Infrared "the enemy of the eye"

Elast1c

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2017
Messages
164

"Nowadays, it is commonly accepted that the main effect of IR radiation on the ocular lens is an accelerated aging [14], which produces cataracts. It is known that the aging process, involving oxidation events, is deeply affected by temperature and heat transfers. As a matter of fact, people who develop cataracts as a result of chronic or excessive exposure to IR radiation anticipate an opacification which was probably destined to appear in their old age years [15]."
 

Grischbal

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
112
But is it due to IR alone or due to the change of IR to blue light/darkness frequently?
I figure that redlight may make the eye more susceptible to brighter light/blue light or darkness. Maybe it has something to do with cell charge or the nature of redlight, lowering NO and improving CO2 aswell as being an Electron donor.
Similar to why Methylene Blue lightens up eye colour for some people
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
Specific wavelengths or entire IR spectrum supposedly harmful for the lens?

Near-IR and some IRs are very regenerative as discussed here at length so a bit worrying
 

LucyL

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,244
I believe Peat has said the damage is because of PUFA accumulation.
 

LucyL

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,244
Specific wavelengths or entire IR spectrum supposedly harmful for the lens?

Near-IR and some IRs are very regenerative as discussed here at length so a bit worrying
From the article: "several works of Södeberg et al. on mice’s eyes [7-9] demonstrated that a direct exposure to 1090 nm laser light cannot produce cataracts until the heating doesn’t reach a threshold temperature of 8 ºC, "
- I think the author meant "until the heating reaches a threshold temperature of 8 deg C above the baseline body temperature" because later he writes "Generally speaking, temperatures only 10 ºC higher than the human body value could induce permanent thermal damages."
10 C is 50 deg F, so this would seem to imply that damage would start at a temperature of 148 F? (for a 1090 nm laser light).

For lower wavelengths, the evidence he presents is two fold - Droughts in Iowa and mathematical models.

"All the studies trying to establish the maximum level of IR radiation tolerable by the human eye, before cataracts appear, make use of high intensity sources [10]; however, it is worth pointing out that chronic exposure to a relatively low radiation intensity could lead to similar effects: a research presented in 1940 revealed how, during the first decades of the 20th century, the number of cataracts cases in Iowa used to increase significantly in the years following droughts [11]."

Furthermore, mathematical models [12] suggest that, although occupational cataracts seem to be generated mainly by high intensity IR-B and IR-C sources (with wavelength respectively between 1400 and 3000 nm and between 3000 nm and 1 mm) through a heat transfer from the cornea to the lens, IR-A wavelengths are equally able to produce cataracts, following the mechanisms described by Goldmann.


IR-A is defined as 740 - 1400 nm (infrared wavelengths). The "mechanisms described by Goldmann is " In the 30ies, Goldmann [6] suggested that the origin of cataracts was an indirect heating of the lens, induced by an IR absorption by the iris."

No conjecture as to how much heating would be required to cause damage at those lower levels, how long it might take to achieve even the 50 deg F increase.

I assume with the droughts in Iowa theory he is surmising less cloud cover allowed for more infrared radiation (but wouldn't that allow for more radiation of all types, and what about the effects on the physical and mental health of the Iowans...) Unfortunately I can't get the full text of the Iowa study (here is the preview Droughts as Factors in the Development of Senile Cataract), but the same author (P.W.Salit) has another study on cataracts (again, preview only available https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/1-s2.0-S0002939438935238/first-page-pdf) where he notes measurements done on lenses showed "average water content of six cataractous lenses, removed from patients aged 49 to 70 years, to be 76.8 percent, whereas that of five normal lenses, from patients aged 32 to 63 years, amounted to 68.7 percent".

