From that article:
> Home-based affordable eye therapies
> With a paucity of affordable deep red-light eye-therapies available, Professor Jeffery has been working for no commercial gain with Planet Lighting UK, a small company in Wales and others, with the aim of producing 670nm infra-red eye ware at an affordable cost, in contrast to some other LED devices designed to improve vision available in the US for over $20,000."
That company has already released a product: https://www.eye-power.co.uk/
US$72 GB£45.00
An example of the level of rigor you can find in their blog:
"Several studies and guidelines have stated that a NIR exposure intensity to the eye of up to 10mW/cm^2 has no risk of cataract formation especially for long-term chronic (daily) exposure over 1000 seconds (16.67 min). [3][4][6] The ICNIRP notes that higher intensities than 10mW/cm^2 are safe for shorter time periods or in cold environments.
They specifically note the guidelines are set to avoid cataractogenesis (formation of cataracts):
"To avoid thermal injury of the cornea and possible delayed effects on the lens of the eye (cataractogenesis), infrared radiation (770 nm - 3 m) should be limited to 100 W/m^2 (10 mW/cm^2) for lengthy exposures ( >1,000 s), and to 1.8 t^3/4 W/cm^2 for shorter exposure durations" [4]
To be clear these guidelines are intended to include incoherent (non-laser) exposures to near-infrared light including incandescent bulbs, infrared heaters, industrial furnaces, and LEDs. And this calculation is for Cornea and Lens safety only and they have other calculations for different wavelength ranges and different parts of the eye.
For shorter exposure times less than 1000 seconds, they give us this formula such that higher intensities can be tolerated according to the guideline.
E < 1.8 (t) ^-3/4 (W/m^2)
From this calculation we can find that 100mW/cm^2 can be tolerated for up to 47 seconds before potential damage could occur according to the ICNIRP.
Other researchers have noted that 100mW/cm^2 of NIR would not cause significant temperature increase in the eyes to cause damage, but the ICNIRP comments that such a high intensity from an incoherent source is impractical because it would felt as “painfully warm” on the face. [3] [5]
Good thing nobody makes “painfully warm” intensity panels that emit >100mW/cm^2 at 6 inches away. However, feeling too much heat on the face is a good warning to move further away, and we are reassured by this data that we don’t immediately get damage from such a high exposure."
Enough red light seems to get in your eyes with this mask, but it isn’t as directed as other products.
After you do a 10 minute session for example and look at a monitor, you see significant contrasts for awhile until your eyes re-adjust. I like to think that it is doing something and is why I keep doing it outside the mood/skin/etc benefits.
That's just regular visible red light up 700 isn't it though? You'd see it in its entirety.