Good day to you all!
Now that I’ve finally decided on a permanent solution. I’ve a question concerning safety, is it safe on my neck area? since it is a sensitive place, I’m worried that laser might damage the under layers of my neck (glands). Even in the long run.
Any feedback for my concerns will be much appreciated.
Thanks!
There really is no great amount of research into questions like these. Use of Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation is always a gamble, and at best, you have a great practitioner who can minimize the risks to the best of that person’s understanding and ability.
Unfortunately, that seems to count more for the possibility of scarring and burning than it does for a question like yours, as no one really knows the long term results on glands, the lymph system and such.
There was a Navy study that concluded that the deck workers who walked through the guidance LASERs many times a day while working aircraft support had experienced changes in their DNA, but what long term result that caused was not defined.
Thank you James, for your response. 
James, please stop scaring people unnecessarily. Hair removal lasers do not have negative side effects like anything you describe. There are many different types of lasers. Lasers that cut metal for example have absolutely nothing to do with hair removal lasers (which have been around for 10+ years btw). I have to say that I’m really tired of having to respond to posts like this by you. You have nothing positive to say about laser, even though you know full well that it produces great results for many people both on this forum and that you see in your practice. Why not admit it already? Please don’t just continue posting on the laser portion strictly to add negative comments about laser and promote electrolysis. This isn’t helping anyone.
There is plenty of research and evidence. The MAIN one is that laser doesn’t penetrate deep enough to even come close to any organs. AND it is only absorbed by dark pigment in the first place, which is in the hair and nothing else.
Home, there is absolutely nothing to worry about in terms of “safety” as you put it. The things you should be concerned about is having the right type of hair (only coarse dense hair will be affected), if the right machine is used based on your skin type, and if you’re being treated by someone experienced who sets settings correctly to not burn you.
The Navy study (which is referenced and reported elsewhere on this site, HairFacts, and elsewhere on the web) was not talking about LASERs that cut metal, or removed hair. They were the seemingly innocent guidance LASERs that were assumed to do nothing other than make a pretty light show.
I also stated very plainly that although the report DID show DNA changes happening to the deck workers who walked through these guidance LASERs that cut nothing, and don’t even have a wavelength or intensity worthy of hair removal, they could NOT conclude what these results would mean in the long run.
At the risk of sounding like someone else channeling words through my body… X-Ray Hair removal enjoyed a period from about 1896 to 1945 where most people, scientists included thought it was safe. It wasn’t until people’s jaws started falling off and radiation poisoning was confirmed that anyone started saying that maybe it was not a good idea, and still the government never specifically outlawed the process. The only reason it is not still being practiced is the last X-ray hair removal machine finally broke in 1976 and no one would fix it for the last owner.
If we use that as our guide (and I know you think that idea is ludicrous) Hair Removal LASERs are in the same place X-Ray was in about 1926, or electrolysis was in about 1890.
What will they be saying in 2086? Will they be rolling their eyes at the foolish idea that people actually paid money to be bombarded with LASERs for the purpose of Hair Removal, or will they be talking about how they had the right idea, but primitive equipment?
Only time will tell.
In conclusion, I believe I answered the question asked with the utmost sincerity.
If laser is proved to be harmful to our health in anyway in the future. I will be the first to die from it! lol.
Lasers have been used on humans since the mid 1960’s. That’s almost as long as it took to conclude x-ray was not safe. I think research has advanced enough since 1945 that it would not take 49 years to determine the safety of lasers.
I’ve searched for the Navy-Laser-DNA study. I now know Harvey was in the Navy. And on Hairfacts, the only mention of Navy is in someone’s resume. Do you have a link to this study?
I think if it were possible for lasers to alter DNA, the geneticists would be in DNA heaven.
What do x-rays have to do with hair removal lasers which don’t emit any harmful radiation? The ones you’re talking about DO. Hair removal lasers do NOT.
All you’re doing is trying to give laser hair removal a negative conotation just because the same word “laser” is used for multiple various devices out there with various uses. It sounds like you don’t understand (or pretend not to understand for the sake of pursuing your cause) that something called a “laser” can be many many different things based on its specific purpose. It’s like saying that just because something is the same color it has the same purpose and side effects.
