4 ms·

I always wondered just how much UV-C do you need to effectively kill the virus (power vs duct diameter and air speed).... because, instead of traditional masks,

I always wondered just how much UV-C do you need to effectively kill the virus (power vs duct diameter and air speed).... because, instead of traditional masks, you could take a small fan, blow air into a pipe with a UV-C bulb inside, and pump the sterilized air to the human... basically something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzGrh2io9Ds&app=desktop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzGrh2io9Ds&app=desktop

Gibbon1 6y ago
I tried looking into that this spring. I suspect the answer is for this virus not much. Nothing to indicate that any part of it's life cycle involves hanging around latent. Interesting bit on how UV-C works to sterilize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimidine_dimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimidine_dimer Interesting thing bacteria and some viruses have DNA repair enzymes that can fix damage from UV-C. Medically you're always bedeviled by bacterial and fungal spoors. Limitations with UV-C sterilization I think prevents wider use. Not a magic bullet. Though it probably works well for influenza, colds, and this bat virus.
dehrmann 6y ago
The real question is is there a safe wavelength and low enough power where you could swap out fluorescent tubes and effectively manage the virus.
- lifeisstillgood 6y ago
  I was imagining some kind of doorway device - but yeah, that's a really interesting approach. Again, what is safe .. but it the infrastructure is there ...
- Symmetry 6y ago
  Yes, far UVC, 222 nm, won't penetrate your skin far enough to get to living cells and can be used around humans safely. It's a new technology, though, and not widely deployed.
  - hackerfromthefu 6y ago
    Also light has very complex interactions with various of our biological symptoms, and I personally would be wary of unintended consequences without long term testing. e.g. it could interfere with sleep, or have other subtle effects

Gibbon1 6y ago

I tried looking into that this spring. I suspect the answer is for this virus not much. Nothing to indicate that any part of it's life cycle involves hanging around latent. Interesting bit on how UV-C works to sterilize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimidine_dimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimidine_dimer Interesting thing bacteria and some viruses have DNA repair enzymes that can fix damage from UV-C. Medically you're always bedeviled by bacterial and fungal spoors. Limitations with UV-C sterilization I think prevents wider use. Not a magic bullet. Though it probably works well for influenza, colds, and this bat virus.

dehrmann 6y ago

The real question is is there a safe wavelength and low enough power where you could swap out fluorescent tubes and effectively manage the virus.

lifeisstillgood 6y ago
I was imagining some kind of doorway device - but yeah, that's a really interesting approach. Again, what is safe .. but it the infrastructure is there ...
Symmetry 6y ago
Yes, far UVC, 222 nm, won't penetrate your skin far enough to get to living cells and can be used around humans safely. It's a new technology, though, and not widely deployed.
- hackerfromthefu 6y ago
  Also light has very complex interactions with various of our biological symptoms, and I personally would be wary of unintended consequences without long term testing. e.g. it could interfere with sleep, or have other subtle effects