Two new publications from the Berlin Charité and the University Medical Centre Mainz  and from the University of Stuttgart-Hohenheim  confirm earlier studies concerning the harmlessness of infrared-A  and its usefulness to humans. They refute concerns regarding possible detrimental effects of infrared-A, which is the main part of the Sun’s thermal radiation. In the Earth’s moderate climate zones, the infrared A-radiation reaches the Earth’s surface after being filtered by the water vapour in the Earth’s atmosphere, and is thus especially well tolerable.
These studies ignored the fact that cells in a cell culture (which are not covered by overlying skin cells and have no connection to a blood circulation) should not be exposed to the same level of irradiance as human skin (with an intact blood perfusion, a layer of overlying cells and a horny layer), if meaningful conclusions relevant to the situation in the skin of a person are to be drawn.
An earlier publication has also brought attention to the differences in effects seen when identical irradiances are used to irradiate inanimate material having no blood circulation (resulting in a surface temperature of approx. 100°C) and human skin capable of heat dissipation via the circulation (resulting in a surface temperature of approx. 38°C) .
In the studies in which supposed dangers were reported, no consideration at all was given to the fact that the results seen are dependent not only on the dose of irradiation, but also on the irradiance level: Effects seen following short exposures to very high irradiances can not be interpreted as suggesting that the same result will occur if irradiation is carried out over hours using a lower irradiance level.Additionally, some of the studies were carried out using foreskin cells obtained from infants, which are known to behave differently to skin cells.
Ultimately, the interpretation of possible effects and the avoidance of miss- or overinterpretations are of considerable importance: Even when, as claimed in the critical reports, an upregulation of enzymes capable of degrading collagen (e.g., the matrix metalloproteinases) or their gene expression were to occur, this can not automatically be interpreted as being detrimental in the sense of a promotion of skin ageing or even more far-reaching skin changes, since these effects are also seen during other processes such as wound healing.
Even a purported increase in free radicals can not categorically be considered as being unfavourable; the ambivalent relevance of free radicals has already been pointed out in an earlier publication : in the case of special white blood cells (granulocytes), the generation of free radicals is an important mechanism of action in the defence against bacteria.
Consequently, there is no reason for specific measures against the Sun’s infrared-A (e.g., in the form of special Sun protection products), especially when the fact that infrared-A has been shown to provide some protection against the unwanted effects of the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation is considered . At the same time, there is no cause for any reservations concerning the beneficial medical application of infrared-A (IRA) or water-filtered infrared-A (wIRA) radiation. However, the necessity for adequate skin and eye protection against ultraviolet (UV) in Sun's radiation remains valid, e.g., in the form of protection through textiles, sunglasses or sun protection products.Publications:
 Menezes S, Coulomb B, Lebreton C, Dubertret L. Non-coherent near infrared radiation protects normal human dermal fibroblasts from solar ultraviolet toxicity. J Invest Dermatol. 1998; 111(4): 629-33. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1747.1998.00338.x
Wolfgang Müller | idw
World first: Massive thrombosis removed during early pregnancy
20.07.2017 | Universitätsspital Bern
Therapy of preterm birth in sight?
19.07.2017 | Universitätsspital Bern
21.07.2017 | Event News
19.07.2017 | Event News
12.07.2017 | Event News
21.07.2017 | Earth Sciences
21.07.2017 | Power and Electrical Engineering
21.07.2017 | Physics and Astronomy