I am sure that no one will forgive me for not being able to click up a research paper that I last referenced in 2005.
It seems that it may have been the Air Force that did the study, or that both the Navy AND the Air Force did their own studies.
At any rate, a bit of a search turned this up, among many other results, you may read, argue, and dismiss now.
Near Infrared, High Energy, Ultrashort Pulse Laser-Light Exposure Genetically Induces p53, a Gene in the DNA Repair and Cell Suicide Pathways in Cultured Human Cells
Authors: John W. Obringer; Steve Phipps; Martin D. Johnson; AIR FORCE ACADEMY COLORADO SPRINGS CO DEAN OF FACULTY
Abstract: The use of laser light for targeting devices and weapons has sharply increased the likelihood that aircrew and support personnel will be exposed to laser light during operations. The increased potential for exposure of humans highlights the need for scientifically-based safety standards for laser exposure at the ultrashort pulse lengths. Current safety standards are largely extrapolations of exposure limits at longer pulse lengths using a minimal visible lesion endpoint in the Rhesus monkey retinal model. A non-animal model for assessing laser-light damage to tissue, particularly human, is quite desirous for obvious scientific, political, and fiduciary reasons. We assessed the sublethal insult to human cells using a tissue culture system for specific genes that have been shown to be important in several biological processes that could lead to cancer or cell death. Using the CAT-Tox (L) (Xenometrix, Inc.) assay, it appears that 1064 nm, nanosecond pulses of laser light is sensed and induces several stress response genes, including p53, a gene in the DNA repair and apoptosis (cell suicide) regulatory pathways in a dose dependent fashion. This approach provides insight into a more global methodology for characterizing environmental stressors via genetic profiling.
The Navy study that I remember said that it looked for changes in the actual people who did the work on the aircraft carriers, and found the abstract research (perhaps that done by the Air Force) was in fact replicating in the actual humans doing the jobs. This is something they are interested in knowing so they can pre-plan any up-coming claims from the employees regarding any perceived job related disabilities.
Another reference to this information is found in this old article, see paragraph seven.
News & Events
Electrolysis: Still the only FDA approved method of permanent hair removal.
In the hair removal industry, there is a story that has been developing over the past few years. Back in 1998, a lot of attention was being given to laser hair removal. It has become popular, largely due to the fact that this industry has inundated the market with the message that the process is fast, painless and it has been “suggested” that it is permanent.
In truth, it is fast, not painless and the FDA prohibits practitioners and the manufacturers of the equipment from stating that it is permanent, because it is not. The manufacturers of this equipment have altered the description of their results to “long lasting”. There have been many problems with this technology over the years and each year, “new” versions of this equipment come out that supposedly correct the short comings of the past generation of lasers.
By the spring of 1999, women’s magazines like Redbook were printing articles stating that laser hair removal was nothing more than expensive waxing. They went on to say that the skin goes into shock and the hair follicles take longer to regenerate hair. But the hair does return.
As an aside, laser light is attracted to the melanin (the color or pigment) in the hair the same way that sunlight is attracted to a black car seat. Laser light will vaporize the hair, but the flaw in the process is that there is little melanin in the follicle! The ideal candidate is someone with dark hair and very light skin. Blondes and people with gray hair are poor candidates. People with a tan are also poor candidates as the laser can’t differentiate between the pigment in the skin and the melanin in the hair. Burns can be the result. Even the best candidate has little chance of losing anything more than 20 to 30 percent of the hair.
That being the best case scenario, most people in the electrology industry were prepared to just let it go. In the summer of 2001 however, an email was circulated across the Internet called:
“Near-infrared laser light of high energy and ultra-short pulse genetically-induced stress-response genes in the DNA repair and apoptosis regulatory pathways”…get that?
Please read this article.. In short, it quickly reviews a study done by our Air Force Academy. The U.S. Air Force is concerned about the effects of laser energy on their personnel in these days of laser guided weapons.
