4 ms·

Yes AND, despite the mongering in this article, UVC wavelengths below 222nm have been found to be safe to mammalian skin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti

by ebg13 7y ago

Yes AND, despite the mongering in this article, UVC wavelengths below 222nm have been found to be safe to mammalian skin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5552051/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5552051/ https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201259 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

m-p-3 7y ago
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
jennyyang 7y ago
Not only skin, but also eyes. You can look at Far-UVC light and it won't hurt your eyes either. Whereas regular UVC light can burn your eyes and cause temporary or permanent blindness.
modeless 7y ago
Wow, that's surprising, and exciting. If true, every room in a hospital should have these lights.
- 77pt77 7y ago
  Let's start with copper doorhandles and bed-frames. Far better tested and understood.
  - dijit 7y ago
    It still takes 4hrs for copper to kill coronavirus. Why not both?
    - dogma1138 7y ago
      One of those is known not to cause long term adverse effects.
jiofih 7y ago
From the linked paper: > the effect of chronic irradiation with a high dose of 222-nm UVC to mammalian cells has not been determined Please be careful in announcing new truths based on your interpretation of a couple papers. That’s not how science is done.
- ebg13 7y ago
  You're misinterpreting that sentence. They are talking about data missing from _prior_ work there. The title of the article is literally "Chronic irradiation with 222-nm UVC light induces neither DNA damage nor epidermal lesions" and a few sentences below the discussion of prior work they write "chronic irradiation with 222-nm UVC light was revealed not to induce mutagenic or cytotoxic effects in the epidermis".
  - jiofih 7y ago
    > of rats
boomboomsubban 7y ago
The tests on the SARS virus used 254nm wavelengths, which deactivated the virus in fifteen minutes. Your sources both say that that length causes severe damage, and both only tested 222nm's ability to kill bacteria. A conclusive "yes" would need testing done on a virus with the 222nm length.
- ebg13 7y ago
  Different virus, but still https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w "We show for the first time that far-UVC efficiently inactivates airborne aerosolized viruses, with a very low dose of 2 mJ/cm2 of 222-nm light inactivating >95% of aerosolized H1N1 influenza virus."
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    That's enough to show it should be in serious testing currently, though I worry the difficulty in patenting any development will hinder progress.

by ebg13 7y ago

m-p-3 7y ago

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

jennyyang 7y ago

Not only skin, but also eyes. You can look at Far-UVC light and it won't hurt your eyes either. Whereas regular UVC light can burn your eyes and cause temporary or permanent blindness.

modeless 7y ago

Wow, that's surprising, and exciting. If true, every room in a hospital should have these lights.

77pt77 7y ago
Let's start with copper doorhandles and bed-frames. Far better tested and understood.
- dijit 7y ago
  It still takes 4hrs for copper to kill coronavirus. Why not both?
  - dogma1138 7y ago
    One of those is known not to cause long term adverse effects.

jiofih 7y ago

From the linked paper: > the effect of chronic irradiation with a high dose of 222-nm UVC to mammalian cells has not been determined Please be careful in announcing new truths based on your interpretation of a couple papers. That’s not how science is done.

ebg13 7y ago
You're misinterpreting that sentence. They are talking about data missing from _prior_ work there. The title of the article is literally "Chronic irradiation with 222-nm UVC light induces neither DNA damage nor epidermal lesions" and a few sentences below the discussion of prior work they write "chronic irradiation with 222-nm UVC light was revealed not to induce mutagenic or cytotoxic effects in the epidermis".
- jiofih 7y ago
  > of rats

boomboomsubban 7y ago

The tests on the SARS virus used 254nm wavelengths, which deactivated the virus in fifteen minutes. Your sources both say that that length causes severe damage, and both only tested 222nm's ability to kill bacteria. A conclusive "yes" would need testing done on a virus with the 222nm length.

ebg13 7y ago
Different virus, but still https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w "We show for the first time that far-UVC efficiently inactivates airborne aerosolized viruses, with a very low dose of 2 mJ/cm2 of 222-nm light inactivating >95% of aerosolized H1N1 influenza virus."
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  That's enough to show it should be in serious testing currently, though I worry the difficulty in patenting any development will hinder progress.