This view correlates with Peat "Since the water in cataracts is in a less ordered state than in the transparent lens, the re-ordering effect of red light could be valuable, and if the effects are the same as in their experiments with cancer cells, the increased volume of the re-ordered water would cause a movement of water out of the cataract, as it does in cancer cells in their experiment. And the known restorative effect of red light on oxidative production of ATP would almost certainly be helpful. " (Cataracts: water, energy, light, and aging.).
 

amd

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
864
"The exposure to IR light has been related to several eye pathologies, mainly in association with thermal effects, acting on almost every part of the ocular anatomy [2] (Fig. 2); however, a particular care has to be taken when considering the contribution of IR radiation to the couple of diseases that most frequently are associated with aging: cataracts and Age-Related Macular Degeneration (ARMD). These two classes of injuries take place in different parts of the eye, respectively the lens and the retina. In both cases, the most relevant contribution to the formation of the damages is produced by IR-A, the energetically stronger part of IR, with wavelength spanning between 780 and 1400 nm."
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
Hm, I pondered using both red 660nm and IR 810nm LEDs shining into the face/eyes while working on the computer. Better err on the side of caution then and stick to red wavelength without IR
 

CreakyJoints

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
304
Hm, I pondered using both red 660nm and IR 810nm LEDs shining into the face/eyes while working on the computer. Better err on the side of caution then and stick to red wavelength without IR
There is a recent study out of UCL on the regenerative property of tissue in the eyes being strongly affected by (visible) red light. It correlates with that 2011 Ray Peat article @LucyL linked on cataracts. He agrees that it is at least partly due to NO as @ZuaGoidern mentioned. 670nm is the frequency used. The sample size is tiny, sadly, but I think it's still worth looking at because it's the specific frequency in the German study Ray Peat mentions in the article. There is sometimes a tendency for some of these studies to randomly select a new frequency in the therapeutic range every time for the sake of monetisation, picking a frequency where the bulbs are more difficult to source, but I'm fairly certain that's not the intention of this particular one, the researchers have gone on to say these devices could easily be made at home for cheap.

Michael Hamblin has mentioned before that certain frequencies of near-IR may actually be quite helpful, I think in the 850ish range, but he cautions against over-exposure. I can't remember where he says this and there are just so many studies he's been a part of or referenced in. It's possible that range would do more for the actual optic nerve than the lens, or at least something not on the surface - so they would be dealing with disparate conditions: I can't remember him claiming it would be good for cataracts. The ranges discussed in the Iowa study are very far from the therapeutic ranges in most PBMT-related papers I've seen, I'll have to try and go through it properly, it's very interesting how they link it to droughts, too.

Also, potentially shining those into your eyes whilst working on a computer, assuming the monitor is shining all sorts of other frequencies into your eyes, could be unhelpful, especially if you are trying to give yourself a specific dose - I would think it's probably best to do these separately if possible? That's just a guess.
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
Thanks

@CreakyJoints

I'd like a spectrum of red wavelenghts actualy becuase I somewhhat hope or expect them to be more helpful - 580-700nm should be fine, but a monochromatic or monolenght red led might be better than nothing.

I tone down the screen with f.lux an have an incandescent burning as my desklamp. I have no further knowledge about frequencie interactins either but I found red-wavelenght shinign alnogside always soothing and agreable when I did it more regularyl 3 years ago.


Than I got distracted by trying to include some more fancy stuff in my room lighting but its back to red now
 

Inaut

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
3,620
So do i need to wear shades when I'm using my heat lamp sauna now???
 

CreakyJoints

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
304
@LeeLemonoil you're very welcome! I think it's a really really interesting area to look into. I was trying to make a little concordance/index for myself of which frequencies had been observed to have certain effects, because my memory for numbers is usually awful.

Lots of researchers have mentioned this in the last few years, but there's something of a blind spot where human tissue just doesn't seem to react very much, at around 700, but I can't recall precisely where. It's one of the reasons you see so many studies focus on ~650nm and ~850nm simultaneously, they seem to work well together but the bit in the middle does nothing appreciable when added. I used to be an audio engineer and it reminds me very much of an idealised loudness curve - the idea with those is that you are sort of improving SNR (I suppose it's not fully accurate to refer to it as that).

