Studies Show Far-UVC Light Can Kill Coronaviruses Without Harming Humans:
Ultraviolet light can kill microscopic creatures like bacteria and viruses by destroying the molecular bonds in their genetic material. But UV light also damages human DNA, causing eye and skin damage and increasing our risk of cancer. It turns out, though, that there's a loophole: a specific wavelength of UV light that's safe for people but capable of killing coronaviruses, both on surfaces and in the air.
[...] Two recent studies, one conducted at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and one at Hiroshima University in Japan, have found that a very specific wavelength of UVC light—222 nanometers—is unable to penetrate the eye's tear layer or the dead-cell layer of skin, preventing it from reaching and damaging living cells in the human body.
[...] Despite the success[ful] tests, the Japanese research team believes that more studies need to be conducted on far-UVC light using real-world surfaces and environments before it's adopted as an effective tool for disinfection.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:17PM (9 children)
Aren't those UV wands supposed to work under the principle that the specific UV light that they emit isn't harmful to your skin (due to the fact that the surface of your skin is dead skin cells) but is harmful to microorganisms on surfaces?
At least that's what I remember reading ... a long time ago.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:22PM
Everything we knew about virology was forgotten at the beginning of the year and we're all in the process of rediscovering it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:55PM (2 children)
But this should make you feel better if you have a UV light mounted in your air handling system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @02:03PM
I'll console myself with the reject letter from the big nose club.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:27PM
far-light fake news.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @02:48PM (1 child)
Some (most?) anti-bacterial UV lights are UVC but not far-UVC; UVC can harm human skin and eyes.
Far-UVC shown promise at killing various airborne pathogens in studies over the past few (several?) years and I remember seeing suggestions back in March that installing far-UVC lighting in establishments could allow reopening quickly. (Though at that time, we did not yet have studies confirming that far-UVC was effective against COVID-19.)
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday September 29 2020, @12:35AM
There's actually two types of UV disinfectant lights commonly available, mostly from a wide range of reputable vendors in the Middle Kingdom. The first is an LED-based UV disinfectant light that does nothing, but makes for a great disco light effect. The second is a genuine flesh-burning death lamp [youtube.com] that does disinfect things, including your eyesight and your flesh.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @04:10PM (2 children)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @04:37PM (1 child)
And sometimes they're just disco lamps with purple LEDs [youtu.be] that aren't germicidal at all.
(Score: 1) by jrmcferren on Tuesday September 29 2020, @05:21PM
(Score: 3, Touché) by EJ on Monday September 28 2020, @03:52PM (3 children)
Doesn't UVC conform to the inverse square law?
Wouldn't the effect of this Far-UVC depend on just [b]how far[/b] away it really is?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @05:42PM (1 child)
Not really sure why you are modded Troll, but you are correct. Once you are at a distance of about five times the length of the light source dimension (known as the IESNA "five times rule"), you are in the inverse square region.
However, I believe the suggested intent here is to use it in conditions where this doesn't apply, such as either up close, or by using an extended source, like how a tanning bed has a wall of lights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @12:03AM
Inverse square assumes no directionality. For wands, true. But real units made for human-controlled use are ~parabolically-backed sources, and similar, giving roughly collinear light and no inverse square on that portion of the emission.
Those backings also protect the human user/operator from going blind and getting a severe sunburn. :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @05:44PM
Of course it occurred to me after I submitted my reply, that you were making a joke about "far" UV, so I apologize for missing the joke at first.
Either way, you shouldn't have been modded Troll.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bmimatt on Monday September 28 2020, @05:06PM (2 children)
And here I am, drinking bleach all these months, while I should've been eating UV LEDs with my morning coffee all along.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @06:08PM (1 child)
Why do people keep getting these things backward? You don't eat the UV LEDs at all. You poke a battery of LEDs into each of your repositories and leave them there. Ears, nostrils, mouth (superglued to your molars, of course) anus, urethra, and maybe your belly button. Women probably shouldn't place them in the uterus, as they would skew the baking times of potential fetuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @12:05AM
Man, I put LEDs in my repositories and now I can't git them out!