3 ms·
The Atlantic article that this one links to admits that negative side-effects of UV-C have been known since at least the 40's: >> But though Wells and other ea
by anikan_vader 4y ago
The Atlantic article that this one links to admits that negative side-effects of UV-C have been known since at least the 40's:
>> But though Wells and other early pioneers of this technology could shine their 254 nm lamps aloft to clean the air floating in the upper portion of rooms, or use the light inside vents or ducts, they couldn’t actually shine them downward, directly onto the occupants of rooms, without ill effect. That’s because, although 254 nm inactivates pathogens, it also causes skin and eye damage at certain doses.
This is a very contradictory tone with the article, which essentially claims UV-C is totally safe for humans. EDIT: The author of the article explicitly acknowledges this.
- BoppreH 4y agoDr Lowe explicitly mentions the danger of 254 nm: > That's very much as opposed to (say) 254 nm light, which starts doing damage immediately due to greater penetration into animal tissue. and that 200-222 is safer because of lower penetration. > down in that range, the penetration of such light is only a few microns, and it doesn't even get past the dead cells on the surface of the skin and the cornea of the eye!
- anikan_vader 4y agoMy bad, thanks for the correction. I am surprised though – I thought higher frequency waves were more dangerous, but clearly that is not universally so.
- tingletech 4y agothe article (titled Two-Twenty-Two presumably because it is about this specific wavelength vs the whole UV-C range) does say "222 nm light does not induce DNA damage in mice, even at much higher flux than would be used for disinfection. That's very much as opposed to (say) 254 nm light, which starts doing damage immediately due to greater penetration into animal tissue."
- high_pathetic 4y agoAdditionally, the UV radiation produces ozone, which is harmful to breathe.