

> --- In LEDeffects@yahoogroups.com, V <lights@...> wrote:

>> Hi realdoggymouse,

>> Well the RED led can speed up hearing by twice if you can get the
> light to the area. And it does it by stimulating the cells to
> produce  more ATP which is their energy source.

>> the infrared 880 increases circulation.

>> I can't say if your conditions would be helped or not as I am not a
> doctor.

>> Take care,
>>  V


>> > Thanks, does this mean the LED can penetrate the skin like a
> laser?
>> > I'm confused because many of the studies talk about lasers.  I'm
>> > curious if the LED can heal tendinopathy or vascular problems.
>> > Thanks again.

>> > --- In LEDeffects@yahoogroups.com, V <lights@> wrote:

>> >> Hi realdoggymouse,

>> >> Well there are a few differences, One is that a laser can
> operate
>> > at a much higher power level than an LED, does not mean that all
> of
>> > them do however, most small lasers put out 5mw or less, LEDs can
> do
>> > mare than that. A laser puts all the light on one small spot so
> the
>> > concentration is much greater, but then if you have  treat a
> large
>> > area it may take a long time. LED can cover a large area at once.
> You
>> > can get LED units much more readily than laser units.
>> >> Leds are safer there is no over doing it in most cases. with a
>> > laser you have to know how much time to use it so you don't over
> do
>> > it.
>> >> A strong laser can be expensive compared to an LED unit also.
>> >> LED units can be made in more variety of colors for various
>> > applications than lasers can.
>> >> So it all depends on what you want to do and how much you want
> to
>> > spend. If you have a serious inner ear problem for example a
> laser
>> > may be best due to its ability to keep the light focused and
> higher
>> > power, but if you want to sooth sore muscles then an LED unit
> will
>> > probably work better.
>> >> It all comes down to the right tool for the right job.

>> >> Oh and a laser has a more precise frequency than an LED, a
> narrower
>> > range.


>> >> Take care,
>> >>  V


>> >> > hi, what is the difference between a cold laser and an LED for
>> > therapy?
>> >> > Thanks!



>> >> --





>> --





--

ok, i'm interested in purchasing the mixed unit (660 and 880).  Are
there any studies you can point me to that discuss depth of
penetration?
thanks!

--- In LEDeffects@yahoogroups.com, V <lights@...> wrote:
>
> Hi realdoggymouse,
>
> Well the RED led can speed up hearing by twice if you can get the
light to the area. And it does it by stimulating the cells to
produce  more ATP which is their energy source.
>
> the infrared 880 increases circulation.
>
> I can't say if your conditions would be helped or not as I am not a
doctor.
>
> Take care,
>  V
>
>
> > Thanks, does this mean the LED can penetrate the skin like a
laser?
> > I'm confused because many of the studies talk about lasers.  I'm
> > curious if the LED can heal tendinopathy or vascular problems.
> > Thanks again.
>
> > --- In LEDeffects@yahoogroups.com, V <lights@> wrote:
>
> >> Hi realdoggymouse,
>
> >> Well there are a few differences, One is that a laser can
operate
> > at a much higher power level than an LED, does not mean that all
of
> > them do however, most small lasers put out 5mw or less, LEDs can
do
> > mare than that. A laser puts all the light on one small spot so
the
> > concentration is much greater, but then if you have  treat a
large
> > area it may take a long time. LED can cover a large area at once.
You
> > can get LED units much more readily than laser units.
> >> Leds are safer there is no over doing it in most cases. with a
> > laser you have to know how much time to use it so you don't over
do
> > it.
> >> A strong laser can be expensive compared to an LED unit also.
> >> LED units can be made in more variety of colors for various
> > applications than lasers can.
> >> So it all depends on what you want to do and how much you want
to
> > spend. If you have a serious inner ear problem for example a
laser
> > may be best due to its ability to keep the light focused and
higher
> > power, but if you want to sooth sore muscles then an LED unit
will
> > probably work better.
> >> It all comes down to the right tool for the right job.
>
> >> Oh and a laser has a more precise frequency than an LED, a
narrower
> > range.
>
>
> >> Take care,
> >>  V
>
>
> >> > hi, what is the difference between a cold laser and an LED for
> > therapy?
> >> > Thanks!
>
>
>
> >> --
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>

Hi realdoggymouse,

Well the RED led can speed up hearing by twice if you can get the light to the
area. And it does it by stimulating the cells to produce  more ATP which is
their energy source.

the infrared 880 increases circulation.

