4 ms·

There are some research into 222nm UVC. https://phys.org/news/2020-04-repetitive-irradiation-222nm-uvc-non-carcinogenic.html https://phys.org/news/2020-04-repe

by m-p-3 4y ago

There are some research into 222nm UVC. https://phys.org/news/2020-04-repetitive-irradiation-222nm-uvc-non-carcinogenic.html https://phys.org/news/2020-04-repetitive-irradiation-222nm-u...

rapjr9 4y ago
There is some research saying 222nm is safe, yet still disrupts viruses and bacteria. And you can buy lamps at that frequency on Amazon (for like $1700). However it's not like it's been proved safe by a decades worth of testing and use. The LED's at 222nm just became available in the last year or so. I don't think anyone knows the long term consequences. Some web sites selling these lamps disclaim all responsibility. Also remember WE are made of a LOT of bacteria and viruses. Might not be such a good thing to sterilize your skin daily. Some of that stuff protects you from nastier stuff.
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  Yeah. You probably don’t wanna kill your bacteria, but prevent spread. Sanitize your kitchen, groceries and all public spaces I guess. I really hope we as society start take ventilation of public spaces more seriously… there has been some effort to fix schools, but I’m still holding my breath (haha)
gus_massa 4y ago
From the article: > One is that efficacy for formation of CPDs, the main photo-induced DNA lesion which is closely associated with photocarcinogenesis, is highest at approximately 260 nm and decreases at shorter and longer wavelengths, and generation of CPDs at 222 nm is approximately 70% of that at 254 nm, as previously shown in the action spectrum for the formation of CPDs (29). The second is that the 222-nm UVC is too short to penetrate the stratum corneum to reach the basal cell layer, where cancer stem cells are considered to reside (30, 31). That make sense, and looks like a good explanation. They used 9 mice in each group, but the difference was big enough, so it doesn't look like a problem caused by using a small number of mice. Definitively interesting, but I'd be careful with humans skin (my skin!) anyway until other groups reproduce the result.

by m-p-3 4y ago

There are some research into 222nm UVC. https://phys.org/news/2020-04-repetitive-irradiation-222nm-uvc-non-carcinogenic.html https://phys.org/news/2020-04-repetitive-irradiation-222nm-u...

rapjr9 4y ago

There is some research saying 222nm is safe, yet still disrupts viruses and bacteria. And you can buy lamps at that frequency on Amazon (for like $1700). However it's not like it's been proved safe by a decades worth of testing and use. The LED's at 222nm just became available in the last year or so. I don't think anyone knows the long term consequences. Some web sites selling these lamps disclaim all responsibility. Also remember WE are made of a LOT of bacteria and viruses. Might not be such a good thing to sterilize your skin daily. Some of that stuff protects you from nastier stuff.

dzhiurgis 4y ago
Yeah. You probably don’t wanna kill your bacteria, but prevent spread. Sanitize your kitchen, groceries and all public spaces I guess. I really hope we as society start take ventilation of public spaces more seriously… there has been some effort to fix schools, but I’m still holding my breath (haha)

gus_massa 4y ago

From the article: > One is that efficacy for formation of CPDs, the main photo-induced DNA lesion which is closely associated with photocarcinogenesis, is highest at approximately 260 nm and decreases at shorter and longer wavelengths, and generation of CPDs at 222 nm is approximately 70% of that at 254 nm, as previously shown in the action spectrum for the formation of CPDs (29). The second is that the 222-nm UVC is too short to penetrate the stratum corneum to reach the basal cell layer, where cancer stem cells are considered to reside (30, 31). That make sense, and looks like a good explanation. They used 9 mice in each group, but the difference was big enough, so it doesn't look like a problem caused by using a small number of mice. Definitively interesting, but I'd be careful with humans skin (my skin!) anyway until other groups reproduce the result.