I think a full spectrum of red is probably very beneficial in some ways, but I think if I was trying to do something specific, like emulate one of the PBMT papers for eye health, I'd probably try doing it in a more controlled setting - I'm glad to hear some red shining is soothing and agreeable to you, though! Perhaps I'll have to try it myself. Flux seems pretty good. I use a slightly different software that does much the same thing. I shall have to look into an incandescent desk lamp: were you using that as an alternative to a harsher kind of light?
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131

"Nowadays, it is commonly accepted that the main effect of IR radiation on the ocular lens is an accelerated aging [14], which produces cataracts. It is known that the aging process, involving oxidation events, is deeply affected by temperature and heat transfers. As a matter of fact, people who develop cataracts as a result of chronic or excessive exposure to IR radiation anticipate an opacification which was probably destined to appear in their old age years [15]."

So, that quote is based on these two sources-



The first seems to be the crux of this argument. Here's the abstract-

The aim of the presented study was to establish if occupational exposure to infrared (IR) radiation increases the risk of developing cataract, and to correlate the lens findings to the degree of exposure. The eyes of 208 IR‐exposed workers and 208 controls, all from 6 Swedish iron and steel manufacturing plants, were examined. An increased prevalence of wedge‐shaped opacities was found in IR‐exposed persons 60 years of age and older. This type of lens opacity is normally considered to be a purely senile change. Acceleration of senile changes by IR radiation is suggested. Stratification of the material with regard to exposure was made on different grounds, but failed to show a dose‐effect‐correlation.

So, this entire idea is based on iron and steel workers, working in factories likely from the 1940s until the 1980s (study published in 1984).

Here's some videos of modern steel plants-





Sure, there's infrared there. There's a whole lot of light there. And high temperatures. And metal fragments, and such. The study only suggests that IR made some changes, and that over pretty much of a lifetime of work.

This is a far cry from using something like an IR illuminator, or shining a infra/hyper-red light, like the ones made by Red Light Man, over your eyes when closed. Or even getting infrared from the sun.

A lot of the other sources seem to be speculation, as well. And it even stipulates that some of this issues might be due to heat, not IR itself (which is a known confounder in Red Light Therapy, anyway). Not sure how much trust should be put into that article.
 

Inaut

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
3,620
So, that quote is based on these two sources-



The first seems to be the crux of this argument. Here's the abstract-

The aim of the presented study was to establish if occupational exposure to infrared (IR) radiation increases the risk of developing cataract, and to correlate the lens findings to the degree of exposure. The eyes of 208 IR‐exposed workers and 208 controls, all from 6 Swedish iron and steel manufacturing plants, were examined. An increased prevalence of wedge‐shaped opacities was found in IR‐exposed persons 60 years of age and older. This type of lens opacity is normally considered to be a purely senile change. Acceleration of senile changes by IR radiation is suggested. Stratification of the material with regard to exposure was made on different grounds, but failed to show a dose‐effect‐correlation.

So, this entire idea is based on iron and steel workers, working in factories likely from the 1940s until the 1980s (study published in 1984).

Here's some videos of modern steel plants-





Sure, there's infrared there. There's a whole lot of light there. And high temperatures. And metal fragments, and such. The study only suggests that IR made some changes, and that over pretty much of a lifetime of work.

This is a far cry from using something like an IR illuminator, or shining a infra/hyper-red light, like the ones made by Red Light Man, over your eyes when closed. Or even getting infrared from the sun.

A lot of the other sources seem to be speculation, as well. And it even stipulates that some of this issues might be due to heat, not IR itself (which is a known confounder in Red Light Therapy, anyway). Not sure how much trust should be put into that article.

Good points here @tankasnowgod
 
OP
E

Elast1c

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2017
Messages
164
So, that quote is based on these two sources-



The first seems to be the crux of this argument. Here's the abstract-

The aim of the presented study was to establish if occupational exposure to infrared (IR) radiation increases the risk of developing cataract, and to correlate the lens findings to the degree of exposure. The eyes of 208 IR‐exposed workers and 208 controls, all from 6 Swedish iron and steel manufacturing plants, were examined. An increased prevalence of wedge‐shaped opacities was found in IR‐exposed persons 60 years of age and older. This type of lens opacity is normally considered to be a purely senile change. Acceleration of senile changes by IR radiation is suggested. Stratification of the material with regard to exposure was made on different grounds, but failed to show a dose‐effect‐correlation.