I can't say if your conditions would be helped or not as I am not a doctor.

Take care,
  V


> Thanks, does this mean the LED can penetrate the skin like a laser?
> I'm confused because many of the studies talk about lasers.  I'm
> curious if the LED can heal tendinopathy or vascular problems.
> Thanks again.

> --- In LEDeffects@yahoogroups.com, V <lights@...> wrote:

>> Hi realdoggymouse,

>> Well there are a few differences, One is that a laser can operate
> at a much higher power level than an LED, does not mean that all of
> them do however, most small lasers put out 5mw or less, LEDs can do
> mare than that. A laser puts all the light on one small spot so the
> concentration is much greater, but then if you have  treat a large
> area it may take a long time. LED can cover a large area at once. You
> can get LED units much more readily than laser units.
>> Leds are safer there is no over doing it in most cases. with a
> laser you have to know how much time to use it so you don't over do
> it.
>> A strong laser can be expensive compared to an LED unit also.
>> LED units can be made in more variety of colors for various
> applications than lasers can.
>> So it all depends on what you want to do and how much you want to
> spend. If you have a serious inner ear problem for example a laser
> may be best due to its ability to keep the light focused and higher
> power, but if you want to sooth sore muscles then an LED unit will
> probably work better.
>> It all comes down to the right tool for the right job.

>> Oh and a laser has a more precise frequency than an LED, a narrower
> range.


>> Take care,
>>  V


>> > hi, what is the difference between a cold laser and an LED for
> therapy?
>> > Thanks!



>> --





--

Hi realdoggymouse,

Well it depends on the color of the LED, the 660 LED can go about 1/2 to 3/4
inches. the infrared 880 can go up to 3 inches.

But then a blue LED has almost no penetration. So it depends on what laser you
are talking about. What color and what power level.

Take care,
  V


> Thanks, does this mean the LED can penetrate the skin like a laser?
> I'm confused because many of the studies talk about lasers.  I'm
> curious if the LED can heal tendinopathy or vascular problems.
> Thanks again.

> --- In LEDeffects@yahoogroups.com, V <lights@...> wrote:

>> Hi realdoggymouse,

>> Well there are a few differences, One is that a laser can operate
> at a much higher power level than an LED, does not mean that all of
> them do however, most small lasers put out 5mw or less, LEDs can do
> mare than that. A laser puts all the light on one small spot so the
> concentration is much greater, but then if you have  treat a large
> area it may take a long time. LED can cover a large area at once. You
> can get LED units much more readily than laser units.
>> Leds are safer there is no over doing it in most cases. with a
> laser you have to know how much time to use it so you don't over do
> it.
>> A strong laser can be expensive compared to an LED unit also.
>> LED units can be made in more variety of colors for various
> applications than lasers can.
>> So it all depends on what you want to do and how much you want to
> spend. If you have a serious inner ear problem for example a laser
> may be best due to its ability to keep the light focused and higher
> power, but if you want to sooth sore muscles then an LED unit will
> probably work better.
>> It all comes down to the right tool for the right job.

>> Oh and a laser has a more precise frequency than an LED, a narrower
> range.


>> Take care,
>>  V


>> > hi, what is the difference between a cold laser and an LED for
> therapy?
>> > Thanks!



>> --





--

Thanks, does this mean the LED can penetrate the skin like a laser?
I'm confused because many of the studies talk about lasers.  I'm
curious if the LED can heal tendinopathy or vascular problems.
Thanks again.

--- In LEDeffects@yahoogroups.com, V <lights@...> wrote:
>
> Hi realdoggymouse,
>
> Well there are a few differences, One is that a laser can operate
at a much higher power level than an LED, does not mean that all of
them do however, most small lasers put out 5mw or less, LEDs can do
mare than that. A laser puts all the light on one small spot so the
concentration is much greater, but then if you have  treat a large
area it may take a long time. LED can cover a large area at once. You
can get LED units much more readily than laser units.
> Leds are safer there is no over doing it in most cases. with a
laser you have to know how much time to use it so you don't over do
it.
> A strong laser can be expensive compared to an LED unit also.
> LED units can be made in more variety of colors for various
applications than lasers can.
> So it all depends on what you want to do and how much you want to
spend. If you have a serious inner ear problem for example a laser
may be best due to its ability to keep the light focused and higher
power, but if you want to sooth sore muscles then an LED unit will
probably work better.
> It all comes down to the right tool for the right job.
>
> Oh and a laser has a more precise frequency than an LED, a narrower
range.
>
>
> Take care,
>  V
>
>
> > hi, what is the difference between a cold laser and an LED for
therapy?
> > Thanks!
>
>
>
> --
>