The conclusion of the report is that laser energy destroys several genes in the treated or exposed area. One called P53, is responsible for regenerating cells after they have been damaged. Once destroyed, the treatment leads to the creation of free radicals and inhibits the human body to repair itself to “original specs” prior to the laser exposure.
The frequency of laser light used for weapons guidance is the same frequency used for laser hair removal. In short, people are voluntarily paying to have hair vaporized from their bodies with the added detrimental effect of damaging the skins ability to repair itself completely from the damage caused by the laser itself. The damage is to the skin surface and the DNA itself!
Now, dermatologists are expressing concerns over patient care. If a technician operating the laser equipment is the only person examining the skin to determine the suitability of laser hair removal, they claim that they do not have the training or medical background to spot trouble.
Even a doctor who sets up a laser clinic who is not a dermatologist, runs the risk of missing a melanoma, simply because that isn’t their specialty.
Specifically, it is possible for a laser hair removal treatment to subtly change the look of a mole that could be malignant to the point where if a dermatologist looked at it after the fact, they may not see the tell tale discoloration that would have them remove it at an early stage. Left untreated, the melanoma will continue to grow under the skin undetected with disastrous or even deadly results.
How high a price is “too high?” When there is another method of removing hair permanently, who is prepared to pay the ultimate price for vanity, especially once they learn the risks associated with laser?
Three additional articles below offer a great deal of compelling information as to why high tech beauty treatments are dangerous to say the least. Apart from the Air Force piece, two articles authored by MD’s on this disturbing trend in the beauty and spa industry and a Feb 17th article from the N.Y. Times all graphically describe the dangers of this deregulated industry.
Michael Bono, a well respected electrologist in Santa Barbara CA. with over 20 years of experience and an author of several text books on electrology, has always worked in the offices of a cosmetic surgeon. This surgeon associate looked into the laser industry extensively after ordering two laser units for his practice. His research led him to return the units, unused.
His conclusion was that we are 10 to 15 years away from a medical disaster with the indiscriminate use of laser energy for the sake of vanity.
One question that cannot be answered today is, “How will skin repeatedly exposed to this energy source age?”
To date, apart from the U. S. Air Force Academy research, there are no independent long term studies on the science of laser hair removal. Studies that do exist have been short in duration and funded by doctors associated with or on the payroll of the manufacturers of the laser equipment. We hope that you find the following information enlightening.
I am not “out to scare people out of doing LASER treatments.” I leave it to those who choose to do so at their own discretion. On the other hand, if someone asks a question that seems to me to be, “So what is the potential downside of this?” Can I really say that there is nothing to suggest a downside?
Now in your protestations of this post, don’t forget to bring up the fact that this research was published in 1999, and totally ignore the fact that although I have NOT said those getting LASER Hair Removal WILL lose their jawbones, and die of radiation poisoning. Totally forget that all I have said was, there is some concern, and all the information needed to give 100% certain answers on safety are not in yet.
Just keep ignoring that.
While the distance between the sunburn and the skin cancer is usually 20 years, some people seem to want to say that the very idea that LASER having consequences that take decades to manifest is ridiculous. (This despite many care and treatment notations that describe the LASER Hair Removal Process as “like getting a sunburn”) In the end, the study I chose to reference (which sorry, I can’t find the text to) only said, “We know something happens, but we are not sure what that means” This other study actually does offer that the treated skin is less able to repair itself. This Air Force study has also been previously mentioned on HairTell.
The questioner asked a question that sounded like, “Is the jury in or out on the safety issue”, and the answer is, “There are still some questions left unresolved.” It would seem that in choosing to argue a small point that should not be a topic of argument, I have been goaded into posting more information about more damage than I even intended to suggest by my statement.
May I say that I really don’t want to revisit this issue ever again, but if you all insist that the only line of thought that will be tolerated is LASER is 100% effective, and 100% safe then I guess we will just have to clash on this subject like the titans again and again. Just keep in mind, there was once a time when some people thought 100% removal was a LASER fact that electrologists did not want to face. It was also once argued that LASER stimulated hair growth was something electrologists made up to scare people. I think most people on this forum now accept that these things are VERY REAL.
