5 ms·
They have a diagram explaining the theory of why this is skin safe (doesn't penetrate the outer skin layer). But I see no reasoning as to why this is eye-safe.
by rocqua 5y ago
They have a diagram explaining the theory of why this is skin safe (doesn't penetrate the outer skin layer). But I see no reasoning as to why this is eye-safe. I would expect that the cornea is more fragile than the outer layer of dead skin.
One nice upside of using this in-situ is that it cleans surfaces just as much as it cleans the air. So just using this in the ducts / air filters is not as effective.
- rocqua 5y agoAs per this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2 > ... far-UVC light has a range in biological materials of less than a few micrometers, and thus it cannot reach living human cells in the skin or eyes, being absorbed in the skin stratum corneum or the ocular tear layer. The ocular tear layer, according to 30s of googling, is just the wet layer over your eyes (the stuff that turns into tears when you produce to much of it). So the idea is that this is eye-safe because the radiation gets absorbed by the small layer of wetness on your eyes.
- ahahahahah 5y ago> They have a diagram explaining the theory of why this is skin safe (doesn't penetrate the outer skin layer). But I see no reasoning as to why this is eye-safe. It's described why it is eye-safe in literally the same diagram.