Hi realdoggymouse,

Well there are a few differences, One is that a laser can operate at a much
higher power level than an LED, does not mean that all of them do however, most
small lasers put out 5mw or less, LEDs can do mare than that. A laser puts all
the light on one small spot so the concentration is much greater, but then if
you have  treat a large area it may take a long time. LED can cover a large area
at once. You can get LED units much more readily than laser units.
Leds are safer there is no over doing it in most cases. with a laser you have to
know how much time to use it so you don't over do it.
A strong laser can be expensive compared to an LED unit also.
LED units can be made in more variety of colors for various applications than
lasers can.
So it all depends on what you want to do and how much you want to spend. If you
have a serious inner ear problem for example a laser may be best due to its
ability to keep the light focused and higher power, but if you want to sooth
sore muscles then an LED unit will probably work better.
It all comes down to the right tool for the right job.

Oh and a laser has a more precise frequency than an LED, a narrower range.


Take care,
  V


> hi, what is the difference between a cold laser and an LED for therapy?
> Thanks!



--

hi, what is the difference between a cold laser and an LED for therapy?
Thanks!

lotsa free downloads here, books , MP3s etc.

http://www.esmhome.org/library.html



Take care,
  V

I got to talk to the eye doctor a bit this morning when I took Dad in.
  What she did to lower the eye pressure was not the electric
stimulation or the frequencies, but color therapy!!!  She shined
particular colors into his eyes--actually, just in his face.  It was
almost just like spectro-chrome therapy!!  I asked her if it was the
same but she had not heard of S-C, but said that her method was from
the 1920's.  I talked to her about the S-C method, which is shining
the light directly on the 'bad' area.  Like if a person broke their
wrist the light would be put directly to shine on the wrist.  But she
said that, in her opinion and that of the method she follows, that it
is better to shine the color into the eyes, because that's where the
healing takes place.  She said the blood flows past the eyes every 20
minutes so in 20 minutes you get a full circulation throughout the
body of the healing color.  Kind of makes sense.  Next time I get to
try the S-C I'll try the eye method rather than shining the light on
the body.

She said where she learned the eye cone color is
www.syntonicphototherapy.com  You can find practitioners of this
method by going to the site and looking at the practitioner list.
Also, if you look at the info for the conference in May they list a
doctor that has written a book on electric stimulation for the eyes!
They give his contact number, too.  She said they have a
non-professional course and a course for doctors.  I see that both are
presented at their yearly conference.

Dad's pressure has gone down into the 20's from the 40's with this
color and the electric stimulation.  I asked her if it would stay, and
of course she said each person is individual and there's no way to say
yes or no for sure.  But his held from the first visit over to the
second visit, where the pressure went down some more.  I'll find out
tomorrow whether that held for the 24 hours.

This is exciting.  Though Dad says he doesn't feel any different, at
least his pressure is measurable.  She still doesn't have his
homeopathic remedies figured out yet, so his results are just from the
color therapy and the stimulation machine, which is the ScyFix 600.  I
googled it and a few sites come up.

This machine uses 4 pads.  I've never seen the reusable sticky TENS
pads, but I'm assuming these are the same thing.  Two pads are hooked
into one line that plugs into the machine.  One pad has a red line
which goes on the eye, and the other pad has a black line that goes on
the eye's corresponding hand, like right eye/right hand, left eye/left
hand.  Then you turn the machine on and it automatically runs for 20
minutes.

The instruction book says it uses a painless, non-invasive therapy
that has barely perceptible impulses of square wave DC at low
voltages.  It has an intensity knob, 2 actually, that you turn both at
the same time until the person says they feel the current, then you
turn both knobs back to the point where they say they can't feel it.

