Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:46:36 alt.support.depression.seasonal Thread 24 of 29 Lines 153 Re: Hank's questions about cheap experiments sunbox@aol.com SunBox at AOL http://www.aol.com Hank wrote: > Have you any thoughts about the ways I and others have > suggested people do quick cheap tests, to see if bright light > helps them? The one thing I'm really pretty emphatic about is this: It strikes me as a particularly bad idea to use incandescent bulbs (and yes, I do consider halogen bulbs to be an incandescent technology) for light therapy. ------ There are certain activities I (personally) consider to be very risky. People do them in the name of improving health or quality of living, but I just can't get beyond the idea that there are generally better options. Among these "risky" behaviors are taking steroids, taking hormones, and using cortisone except under the very close, attentive, knowledgeable supervision of a health professional. If you pay attention to sports, you run across reports of athletes getting cortisone shots to avoid surgical repairs to damaged body parts. That strikes me as a really bad choice. Steroids are useful for treating asthma, as far as I know, but the impression I get is that for the most part they cause more harm than good. Yes, I did say that I consider taking hormones to be risky. And yes, I do lump melatonin right in there with testosterone and estrogen. I simply can not get past the idea that if you intentionally put hormones into your body, you are risking really fouling up your system. So maybe all of that makes me a conservative on health issues (although I make no effort to eat health food...I'm an unapologetic carnivore, I eat sugar (and avoid artificial sweeteners like the plague), I make no effort to reduce salt intake, I don't watch my fat or cholesterol or even caloric intake...in short, I eat when I'm hungry, I eat what I like the taste of, and I simply trust that my natural metabolism is going to continue to treat me as well as it has so far). Anyway, being a "health-risk conservative", I consider my eyes to be a very valuable asset and I wouldn't want to do anything to risk damaging them. I trust those warnings that if you stare at the sun, you're risking burning your retinas (which, as far as I know, is irreparable). It seems to logically follow that looking at the intense point source of an incandescent light can do just the same sort of damage. NOT WORTH IT!!! ------ So yeah, of course we have a corporate interest in selling light boxes. But I understand that not everybody has the money to spend on one of our boxes (note: we don't advertise it a lot, but we are willing to work out no-interest payment plans). Given that people are going to build their own boxes, I'd really prefer that they use fluorescent tubes instead of incandescent bulbs. And I don't care whether they buy expensive full-spectrum tubes from us or cheap cool-white tubes from their local hardware store. For doing experimentation, the important thing is this: Nobody's found exposure to light levels less than 2,500 lux to be helpful for treating S.A.D. (Note: I'm not talking about dawn simulation here. Dawn simulation is primarily for making waking easier, although there are reports that dawn simulation can be just as effective (or nearly so) as "standard" light therapy for treating S.A.D. (lots of anecdotal reports, but I don't know of any scientific studies to support them).) Even at 2,500 lux, it typically takes at least 2 hours per day to get a response. At 5,000 lux, it's typically about 1 hour, and at 10,000 lux, it's typically about 15-30 minutes. Average room lighting is under 500 lux, so it does require BRIGHT light. If you're not getting a commercial light box (where we tell you that you're able to get 10,000 lux at x inches), and if you don't have an incident light meter, then you're really not likely to have any certainty about how much light you're getting. Just saying, "Wow! That's bright! It must be 10,000 lux." is a pretty unreliable way to tell. So, if Hank says: I built this setup, using these parts, attaching them like so, and I measured 10,000 lux at such-and-such distance, then presumably anybody can buy the same parts, follow Hank's specifications, and get 10,000 lux at the same distance. That seems infinitely more reliable than the "wow that's bright" method. But I don't know of any mathematical formula for calculating the lux output at a given distance if you know the lumen rating of your bulbs and if you use a certain number of them spaced a given distance apart. It really requires somebody building it and taking measurements. ------ As far as UV output is concerned, the suggestion of going to an optometrist seems a pretty good one (and one I never would have thought of). I'd say it's probably better to bring a sample of your diffusing material to the optometrist than to bring your whole apparatus. It should be easy enough for him/her to check the transmissive qualities of the diffuser, and it saves you from lugging the whole thing back and forth. Otherwise, a pretty good way of getting a mental grasp of your box's UV emissions should be to contact the manufacturers directly. Our fully assembled light boxes have been tested by an independent lab and found to not emit UV. But if you're building your own, call whoever makes the diffusing material you're using. Ask about the UV transmissiveness of the material. Call the tube manufacturer and ask about the UV emissions of the tubes. They might not be able to tell you anything, but then again they might. ----- > And especially this time of year, as depression can be real > befuddling, I don't recommend people experiment with anything > risky by playing with halogens, or wiring their own homebuilt > boxes --- depression's too nasty about making us miss danger in > trying to feel better, seems to me. EXCELLENT POINT, HANK! A word of warning: If you're in bad psychological shape from S.A.D. (inattentive, easily discouraged, etc.,...), it's not a good time to be fooling around with electricity. That's especially true if you don't really have a good grasp on how to safely wire things so that you're not going to shock (electrocute) yourself or cause a fire. If you're not confident that you can do it yourself, it's a much better idea to get a handy friend to do the work for you than to try to tackle the project yourself. ----- Finally, if you want to try a light box before deciding to buy one, and if you don't want to have to pay for a couple of weeks of usage, ask your doctor if he/she happens to have a light box available to lend to patients. If not, request that he/she contacts us to find out about getting one. We at The SunBox Company are of the opinion that it's to your advantage (as a S.A.D. sufferer) AND to our advantage (as a company) for you to have access to a light box through your health professional, just to find out whether light therapy can help you. If you spend 6 hours a day in front of a home made light box, getting only 1,500 lux without noticing any improvement, you'll reach the (probably wrong) conclusion that light therapy just doesn't work for you. That doesn't do you any good. However, if you spend 30 minutes a day with 10,000 lux exposure for two weeks and notice a great improvement, then you know that light therapy works for you. You then have the option of either buying a light box or building your own. At least at that point you'll have hope. You'll know what the solution is, and from there it's just a matter of acquiring the means. ----- That sure took a while. Sorry about the wordiness. I hope it's informative. -Louis at The SunBox Company http://members.aol.com/sunbox/home.html
Back to [Anecdotes]
Copyright © 1995-2000 Museion Research Corporation
This page text-only: http://www.nyx.net/~lpuls/hanklou.html
Organizations Other Sources Anecdotes Search