Now can we get back to all getting along? 
Did you see the part where this was a ULTRASHORT-PULSED LASER? Lasers used for hair removal are LONG_PULSED LASERS.
No one here ever states that laser is 100% effective. You know that. The entire reason I’m still on this forum is to help people ONLY get treatments when laser is the best option for their hair situation.
Now, the issue of “safety” is ambiguous based on how you define “safe”. Your definition of “safe” seems different for laser vs. electrolysis - that’s the main issue. Everyone else here is unbiased. All that is asked is that you be unbiased too when it comes to answering questions, even though I know it’s hard for you to do. But I think we all know that the forum is a lot more helpful if all contributors are unbiased in their responses. How would you feel if every time an electrolysis quetion is asked, someone would jump in with links to posts of people complaining that they went to an electrologist for 7 years, spent a ton of money, and got permanent scarring and no results?
From what I have read on pubmed, medline and google scholar search engines, most every study concludes with words like “laser hair reduction is an effective and safe proceedure”. In actuality, I think that means it is probably safe. Ten years have passed and we are not hearing about patterns emerging from the dermatologists and primary care physicians that would suggest something bad is happening to skin or anatomical structures for laser clients. Has enough time passed to know for sure? That is a question for the medical community to study and parse.
There have been statements of caution made about laser hair reduction safety for years, especially early on, and yes, there have been research articles such as the ones James referred to that causes one to pause and think a little deeper and longer about the question of safety. There is nothing wrong with thoughtful skepticism. On hairfacts, and other sites I’ve seen ( pubmed etc.,) this information has been included in general laser overviews. Does this need to be updated to what we observe in 2009? Maybe? Is it still too early? Maybe? We’re pretty sure that laser hair reduction is safe and as each year passes that statement seems more solid, but some are still cautiously respective in declaring it absolutely safe in the light of seeing one or more research articles that raises some concern on data collected. We are exposed to sources of radiation daily whether it be from radon levels in our homes or cell phone usage. It’s all about degree’s of exposure. I am not convinced that LHR is unsafe when compared to other sources of radiation, but I pretty much always fall in line with what peer reviewed articles conclude, but still remain aware and alert all the same to look at fresh data to come.
From hairfacts as written by Andrea James that appears in PUBMED: Year? I think it was 2003. Does this need to be updated (red text)?
Laser hair removal
Articles by Andrea James
Basic facts
Some consumers have experienced permanent hair reduction, but there is limited data on how long hair reduction usually lasts, how much hair reduction is typical, and how often permanent hair reduction occurs.
Description
Light at a specified wavelength is delivered from a handpiece into the skin, where it targets dark material (usually the pigment in hair).
This is intended to cause thermal and/or mechanical damage to a hair follicle while sparing surrounding tissues.
Advantages
Some consumers have experienced long-lasting hair removal or permanent hair reduction.
Considered safe if performed properly.
Useful for large areas such as backs or legs.
Regrowth can come back lighter in color or finer in texture.
Light-skinned consumers with dark hair have the best results.
Disadvantages
[color:#FF0000]Long term data on safety and effectiveness have not been accurately established.
[/color]
Response rates have not been established.
Regrowth rates have not been accurately established and cannot be predicted due to numerous variables.
Generally not as effective on unpigmented (gray) hairs and red or blonde hair.
Must be used very cautiously (if at all) on darker skin tones or on consumers who tan themselves.
Improper treatment can cause burns, lesions, skin discoloration lasting several months, or patchy/patterned regrowth.
[color:#FF0000]Recent data suggest other skin structures are often affected by laser irradiation, and long term effects of this constitute an unknown risk.[/color]
Requires eye protection.
Can be expensive.
Some find treatment painful.
Regulation varies by state, so inadequate controls exist to ensure competent practitioners.
Some consumers, even ideal candidates, do not respond to treatment.
this post just ruined my weekend, and pretty much has done a great job in making me think the last year has been a mistake.
IF there is risk why would the Fed ok this? you can’t sue the fed, who does your family go after?
What is the point of having FDA approval if this can potentially kill us in the future?
Forget electrolysis, to painful and too slow, don’t care how you spin it.
BTW, the sun can kill you, smoking, drinking, drugs, driving a car, flying in a plane, crossing the street, swine flu…
My ankle is swore, is that because I had lhr on my arms???
well who knows right, could be…
I doubt it has anything to do with twisting yesterday after stepping in a hole…
That article on hairfacts is probably almost 10 years old itself. So it’s not by any means recent or updated. It was written back in the day when there wasn’t much experience with lasers and many clinics didn’t know how to achieve results. Many good lasers weren’t even on the market back then.
As I mentioned above, there is NO evidence of any kind that HAIR REMOVAL LASERS (i.e. long-pulsed lasers) have any damaging effects on the skin. NONE. That article James posted talks about COMPLETELY DIFFERENT types of lasers. Hair removal lasers DO NOT EMIT ANY HARMFUL RADIATION.
Awe, don’t let such things ruin your weekend. Laser hair removal won’t kill you and no one is suggesting it will. If I had any hair left to remove, I wouldn’t hesitate one moment to get laser hair reduction on my lower legs or underarms. As I said, we are not seeing any associated health risks with laser hair reduction. It is a world wide industry and millions of people have LHR. There are no patterns emerging that point to health risks that I am aware of, but a few doctors and studies have added some caution into the mix early on. Rox Anderson, MD is one doctor that made some not so flattering predictions early on and I don’t where he stands on LHR today.
When the question of laser safety comes up on hairtell, I see nothing wrong with citing studies that were done in regard to any type of laser being used for any purpose. People want to know and I think the person asking the question is smart enough to know what that Air Force study was referring to and can draw their own conclusions about how or if it relates to hair reduction. Put it all on the table and give people credit for deciphering what applies and what doesn’t apply.
Pregnant women or women working on becoming pregnant ask if laser is safe for them quite frequently. I believe that laser centers will not perfom laser on pregnant women. Is that correct eveybody? Even though laser radiation is electromagnetic radiation in the light wavelength that is nothing like x-rays and can only penetrate the skin a few millimeters beyond the skin, not even coming close to an embryo of fetus, laser specialists will not perform the proceedure on pregnant women. WHY??? because every healthy pregnant woman has a 3 percent risk of birth defects and a 15 percent risk of miscarriage. With so many shark lawyers sniffing for blood in the water, who wants to take the chance of being sued for something they didn’t cause? Less than perfect babies raise the flash alert and blame is always assigned to someone other than Mother Nature.
It is always good to repeat what the FDA says about laser hair reduction and to re-emphasize that the FDA does not offer their stamp of approval, but rather they CLEAR certain lasers for hair reduction. Opinions matter none to me. I always want to see evidence based science.
Here is their statement. Lasers are not approved by the FDA, they are cleared by the FDA.
[color:#993399]"Medical lasers have been used for dermatology applications such as removal of port wine stains, dark spots, tattoos, acne scars and other blemishes for over a decade. Lasers are used for a growing number of cosmetic procedures including hair removal, treatment of wrinkles, and tooth whitening. For risk information on the specific laser treatment that you are considering, ask your physician or operator for the patient labeling for the laser device.
HAIR REMOVAL
The popularity of laser hair removal has increasingly grown, prompting many laser manufacturers to conduct research and seek FDA clearance for their lasers for this indication. The market is growing so quickly that FDA cannot maintain an up-to-date list of all laser manufacturers whose devices have been [color:#333333]cleared[/color] for hair removal, as this list continues to change. To learn if a specific manufacturer has received FDA clearance, you can check FDA’s Website at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/databases.html under the 510(k) database. You will need to know the manufacturer or device name of the laser. You can also call FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Consumer Staff, at 240-276-3103, fax your request to 240-276-3151 or send an e-mail to: DSMICA@cdrh.fda.gov.
Manufacturers should be aware that receiving an FDA [color:#333333]clearance[/color] for general permission to market their devices does not permit them to advertise the lasers for either hair removal or wrinkle treatment, even though hair removal or wrinkle treatment may be a by-product of any cleared laser procedure. Further, manufacturers may not claim that laser hair removal is either painless or permanent unless the FDA determines that there are sufficient data to demonstrate such results. Several manufacturers received FDA permission to claim, “permanent reduction,” NOT “permanent removal” for their lasers. This means that although laser treatments with these devices will permanently reduce the total number of body hairs, they will not result in a permanent removal of all hair. The specific claim granted is “intended to effect stable, long-term, or permanent reduction” through selective targeting of melanin in hair follicles. Permanent hair reduction is defined as the long-term, stable reduction in the number of hairs re-growing after a treatment regime, which may include several sessions. The number of hairs regrowing must be stable over time greater than the duration of the complete growth cycle of hair follicles, which varies from four to twelve months according to body location. Permanent hair reduction does not necessarily imply the elimination of all hairs in the treatment area.
[size:14pt]FDA does not make comparisons between systems or how well or safely they work compared to another company’s system. FDA does not recommend one laser system over another.[/size]
Lasers [color:#333333]cleared [/color]for body hair removal are also [color:#333333]cleared[/color] for facial hair removal."[/color]
Lagirl (who now lives in NYC)you think that Andrea’s fact sheet should be updated. If you can convince her to delete or modify the text in the red parts, then it would be worth the effort. Those answers were correct at the time, but if there is new data about safety, then that evidence-based science should be referenced when questions of safety arise.
Haireverywhere, are you saying eelctrolysis is too painful and laser is not? You say it is too slow. I would be inerested to hear from you about what do you consider slow? If LHR cannot affect your hair, then what else is there for you? The answer is, a speedy electrologist with good skill and modern equipment.
Thanks guys!
Dee
I would disagree with that. The main purpose of this forum is to help people figure out what information is out there to scare people due to an underlying agenda and what information is actually based on facts. Plus, this isn’t the type of topic that an average person feels competent enough to figure out on their own.
Posting information from a study of a completely different type of laser for a completely different purpose is absolutely useless. If two lasers don’t emit the same type of rays, how can you judge whether both of them would produce the same outcome, whether positive or negative. You cannot. That’s like comparing the potential risks of using wall paint and using hair dye. Yes, they are technically both “solutions that produce a color”, but they contain completely different ingredients and have completely different effects.
And yes, I think that oudated article needs to be updated. After all, this forum went from a laser bashing forum to most electrologists accepting that laser works in the right hands, and quite well, in the last 5 years.
Discussion board attendee’s do benefit from the ping-ponging back and forth on subject matter. In this instance, all sides came forth with passion, as usual. I disagree with you that the average person is not competent enough to figure it out on their own. How insulting to treat a mainly adult audience with so little trust. Afterall, we are not talking to children here. Enough back and forth has been devoted to this question of safety and I do trust that the “average” reader here has basic critical thinking skills and will absorb all the information presented whether you agree or disagree with what was said by the moderator. I give poster/consumers more credit than you appear to and I trust that they have the intelligence to come to their own conclusions by reading what was presented without anyone patronizing them and telling them someone is trying to scare them.
Since you feel Andrea’s information is out dated, feel free to private message her and urge her to delete the red text comments from her hairfacts site and PubMed.com . After all, we wouldn’t want to mislead or scare anyone with old information. It may confuse or scare a newbie if they happen to read about laser on www.hairfacts.com .
I’m not saying that people are not smart enough to figure things out. I’m saying that most people don’t want to put in the effort required to figure things out and reading something like the above gives them a completely wrong portrayal of the situation. I think you see this as well as I do, including in your practice - on average, people just want the procedure to work and they don’t care too much about the details as long as they’re assured that it’s safe and effective (without asking for too much proof).
Anyway, it really bothers me when scare tactics are used to push an agenda. I don’t think it’s fair to the consumer. I felt that’s exactly what James’s first response above did, which isn’t fair to the consumers here. That’s what triggered my response.
I’m swamped right now job hunting and barely have the time to keep up with the forum. But I’ll contact Andrea about this later when things ease up a bit.
Btw, are you still thinking of posting electrolysis FAQs?