The 4 freq are 1 minute at 292Hz, 2 minutes at 31Hz, 7 minutes at 8.9
Hz and 10 minutes at 0.28Hz.  The Technical Specifications say
Channels--dual channels (this is the 2 leads to the eye/hand) Carrier
Freq is 10 KHz, 0-4 volt, 500 (upside down U, can't figure out how to
get the computer to make that symbol) load, Output current-max.8mA,
500 (upside down u) load, Output freq-the above mentioned, timer-20
minutes auto off, sound alarm after the change of each freq, power
supply either a 9 volt battery or wall plug in, polarity
change--polarity change (+/-)in 0.5 seconds.  Tolerance (+/-)20%.

Hope this helps.

samala,
Renee

The

Yes the rock gives off FIR when heated and so does sand.The heating pad is made
of plastic cloth and wire so it does not have much material there to give off
fir. It probably gives off some but not as much as rock does, If you look at all
the mineral lamps on the market they all have a heating source and then a
mineral plate of some sort that gives off the FIR. Granite is good for this as
it contains several different minerals in it.


> V; Thanks for your reply. What is the difference between putting your
> feet on the heating pad and putting your feet on the heated rock ? Does
> the rock change something ? Thanks , Frank Mc

V; Thanks for your reply. What is the difference between putting your
feet on the heating pad and putting your feet on the heated rock ? Does
the rock change something ? Thanks , Frank Mc

Hi Frank,
I have not seen any LEDs that extend into that range, I beleve FIR starts at
2000 nm or 2 microns and the furthest I have seen LEDs go is about 1000 nm.
I made a thing that heats rocks to give off fir also, All I did is get a granite
tile and a small heating pad, I put the heating pad on the carpeted floor and
put the granite tile on top of it and set it on low or medium. Viola! a nice FIR
emmiter to put my feet on when its chilly out. I suggest to check under the
heating pad occasionally to see of it is getting too hot. Mine is oK I have it
on all the time 24 hrs a day,


> Hi V, while we are on the subject of  colors and wavelength could you
> tell me if it is possible to get FIR with LED's ? It seems that Donna
> Crow sells something that heats rocks and emits FIR heat . All the LED's
> I've seen only go into the NIR wavelength . Thanks, Frank Mc

Hi V, while we are on the subject of  colors and wavelength could you
tell me if it is possible to get FIR with LED's ? It seems that Donna
Crow sells something that heats rocks and emits FIR heat . All the LED's
I've seen only go into the NIR wavelength . Thanks, Frank Mc

V, Please post any results and wavelengths with
the purple.  I know that when I 'charge' 3/4 cup
of water for an hour using an incandescent black
light bulb and then drink the water, the
swelling, tingling, etc, of my lips (due to
cancer I am pretty sure) is greatly benefitted.
I can also soak a paper towel or washcloth with
the water and keep it on the mouth area for a
while and that works too.  So any info you have
will be appreciated.  tia  pj

Yeah I wonder also because I have some LEDs that are purple and right on the border of UV. maybe I should do some more resaerch on that and see. I know that some people use the red at the wrist and navel to get to the blood. I would have to see if the purple can penetrate to the blood in the body anywhere. Usually the blue and purple colors dont penetrate very well.
Hows it going with your LED unit?
V

> Wonder what the wavelength on this thing is. I bet V can make an LED
> that does it if wavelength is the issue rather than light coherency. (do
> I have that terminology right? But how do we know where the viruses are
> in the body and then zap them? Not quite the same as a petrie dish.

> OTOH there is mention of pulsing blood during dialysis to kill stuff.
> Sounds a lot like what Dr. Douglass called "Photoluminescence" where a
> few ccs of blood is removed, exposed to UV light then put back in the
> body. The last place I knew that did that was put out of biz.

> Saralou

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn12368&feedId=online-news_rss20

> he researchers applied pulses of purple-coloured light lasting just 100
> femtoseconds (10^-15 seconds) to viruses called M13 bacteriophages
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M13_phage>. It takes just a single pulse
> to destroy the viruses completely, say the researchers.

> The "power density" of the laser is just 5 microjoules per square
> centimetre, which is low enough to leave surrounding human cells and
> tissue undamaged, but high enough to produce large-amplitude vibrations
> in a virus's capsid. It is also too low to cause genetic mutations,
> meaning the virus will not build up resistant to the treatment over time.

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> Teams from three U.S. universities and medical schools have discovered a
> novel way of killing viruses by using an intense pulse of visible light.

> A pulse of purple-colored laser-light applied to viruses, called M13
> bacteriophages, destroyed the viruses completely.