So, this entire idea is based on iron and steel workers, working in factories likely from the 1940s until the 1980s (study published in 1984).

Here's some videos of modern steel plants-





Sure, there's infrared there. There's a whole lot of light there. And high temperatures. And metal fragments, and such. The study only suggests that IR made some changes, and that over pretty much of a lifetime of work.

This is a far cry from using something like an IR illuminator, or shining a infra/hyper-red light, like the ones made by Red Light Man, over your eyes when closed. Or even getting infrared from the sun.

A lot of the other sources seem to be speculation, as well. And it even stipulates that some of this issues might be due to heat, not IR itself (which is a known confounder in Red Light Therapy, anyway). Not sure how much trust should be put into that article.

Just what I hoped for ?, Thanks man.
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
@LeeLemonoil you're very welcome! I think it's a really really interesting area to look into. I was trying to make a little concordance/index for myself of which frequencies had been observed to have certain effects, because my memory for numbers is usually awful.

Lots of researchers have mentioned this in the last few years, but there's something of a blind spot where human tissue just doesn't seem to react very much, at around 700, but I can't recall precisely where. It's one of the reasons you see so many studies focus on ~650nm and ~850nm simultaneously, they seem to work well together but the bit in the middle does nothing appreciable when added. I used to be an audio engineer and it reminds me very much of an idealised loudness curve - the idea with those is that you are sort of improving SNR (I suppose it's not fully accurate to refer to it as that).

I think a full spectrum of red is probably very beneficial in some ways, but I think if I was trying to do something specific, like emulate one of the PBMT papers for eye health, I'd probably try doing it in a more controlled setting - I'm glad to hear some red shining is soothing and agreeable to you, though! Perhaps I'll have to try it myself. Flux seems pretty good. I use a slightly different software that does much the same thing. I shall have to look into an incandescent desk lamp: were you using that as an alternative to a harsher kind of light?


I use incandescent because of the wavelength spectrum containing much more red and much less green han even the warm-white LEDs used universally today.

And yes, Halgen and Incandescent have IR too, so maybe these concerns are overblown. There are a lot of pre-combined LEDS available for aroud 650 and 850 so I thought about using such a one.


I'm still not sure about the wattage and lumen aspects of red-light therapy.



1611601462104.png
 

dukesbobby777

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2020
Messages
633
I believe Peat has said the damage is because of PUFA accumulation.

And PUFA accumulation is inevitable if his previous quotes are anything to go by (consuming under 0.5g per day).

What I want to know though, is how my eyes deteriorate when I was a teenager, and I need glasses/contact lenses ever since, and my brother goes his whole life not avoiding PUFA, yet has no eyesight deterioration at all. In fact, for a large part of his life his diet was awful. However, he has lost a lot of his hair (far more than me). We’re both now in our late 30’s.
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
I don't know if any of the various red-light thredas ever determined what wavelenght do incandescents bulbs emit that are red coated?
 

LucyL

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,244
And PUFA accumulation is inevitable if his previous quotes are anything to go by (consuming under 0.5g per day).

What I want to know though, is how my eyes deteriorate when I was a teenager, and I need glasses/contact lenses ever since, and my brother goes his whole life not avoiding PUFA, yet has no eyesight deterioration at all. In fact, for a large part of his life his diet was awful. However, he has lost a lot of his hair (far more than me). We’re both now in our late 30’s.
I think the PUFA damage is more related to diseases of the eye - cataracts, macular degeneration etc than vision acuity. The degradation of visual acuity is attributed to lifestyle changes in children (see this thread Lack Of Light Exposure May Be The Main Cause Of The Myopia Boom) but I think it could also be tied to changes in facial structure. I've observed people with wide faces tend to have less myopia than those of us with narrow faces. Certainly lifestyle/diet can change face structure in a generation.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom