Careful Where You Put That. Red Light On Testes Could Be A Problem

[encerent]

The light from LEDs is different than the light from lasers, especially as it relates to interaction with biological tissue. Laser light is coherent, meaning it "synced" up. Focused lasers have high spatial coherence, the wavefront of the laser light is tightly packed. Even unfocused lasers have temporal coherence, which means the phase of the wave is in time even if it is separated spatially.

Coherent light will usually produce a much greater response in biological tissues. The electrical oscillations experienced by the molecules making up your tissue, under the influence of light, can be much higher in amplitude when the light has degrees of coherence. It is also able to penetrate much deeper. With enough power this can be a huge stimulation to the electrical nature of the cell, enough so to cause damage.

LEDs are not coherent - the electrical stimulation provided to the cells by their light is very spread out in time and space. As such it is hard to reach enough stimulation to cause damage. It is definitely possible to overdo it though - 200mw/cm^2 is pretty juicy but probably safe. Keep in mind you are altering subtle electrical properties of cells and the environment around them. Sometimes through changes in the potential that alter cellular "gates," sometimes through direct stimulation of specific enzyme pathways - there are many mechanisms.

Pay attention to the response you get from the light. If it's too intense you may be stressing the cells out and you can usually feel fatigue, even in the testicles. It may be that some small degree of stress is beneficial. If it works, run it.

 

[x-ray peat]

Yes, that's right. Incandescent lamps emit about 90% of the energy in infrared wavelengths (or heat). But as others have mentioned, it seems that light from incandescent lamps are qualitatively different from laser probes used in these studies or even LED lights. Incandescents were widely used (though are being phased out rapidly now) and generations of people were highly exposed to them for a lot of their lives. They are safe and Peat says you can use them as long as you want. Someone asked Peat about the safety of LED lights and he said they are probably OK too.

Ray said it was safe as long as you are not being warmed up by the lamps. IMO he is acknowledging the potential dangers of the IR from the incandescents. This fades very quickly with distance (inverse sq law). I think many maybe using several higher power heat lamps too close to their skins and potentially causing damage from too much IR.

As for the difference in lights, they are different to a degree but also similar in many respects. Much of the coherence in a laser is scattered by the first few layers of skin. LED lights show similar treatment outcomes to lasers so I think the scattering makes the light very similar and therefore leads to similar outcomes. The difference I think is the tight focal point of irradiation from the laser vs led or other sources. So I think with a laser you have to move the laser around a lot more frequently but if done correctly its been shown that equivalent treatments could be had from both LED and lasers if given the same energy density (joules/cm2).

 

[x-ray peat]

The light from LEDs is different than the light from lasers, especially as it relates to interaction with biological tissue. Laser light is coherent, meaning it "synced" up. Focused lasers have high spatial coherence, the wavefront of the laser light is tightly packed. Even unfocused lasers have temporal coherence, which means the phase of the wave is in time even if it is separated spatially.

Coherent light will usually produce a much greater response in biological tissues. The electrical oscillations experienced by the molecules making up your tissue, under the influence of light, can be much higher in amplitude when the light has degrees of coherence. It is also able to penetrate much deeper. With enough power this can be a huge stimulation to the electrical nature of the cell, enough so to cause damage.

LEDs are not coherent - the electrical stimulation provided to the cells by their light is very spread out in time and space. As such it is hard to reach enough stimulation to cause damage. It is definitely possible to overdo it though - 200mw/cm^2 is pretty juicy but probably safe. Keep in mind you are altering subtle electrical properties of cells and the environment around them. Sometimes through changes in the potential that alter cellular "gates," sometimes through direct stimulation of specific enzyme pathways - there are many mechanisms.

Pay attention to the response you get from the light. If it's too intense you may be stressing the cells out and you can usually feel fatigue, even in the testicles. It may be that some small degree of stress is beneficial. If it works, run it.

Well I think its good advice to use caution whenever using lasers or leds esp on the jewels.

I do want to add that as I mentioned above that the coherence of a laser is usually lost due to scattering once shone through tissue and especially at the cell wall. The key metric of all light sources in photobiology seems to be wavelength and energy density. The paper below goes into some detail of why this is the case and why leds and lasers give similar therapeutic outcomes. They do recognize that there maybe some difference due to coherence but its not major and needs more study.
LIGHT COHERENCE

"specially designed experiments at the cellular level have provided evidence that coherent and noncoherent light with the same wavelength, intensity, and irradiation time provide the same biological effect (Karu et al., 1982a, b, 1983; Bertoloni et al., 1993). The successful use of LED’s (light-emitting diodes) in many areas of clinical practice over the last decade also confirms this conclusion."

Conclusions
"The qualitative picture described above explains why coherent and noncoherent light with the same parameters (i.e., wavelength, dose, intensity) produce the same biological effects on cell monolayers (Karu et al., 1982a, b), and in dilute cell suspensions (Karu et al., 1983; Bertoloni et al., 1993), as well as on tissue surfaces (e.g., the healing of peptic ulcers; Karu et al., 1984; Sazonov et al., 1985). In these cases, the healing effect of irradiation is occurring via absorption of light by photoacceptors (cytochrome c oxidase in particular, Karu, 1999, 2003). However, some additional (therapeutic) effects from coherent and polarized radiation, in addition to those caused by light absorption by photoacceptors molecules, can appear in deeper layers of bulk tissue.

A theoretical consideration was published by Rubinov and Afanas’ev in 2005. They considered, first, the gradient effects arising upon interaction of a biological system with spatially inhomogeneous radiation (a mechanism that may be characteristic for coherent radiation). Secondly, they considered possible light-induced dipole-dipole interactions between biological particles (a mechanism that probably might occur by irradiation both with coherent and noncoherent radiation). To date, no experimental work has been performed to study these possible additional effects qualitatively and quantitatively. In any case, the main therapeutic effects occur due to light absorption by cellular photoacceptors."

 

[Diokine]

You are correct that spatial coherence is lost once laser light passes through tissue, however the temporal coherence remains largely unchanged. I would agree categorically that in careful experiments where the energy delivered to a tissue is precisely accounted for, results will be similar. It's easy to set up an LED and laser of the same wavelength and power in isolated cell cultures, however in an organism the picture isn't as clear.

I'd also press for a rigorous biological definition of a photoacceptor - I don't think the interaction of light with biological tissues is as reductionist as proposed in most literature. Upon irradiation, biological tissue will undergo dielectric polarization, this will change the charge distribution and local electronic properties of the entire irradiated area. This can effect membrane potentials, voltage-gated ion channels, calcium channels, etc., Not that I disagree with the point that is made in the link you provided - I think that in general the results will be similar if not identical if the other variables are accounted for. I do think the potential for downsides is greater with laser light, though.

 

[Such_Saturation]

They are using that figure to represent a total dose, not an intensity. I saw they specified 30 minute treatment.

360 joules/cm^2 delivered in 10 seconds (600 mw / cm^2) is very powerful and should definitely be used cautiously on most tissue. Delivered over 30 minutes (200 mw/cm^2) it is much less intense, but still past the upper limit of what I think is considered safe by most of the literature. Most sources I've seen recommend closer to 25 mw/cm^2, 50mw/cm^2 being the safe upper limit. Light being delivered by a laser is potentially more destructive, but this study is using power densities way above what is considered safe.

That is the intensity though

 

[Drareg]

Would this device be balls friendly?
I'm thinking of buying it not specifically for ball area but everywhere. It seems accurate in wavelength compared to what we are all buying.
Has anyone got a light they know to be spot on wavelength wise? Proper tested that is?

WARP 10 Infra-red LED . The gold standard in infra red LED therapy

 

[Waynish]

Ray said it was safe as long as you are not being warmed up by the lamps. IMO he is acknowledging the potential dangers of the IR from the incandescents. This fades very quickly with distance (inverse sq law). I think many maybe using several higher power heat lamps too close to their skins and potentially causing damage from too much IR.