> The power density of the light is low enough that it does not damage
> surrounding cells and tissue, but high enough to produce large-amplitude
> vibrations in the virus' shell, which causes it to disintegrate.

> Scientists believe there are significant advantages to this method,
> compared to conventional techniques like UV irradiation, and microwaves.
> UV irradiation can cause mutations, which eventually makes the
> micro-organism resistant to treatment, and UV light can also damage the
> DNA of surrounding healthy cells.

> Plans are underway to test the efficacy of the technique on a variety of
> deadly viruses, including the HIV virus, and hepatitis C, in the hopes
> of designing new treatments for blood-borne viral diseases.

> New Scientist July 27, 2007
> Source: Light Pulses Knock Out Viruses
> Address :
> <http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/Light-Pulses-Knock-Out-Viruses-30740.aspx>

Yeah I wonder also because I have some LEDs that are purple and right on the
border of UV. maybe I should do some more resaerch on that and see. I know that
some people use the red at the wrist and navel to get to the blood. I would have
to see if the purple can penetrate to the blood in the body anywhere. Usually
the blue and purple colors dont penetrate very well.
Hows it going with your LED unit?
V


> Wonder what the wavelength on this thing is.  I bet V can make an LED
> that does it if wavelength is the issue rather than light coherency. (do
> I have that terminology right?  But how do we know where the viruses are
> in the body and then zap them? Not quite the same as a petrie dish.

> OTOH there is mention of pulsing blood during dialysis to kill stuff.
> Sounds a lot like what Dr. Douglass called  "Photoluminescence" where a
> few ccs of blood is removed, exposed to UV light then put back in the
> body.  The last place I knew that did that was put out of biz.

> Saralou

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


> http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn12368&feedId=online-news_rss20


> he researchers applied pulses of purple-coloured light lasting just 100
> femtoseconds (10^-15 seconds) to viruses called M13 bacteriophages
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M13_phage>. It takes just a single pulse
> to destroy the viruses completely, say the researchers.

> The "power density" of the laser is just 5 microjoules per square
> centimetre, which is low enough to leave surrounding human cells and
> tissue undamaged, but high enough to produce large-amplitude vibrations
> in a virus's capsid. It is also too low to cause genetic mutations,
> meaning the virus will not build up resistant to the treatment over time.


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Teams from three U.S. universities and medical schools have discovered a
> novel way of killing viruses by using an intense pulse of visible light.

> A pulse of purple-colored laser-light applied to viruses, called M13
> bacteriophages, destroyed the viruses completely.

> The power density of the light is low enough that it does not damage
> surrounding cells and tissue, but high enough to produce large-amplitude
> vibrations in the virus' shell, which causes it to disintegrate.

> Scientists believe there are significant advantages to this method,
> compared to conventional techniques like UV irradiation, and microwaves.
> UV irradiation can cause mutations, which eventually makes the
> micro-organism resistant to treatment, and UV light can also damage the
> DNA of surrounding healthy cells.

> Plans are underway to test the efficacy of the technique on a variety of
> deadly viruses, including the HIV virus, and hepatitis C, in the hopes
> of designing new treatments for blood-borne viral diseases.

> New Scientist July 27, 2007
> Source: Light Pulses Knock Out Viruses
> Address :
>
<http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/Light-Pulses-Knock-Out-Viruses-30740.asp\
x>

The "power density" of the laser is just 5 microjoules per square centimetre, which is low enough to leave surrounding human cells and tissue undamaged, but high enough to produce large-amplitude vibrations in a virus's capsid. It is also too low to cause genetic mutations, meaning the virus will not build up resistant to the treatment over time.

1.  how do you hold it so it doesn't burn?
   I find myself holding it by it's little cord down my back under my shirt, moving it from place to place often and finally giving up because it's too hot  to hold and too hot to leave lay on my skin.  What kind of holders have you all come up with?
2.  What about the literature and the archives that mention  pulsing.  Does pulsing just make the lasers more effective and this is LED so it doesn't  matter?
3. Why do the articles in the archives say that it's UV rays magnified through glasses or lasers that hurt the eyeball yet the instructions say not to shine the UV near the eyes even when they're closed?  How'm I ever going to get those wrinkles  ;-?
4. Haven't had time to read the carpal tunnel article(s) yet but if any of you have had success, where did you shine/aim it?  The tingling/burning/numbness in my thumbs and index fingers IMO is from a disc problem at C5 or C6 since I have zero wrist pain anyplace and when I change back  positions I can make the symptoms go away.  I held the light on my spine in lots of places.
5. Any protocols you all will share of what worked for you with an LED array?  Please make sure you say the type of array you used and how you held it as well as how long x how many times.
6. Is the blue just pretty or does it actually add something significant.  If I don't have acne, why would I use it for inflammation when I can use the other two more effectively--as I understand the research.

Though heat production is responsible for some of the response in "target
tissue", most of the effect that one gets with the various types of phototherapy
reported is due to direct photoactivation of cells. I have spent several months
now collecting and reviewing multiple published articles on low level light
therapy - 20-30 years worth - hundreds and hundreds of articles. It most
instances, the light source can be anything - laser, LED, incandescent,
fluorescent - if it is properly filtered/managed to produce the desired
treatment result. We have multiple lasers in our office - excimer, diode, YAG -
and multiple LED based devices - Gentlewaves, Max7, numerous prototypes of our
own construction. The latter devices have been used for everything from wound
healing, to pain relief, to various ophthalmic conditions...

   There are all manner of variables, of course, but the response of biologic
cells is amazingly constant to certain wavelengths (red and near IR = most
common active wavelengths - thought, others are also active for various things)
and power levels (typically 1-4 J/cm2, rarely higher levels in the 7-9 J/cm2 may
give added benefit). There is almost no added benefit to laser light sources
over LED, for instance, except for higher power levels which can translate into
shorter treatment times and - maybe - deeper penetration in some tissue.
Polarized light sources come close to matching laser sources in many instances.
There seems to be little benefit between pulsed or continuous wave sources in
most applications. Multiple different wavelengths may be of benefit in some
applications.

   We can assert these things about photobiomodulation (the most proper term for
what we are attempting to do) - with the proper light therapy "code" we can get:

   *Mitochondrial activation
   *Non-mitochondrial activation (cell walls, cytoplasm)

   *Some common photoacceptor  molecules are: nnHemoglobin, nMyoglobin,
nCytochrome c oxidase, nNADH-dehydrogenase

   *Gene UP-regulation (nIntegrins, nidogens, laminin, actin, kinesin motor
proteins, semaphorins/collapsins)

   *Gene DOWN-regulation (nCytokine receptors: nInterleukin-1, interleukin-10,
macrophage inflammatory protein-2; nProapoptotic proteins:nApoptosis activator
Harikiri (HRK), programmed cell death1 protein precursor (PDCD-1; PD-1),
receptor-interacting protein (RIP)

   n*ATP production can be increased/decreased

   n*DNA/RNA production can be increased/decreased
   n*Cells "re-set" genetically to be more "normal"
   n*Cell proliferation can be increased/decreased
   n*Cell adhesiveness can be increased/decreased
   n*Pathogens can be killed
   n*Bone growth can be stimulated
   *Pain can be reduced (as effective as NSAIDS)
   n*MMP enzymes can be down-regulated
   *nFibroblasts can be increased - numbers and activity
   n*ECM can be increased
   n*Neuro-protection and neuro-regeneration
   n*Bioregulatory/hormonal systems can be modulated
   n*Mental states/conditions can be modulated
   n*Protection against toxins - chemical, radiation
   n*Blood flow can be increased
   n*Tissue swelling can be reduced
   *nVEGF can be down-regulated
   n*Collagen and pro-collagen promoted
   n*Angiogenesis promoted
   n*Macrophage activity can be increased/decreased
   n*Lymphocvte activity can be increased/decreased
   n*Apoptosis decreased
   n*Production of Growth Factors promoted - such as  nKGF (Keratinocyte), nTGF
(Transforming), nPDGF (Platelet-derived)

   nWhat does this mean? Proven.
   n*Significant reductions in healing times (50-80%)
   n*Significant improvement in wound strength (nSoft tissue and bone)
   n*Improved bone to implant adhesion
   n*Significant reductions in pain (as effective as oral NSAIDs)
   n*Significant temporal effects (up to months)
   When one hears claims about the superiority of one particular device, one
needs to be very careful about falling for sales hype. One can achieve similar
therapeutic results with a wide array of devices, I believe. The wattage of a
particular laser is really a "so what" and often translates into nothing more
than "I've got a bigger you-know-what than you do!" Unless, a company can
produce real, supportive research data that is independly verified, then all
claims are suspect.

   The photobio effect of low level light is tremendously powerful if it is the
right "dose" (wavelength, power, etc.). One FDA approved device, for instance,
the Gentlewaves by Light Bioscience, is a double panel of 590nm yellow LEDs. It
emits about 0.1J/cm2 (!) in its 40 second treatment time. 8 of these treatments
over one month will result in visible wrinkle reduction and obvious skin
rejuvenation. The effect continues for 6-12 months! This treatment is proven to
reduce inflammation (the MMP cascade), reduce collagenase production (what gives
us wrinkles), and switches on new collagen production. We have had one in my
office for nearly three years and it is very real

   Hopefully some of this will be of help to a few out there. I just don't know
how productive it is to endlessly debate the power output or superiority of some
particular "laser" device. ...And, we are not just after heat generation -
therefore, do not need microwave or u/s devices!

   Robert S. Dotson, M.D.
   Refractive Surgery Center
   Oak Ridge, Tennessee
   USA

Ok, let's have more research info.

A normal human body luminesces mainly from the head; the color of the
luminescence is orange-red tinted with a little bluish-green. Red light is
emitted from all over the body of a man who is getting angry and forms a thick
halo. The inventor suggests that this is due to leakage of the internal energy
of the body. When the angry man is irradiated for 15 minutes with the apparatus
of the present invention, he will feel relaxed and the anger is relieved. At
this time, the red light around the body disappears from the photograph and the
status of normal luminescence is resumed.
(http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5814078.html)

From http://www.stopgettingsick.com/Condtemplate.cfm-1224-50-1

One provocative study found that when some people with allergic rhinitis were
treated with intranasal exposure to low-energy, narrow-band red light, their
congestion was significantly, although not completely, relieved. Light therapy
may help suppress oxygen radicals and have a positive effect on calcium channels
in the immune system.

Dr. Brunler felt that flooding the body with red light helped rid the body of
excessive uric acid deposits and dissolved uric acid crystals in joints.



The eyelids are translucent to light transmitting about 10% (or 25 lux) in the
red end of the visible spectrum (above 700 nm), with the transmittance declining
to to 1%-2% in the green and blue end (below 500 nm).



Red light tends to increase EEG amplitude most efficiently at higher beta
frequencies, and the color itself seems to increase vigilance. Its efficiency
also varies as a function of certain aspects of cognitive style and ability to
visualize. It therefore appears to be the most appropriate color to use if beta
stimulation and increased vigilance are the desired result.



Red light was emitted onto the knees of 50 patients with osteoarthritis of the
knees. Those who received the red light therapy reported that their pain was
significantly reduced as compared to the group that had placebo light therapy



The depth of penetration is defined as the depth at which 60% of the light is
absorbed by the tissue.

There is little penetration up to 600nm, due to absorption by the various
peptide bonds, chromophores, porphyrins, haemoglobin, oxyhaemoglobin, and
photo-inducible components such as urocanic acid and melanin (Wilson and Jaques
1990). From 600nm to 700nm there is a steep rise in penetration (about 2.5 times
the distance), due to decreasing haemoglobin absorption, and then penetration is
roughly constant above this region to about 1300nm, with a small dip at 960nm
due the high absorption at this level by water (Smith 1991).

Visible red light, at a wavelength of 660 nanometers, penetrates tissue to a
depth of about 8-10 mm. It is very beneficial in treating problems close to the
surface such as wounds, cuts, scars and trigger and is particularly effective in
treating infections.

Infrared light (904nm) penetrates to a depth of about 30-40 mm, which makes it
more effective in the treatment of joints, deep muscle, etc



Calcium intake was also shown to be wavelength dependent. The most effective of
the wavelengths tested were 660, 820 and 870 nm. (Young, S. et. al. Effect of
light on Calcium Uptake by Macrophages. Original Articles. Lasers in Surgery and
Medicine. Supplement 1991 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd)
(http://www.infratherapy.com/sciedata.htm)



670-nm LED light  therapy decreased the embryonic mortality rate by 41%,
resulting in increased embryonic survival and improved hatching success in eggs
exposed to 200 ppt dioxin. The eggs were treated once per day from embryonic
days 0-20 with 670-nm LED light at a fluence of 4 J/cm2
(http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/pho.2006.24.29)

There was observed a substantial decrease in overall and third-week mortality
rates in the light-treated chickens eggs. Overall, there was approximately a
41.5% decrease in mortality rate in the light-treated embryos (NL: 20%; L:
11.8%). During the third week of development, there was a 68.8% decrease in the
mortality rate in light-treated chickens (NL: 20%; L: 6.25%). In addition, body
weight, crown-rump length, and liver weight increased as a result of the 670-nm
phototherapy. Light-treated chickens pipped (broke shell) earlier and had a
shorter duration between pip and hatch.
(http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/pho.2005.23.268)

Petre

Ok, let's have more research info.

A normal human body luminesces mainly from the head; the color of the luminescence is orange-red tinted with a little bluish-green. Red light is emitted from all over the body of a man who is getting angry and forms a thick halo. The inventor suggests that this is due to leakage of the internal energy of the body. When the angry man is irradiated for 15 minutes with the apparatus of the present invention, he will feel relaxed and the anger is relieved. At this time, the red light around the body disappears from the photograph and the status of normal luminescence is resumed. (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5814078.html)

From http://www.stopgettingsick.com/Condtemplate.cfm-1224-50-1

One provocative study found that when some people with allergic rhinitis were treated with intranasal exposure to low-energy, narrow-band red light, their congestion was significantly, although not completely, relieved. Light therapy may help suppress oxygen radicals and have a positive effect on calcium channels in the immune system.

Dr. Brunler felt that flooding the body with red light helped rid the body of excessive uric acid deposits and dissolved uric acid crystals in joints.

The eyelids are translucent to light transmitting about 10% (or 25 lux) in the red end of the visible spectrum (above 700 nm), with the transmittance declining to to 1%-2% in the green and blue end (below 500 nm).

Red light tends to increase EEG amplitude most efficiently at higher beta frequencies, and the color itself seems to increase vigilance. Its efficiency also varies as a function of certain aspects of cognitive style and ability to visualize. It therefore appears to be the most appropriate color to use if beta stimulation and increased vigilance are the desired result.

Red light was emitted onto the knees of 50 patients with osteoarthritis of the knees. Those who received the red light therapy reported that their pain was significantly reduced as compared to the group that had placebo light therapy

The depth of penetration is defined as the depth at which 60% of the light is absorbed by the tissue.

There is little penetration up to 600nm, due to absorption by the various peptide bonds, chromophores, porphyrins, haemoglobin, oxyhaemoglobin, and photo-inducible components such as urocanic acid and melanin (Wilson and Jaques 1990). From 600nm to 700nm there is a steep rise in penetration (about 2.5 times the distance), due to decreasing haemoglobin absorption, and then penetration is roughly constant above this region to about 1300nm, with a small dip at 960nm due the high absorption at this level by water (Smith 1991).

Visible red light, at a wavelength of 660 nanometers, penetrates tissue to a depth of about 8-10 mm. It is very beneficial in treating problems close to the surface such as wounds, cuts, scars and trigger and is particularly effective in treating infections.

Infrared light (904nm) penetrates to a depth of about 30-40 mm, which makes it more effective in the treatment of joints, deep muscle, etc

Calcium intake was also shown to be wavelength dependent. The most effective of the wavelengths tested were 660, 820 and 870 nm. (Young, S. et. al. Effect of light on Calcium Uptake by Macrophages. Original Articles. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. Supplement 1991 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd) (http://www.infratherapy.com/sciedata.htm)

670-nm LED light  therapy decreased the embryonic mortality rate by 41%, resulting in increased embryonic survival and improved hatching success in eggs exposed to 200 ppt dioxin. The eggs were treated once per day from embryonic days 0–20 with 670-nm LED light at a fluence of 4 J/cm² (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/pho.2006.24.29)

There was observed a substantial decrease in overall and third-week mortality rates in the light-treated chickens eggs. Overall, there was approximately a 41.5% decrease in mortality rate in the light-treated embryos (NL: 20%; L: 11.8%). During the third week of development, there was a 68.8% decrease in the mortality rate in light-treated chickens (NL: 20%; L: 6.25%). In addition, body weight, crown–rump length, and liver weight increased as a result of the 670-nm phototherapy. Light-treated chickens pipped (broke shell) earlier and had a shorter duration between pip and hatch. (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/pho.2005.23.268)

Petre

has anyone seen any of these LEDS (60,000mcd at 630 nm) and does this have an effect on wounds?  Here's the link.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7604482309&ssPageName=MERC_VI_ReBay_Pr8_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT#ebayphotohosting