Effects of Black Light

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Wed May 7 14:33:52 EST 2003

"External Network Error" <peer-error at excite.com> wrote in message
news:f4163860.0305070540.6d4b8d3 at posting.google.com...
| "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:<7qEta.140162$ja4.6482663 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
| > Just laser =anything= will probably not do anything that does any
| > good :-]
| >
| > Is the brain tissue exposed. UV would be nasty, same as it is on
| > skin, but worse.
| >
| > ken
| Black light is long-wave UV light on the brink of being violet. It
| an approximate wavelength of 400nm. Long-wave UV is benign. UV
| gets harzardous as its wavelength decreases. Of course all
| electromagnetic radiation can kill tissue if boosted w/ enough
| How much power of black light is needed to stimulate [not injure]
| neurons is the "shined" area.

I stand on what I've posted. If light is amplified via stimulated
emission of radiation, then, right-there, in-that, is stuff I don't
want shone on my neural tissue.

I expect there are some, but I know of no studies pertaining. It's
just logical not to do such because it's just logical that LASER
anything is too-much concentrated at one point, especially with
respect to tissue that's ordinarily 'shielded' from all
non-penetrating EM.

Plus, one can see the difference in the energy-content of 'black
light' right in it's phospheresence-inducing capabilities relative to
less-energetic light.

What's here is sufficient for me to make my decision with respect to
'black light', or any LASER-stuff.

I don't know what the original questioner was getting at. But he
asked about "UV black light laser [...] shined on the brain", and I
gave my opinion.

Over and out on this one.


"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list