As for the difference in lights, they are different to a degree but also similar in many respects. Much of the coherence in a laser is scattered by the first few layers of skin. LED lights show similar treatment outcomes to lasers so I think the scattering makes the light very similar and therefore leads to similar outcomes. The difference I think is the tight focal point of irradiation from the laser vs led or other sources. So I think with a laser you have to move the laser around a lot more frequently but if done correctly its been shown that equivalent treatments could be had from both LED and lasers if given the same energy density (joules/cm2).

I don't understand how IR is harmful if it "heats you up." This sounds pretty silly. Infrared saunas are everywhere - and why is it OK to be heated by sun rays and not IR rays from a bulb?

 

[x-ray peat]

I don't understand how IR is harmful if it "heats you up." This sounds pretty silly. Infrared saunas are everywhere - and why is it OK to be heated by sun rays and not IR rays from a bulb?

I thought that too until I saw the above Rat testes. I think the main danger is using it for too long so you end up cooking your cells. AFAIK the IR from the sun is much weaker then these IR LLTs and heat lamps.

 

[Waynish]

So you're saying you can cook your balls - or other cells - without feeling the pain using IR... While cooking yourself with the sun would generate pain? Still doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Peater Piper]

IR from the sun may not be entirely safe either, which doesn't mean it's bad. There's consequences to everything, it's about if the benefits outweigh the risks. Obviously more research is needed in the area of IR. The following talks a bit about the possible downsides of IRA in terms of skin health:

The Other End of the Rainbow: Infrared and Skin

 

[Elron]

Technical what do you think of this one?

 

[x-ray peat]

So you're saying you can cook your balls - or other cells - without feeling the pain using IR... While cooking yourself with the sun would generate pain? Still doesn't make sense to me.

I think there are a lot of ways to cook your balls...with or without pain.

 

[x-ray peat]

Technical what do you think of this one?

that's a lot of money for a grow light. Also I don't see any technical data as far as wavelength used.

 

[Elron]

that's a lot of money for a grow light. Also I don't see any technical data as far as wavelength used.

It's my grandma's. Amazingly remarkable for pain, I was quite surprised.

 

[Mori68]

I was wondering if @RedLightMan wanted to chime in?

 

[encerent]

So you're saying you can cook your balls - or other cells - without feeling the pain using IR... While cooking yourself with the sun would generate pain? Still doesn't make sense to me.

I agree. Wood and coal fires also heat you up through infrared light, which won't hurt you unless you feel pain.

The sun and wood fires are the most traditional and natural ways humans have to heat themselves up. They show that infrared heat isn't dangerous.

 

[Such_Saturation]

You can probably light a cigarette with a 200mW laser

 

[RedLightMan]

I was wondering if @RedLightMan wanted to chime in?

Both visible red light (600-700nm) and near-infrared light (700-900nm) are safe to use. Testicles are damaged by heating them up, not by near-infrared light.
The rat testicle study was using quite a high intensity laser on a their tiny testes, hence heat damage. In humans you would need a much higher dose for the same effect. Visible red doesn't penetrate as well, hence why it didn't heat up the testes.
Sunlight, heat lamps and incandescents are not appropriate to use on the testes due to the heat output relative to the biologically active wavelength output.
In general you only need a minute or so with LED light therapy down there. Just stop before the skin of the scrotum begins to feel warm.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Sunlight, heat lamps and incandescents are not appropriate to use on the testes

It works for animals...

 

[x-ray peat]

Both visible red light (600-700nm) and near-infrared light (700-900nm) are safe to use. Testicles are damaged by heating them up, not by near-infrared light.
The rat testicle study was using quite a high intensity laser on a their tiny testes, hence heat damage. In humans you would need a much higher dose for the same effect. Visible red doesn't penetrate as well, hence why it didn't heat up the testes.
Sunlight, heat lamps and incandescents are not appropriate to use on the testes due to the heat output relative to the biologically active wavelength output.
In general you only need a minute or so with LED light therapy down there. Just stop before the skin of the scrotum begins to feel warm.

Thanks RLM. I think the warm breath of a hot woman on your balls is probably the safest and most efficacious approach.