Feel better, brighter, lighter and fight those blues...

Light therapy for the treatment of a variety of sleep disorders is growing rapidly and meeting with impressive results.

Winter blues CNN footage (2007)

The Talk About Sleep offices have received inquiries about the safety of white light versus blue light. There are rumors floating around that white light is safer.

The fact is that blue light is far superior to white in shifting circadian rhythms, suppressing melatonin and mediating the circadian response. This is because the photoreceptors that are responsible, are NOT rod and cone cells as we previously supposed, but are the ganglion cells that contain the photopigment MELANOPSIN. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence now that melanopsin is responsible, and the fact is, that melanopsin is sensitive to 470-480 nm, and NOT 550 nm, which is the peak of the spectrum that white light represents.

Is Blue light dangerous to our eyes?

In short the answer is NO. Now, the first question to be asked is: If blue light (470 nm) is so dangerous, if it makes people go blind, then why in the world did our eyes evolve to respond solely to 470 nm light? If that is the exact wavelength our bodies need, how can it possibly be dangerous? Because if it were, we would have evolved a different response mechanism over all these eons of time.

#1 doctor recommended light therapy product

If blue light is dangerous, then shouldn't 10,000 lux lightboxes be even more dangerous, since they contain far greater amounts of light, including blue light? The answer is of course, that 10,000 lux lightboxes are safe, and BLUEWAVE technology is even safer. P. Gallen, et. al. did a 6 year study on 10K light boxes and showed that there was no ophthalmological risk in using light therapy. Brainard et al, in the Biol Psych study, submitted the irradiance data to the FDA, who concurred that the intensity and type of blue light was perfectly safe to use.

In other words, BLUEWAVE technology was tested for ocular safety even at eye surface distance (0 cm), and found to be safe.

Here's another important point: all those who bash blue light, have to ignore completely the mountain of evidence showing that it is the blue wavelengths that we respond to. No one can get around that. Study after study shows that rods and cones alone don't do it. At best, they perform a secondary function. You have to excite the melanopsin photoreceptors, and to do that, you need blue light.
The real issue: There is some evidence that blue light found in sunlight may cause macular degeneration over a span of about 60 years. You have to remember that we are only talking about a specific population here, that is predisposed, genetically to macular degeneration, and it takes about 60 - 80 years to develop with consistent exposure to sunlight. FACT: the goLITE produces 1/20 th of the amount of blue found in sunlight! So even if you were predisposed to AMD, it would take you 1200 years for the goLITE to cause damage.

The fact is, that those who have the most to lose from this new technology are the 10,000 lux white light people. So they do what they can to promote false information about blue light products and draw inaccurate comparisons. They misquote and misuse research papers to bolster their point. But again, they can't say anything about any of the new research from the last 5 years because it shoots them down.
There is also a lot of misinformation out there. It is true that if you look at the sun, you will go blind, and that includes white light and blue. The issue here is intensity. The blue in the goLITE is far less than the blue in traditional light boxes. The blue in sunlight can contribute to AMD, but it takes 60-80 years, and the levels of blue in the goLITE are 1/20 th that of sunlight. There are NO studies which suggest that the level of blue in the goLITE contribute to AMD, to the contrary, evidence shows that the goLITE's wavelength is very safe. The goLITE has been demonstrated safe from an ocular hazard safety analysis, whereas other lightboxes do not (if they aren't from us). Finally, another very reputable site, the Mayo Clinic, demonstrates the goLITE on their site for Seasonal Affective Disorder.

In 2001, researchers at Surrey and Thomas Jefferson independently discovered that our body clocks are highly sensitive to short wavelength light (460 - 480 nm), and not to white light (represented by 550 nm), as we had previously supposed. In fact, George Brainard's group at Thomas Jefferson showed that 464 nm light was five times more effective at suppressing melatonin than 550 nm, and Kavita Thapan's group had similar results.

Since then, several studies have shown that very low levels of blue light (approximately 470 nm), are at least twice as effective at shifting circadian rhythms, suppressing melatonin, and producing an alert response. Vicki Warman at Surrey also demonstrated that extremely low levels of blue (8 lux) suppressed melatonin as efficiently as 12,000 lux of white light The melatonin and circadian rhythm markers are particularly important, because we use those in determining a response to light when dealing with circadian disorders such as SAD.

As a result of this discovery, several papers were then published in Science, Nature, Neuroscience and Endocrinology, etc, revealing that the photopigment melanopsin is primarily responsible for the circadian response, not rod and cone cells, and melanopsin's action spectrum is 460-480 nm. It is now a well established fact that very low levels of blue light are superior to high intense white light at shifting circadian rhythms and suppressing melatonin. Indeed, blue LED light alone has been shown to be twice as effective as 10,000 lux white light and white LEDs, even though these other light sources produced far more blue.

Because SAD is classified as a circadian rhythm disorder, and shifting circadian rhythms is an important part of treating SAD, one would suspect that low level blue light would be as at least as effective as 10,000 lux in treating SAD. However, SAD manifests an additional depressive component, which must be taken into account. Thus, studies with blue light and SAD have been conducted to determine whether BLUEWAVE technology is an effective treatment for SAD.

In all, nearly 100 subjects have participated in SAD studies using BLUEWAVE technology, which is highly significant in our industry. Also significant is the fact that these studies achieved excellent results using the small goLITE. Because the bandwidth of light is superior, similar results were achieved with a portable device. As you know, light therapy is not the most convenient intervention, and anything which promises greater portability and convenience should increase customer acceptance and compliance. In addition, most researchers believe that the low-intensity blue light should also reduce side effects associated with 10,000 lux light therapy.

Ocular safety is a particular concern with light therapy, since patients could conceivably use a light device for decades. The consensus among researchers is that 10,000 lux light is safe, but some people have raised questions about blue light safety. BLUEWAVE Technology produces far less blue light than 10,000 lux light boxes, and 1/20th the amount of sunlight. GoLites have been tested for Ocular Radiation Hazard by Dr. David Sliney, one of the foremost ocular physicists world-wide. BLUEWAVE passed at 15% of the threshold for ocular safety.

To sum up: Bluewave lights are safe, reliable and efficient. In many studies it has been shown the Golites are an effective method of treating many sleep related disorders, including depression and other mental health problems.