Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

UV can be dangerous


Recommended Posts

We all are familiar with side effects of UV such as development of skin cancer, eye sore, and sunburns. As UV photographers we spend a lot of time outdoors and try to mitigate the risks by dressing sensibly, using sun lotions, and so on. For UV illumination we use UV-enabled flash and sun itself, to name the two most common sources of UV light. Because flash duration is so short it is usual to consider it being fairly low risk in terms of UV side effects.

 

Indoors, Liveview on the moderns cameras hardly work for UV unless a source of UV light is added. I normally use a powerful Nichia UV LED torch as a means of focus assistance, and the same torch is used to produce UV-induced visible fluorescence. As the Nichia is powerful, I always use UV-protective goggles. My big studio flash heads employ uncoated Xenon tubes and thus emits a lot of UV. You are almost guaranteed sore eyes if you don't look away and/or close your eyes when the flash(es) fire. Wearing UV-protective goggles help but cannot eliminate entirely the problem since you may fire long sequences with these flashes when doing focus stacking.

 

Still, UV can hold unpleasant and unexpected surprises. Thus, UV can trrigger photochemical skin and allergy reactions. That is exactly what happened to me today. My medicine regimen recently had Vitamine B3 added to it and I'm ramping up the dosage. Today, this lead to a violent photochemical response when I commenced UV shooting in the morning hours just afte taking the medicines. I worked with a UV photomacrographic stack at 4X magnification to show the conical cell patterns on the petals of Barbarea vulgaris (Brassicaceae). The stack was tricky to accomplish and I had to use my Nichia UV LED a lot in order to fine-tune focus. After about ten minutes my skin started to swell and puff up and I became literally red as a tomato all over my body. Surges of heat waves raced inside, breathing became raspy and I had to use a healthy dose of adrenaline to bring the shock reaction under control. Not something I wish to encounter too frequently.

 

I postponed work on the stack until the afternoon. at which time the attack had ceased and i felt myself returning to normalcy again.

 

This is a small section from the stacked image. Do note how the conical cells not only are associated with the UV-dark patches, but actively enhance them by focusing incident light to add vibrance to the area, plus generate iridescence. I'll post more on these topics in a forthcoming article on conical cell patterns.

 

BARB_VUL_I13052907076_UV_Conical_cells.jpg

Link to comment

We must be careful with our UV flashes, UV torches and sun exposure. The damage from UV is cumulative. I've already had to have two cataracts removed from my left eye, and so I sometimes wonder whether it might not be time to hang up the goggles for good.

 

That was an unpleasant experience you had, Bjørn. Thank goodness you came through it OK!

Link to comment
  • 9 months later...
I'd say it is pretty hard to top anaphylactic shock on the danger list. :D At least vitamin D can be obtained via supplements.
Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...

:blink: At least vitamin D can be obtained via supplements.

 

Not nearly the same thing as what is biologically yielded through natural, full-spectrum sunlight. Not even close.

 

This field of work (endocrinology), I am actually trained in (one of my primary courses of study). And I can tell you that there is no effective substitute for sunlight as a health-optimizing component. Not even the "best" supplements out there. (There are many other beneficial, sub-metabolic processes of adequate, full-spectrum sun exposure that artificially-supplemented vitamin D just doesn't replace. These additional and vital metabolic / endocrine processes include the proper balancing of hormonal production / secretion, and even proper functioning of the central nervous system / brain, itself.)

 

But, we can probably discuss that in some other place, for the respect of not getting off-subject.

 

In passing, it should just be noted that the chronic lack / abstinence from sufficient sun exposure dramatically increases the risks of all other forms of cancer.

 

Therefore, although there is no argument that too much sun exposure can be dangerous, too little sun exposure can be just as (and possibly even more) dangerous.

 

The extremist "stay out of the sun at all costs" message peddled by the dermatological / cosmetics industries is one of the greatest marketing scams ever perpetuated on the public. The problem is not the sun, itself. After all, we've been exposed to it, as evolving primates, for hundreds of thousands (and even millions) of years. It's not turning against us, now, all of a sudden. That's a ridiculous notion, if you speak about it with an anthropological biologist.

 

The real issues pertaining to the exponential rise in skin cancer, in recent eras, has to do with the progressive decline of the nutritional qualities / contents of the very foods we eat, because with otherwise proper and adequate nutritional intake (such as the deeply-colored pigments of colorful vegetation), we actually (and naturally) build up resilience to the sun from the inside (rather than slathering on toxic "sun screens" on the outside.) But the big food industries of the current era have systematically destroyed all of these vital components of our foods, through various industrial processes of denaturation / bleaching / acid washing / oxidation, etc.

 

(Ex: I once conducted an experiment, in how a biologically sound diet can actually build up natural "solar resistance". This is not some silly "new age" idea. It's been demonstrated within experiments in biological / biochemistry fields, many times. Plants are not the only life-forms with demonstrated propensity for solar resistance. Animal physiologies are naturally capable of this adaptation, too. Of course, many people are misinformed on what is a "proper diet" by the very same corrupt big-food industries ... and so, for the majority of the "industrialized nations" of the current era, our innate "solar resistance" has been slowly phased out of our abilities, by the very degradation in the qualities of the foods available to us through conventional means.)

 

In fact, most commercially-available sun screens (particularly, the chemicals they contain) can promote skin cancer more than the sun itself! (A handful of independent studies have demonstrated some substantial evidence through group / comparative testing that those who regularly slather on commonly-available "sun screen" have not only failed to prevent the statistical rise of skin cancer in recent years, but might have actually promoted its occurrence! We have to start asking ourselves: What came first? The sudden rise of skin cancer, or the rise of the use of toxic skin creams claiming to reduce the incidence of skin cancer? Food for thought ... because often, people can mistakenly reverse the line of causality / effect.)

 

But, like I said, we can discuss this in private (messenger), or I can forward a link to you (through private messaging) on forums / debates pertaining to this controversial subject, including lectures ... since continuing on would be WAYYY of topic. :) Thanks!

Link to comment

Thanks Igor. You stepped really off target here but I'll let it stand.

 

Just keep in mind UVP is not the virtual equivalent of Hyde Park Corner.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...