Is UVC Light Safe?

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
Zayn
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 01/20/2021 - 01:34
Posts: 3
Location: China
Is UVC Light Safe?

With serious breakout of coronavirus in many countries, an increasing number of people decide to apply uvc light in various kinds of fields. But is it safe for people?

This is an important issue. If used or implemented improperly, direct exposure to germicidal ultraviolet lighting may have a destructive effect on materials and people. Overexposure to UV-C light can harm humans in a variety of ways, such as eye and skin damage. It can also cause damage to materials such as rubber gaskets or plastic corrosion. It is precisely because of these potential negative effects of UV-C disinfection on lighting that it is essential that appropriate products are utilized in a variety of applications where they can provide benefits.

One of the easiest ways to avoid any type of skin or eye damage is to ensure that any UV-C lighting system under consideration includes some kind of reverse occupancy sensor to ensure that during the disinfection cycle, if someone enters the space, the device will not work. When used correctly, the UV-C system will provide sufficient bactericidal ultraviolet light to ensure the killing of pathogens, but not enough to cause damage to surfaces or materials.

Another way to prevent from uvc light damaging is replacing 265nm 275nm uvc light with 222nm far excimer lamp, which is safe for human disinfection.

The deep UV wavelength of 200-280nm has germicidal effect and has been widely used in disinfection. However, UVC radiation is harmful to human skin because of its penetrating power. However, Kobe University and youzhiwang research found that in terms of the ability to eliminate bacteria on the skin, deep ultraviolet light with the wavelength of 222 nm and 254 nm has the same germicidal effect, and UVC radiation with the wavelength of 222 nm will not cause skin cancer. This is the first time in the world to prove that the direct and repeated irradiation of 222 nm deep ultraviolet with strong bactericidal effect will not cause skin cancer, indicating that the deep ultraviolet with a wavelength of 222 nm is safe for human eyes and skin. In view of this, this technology is expected to be widely used in medical institutions and daily life and other places of sterilization.

Unheard
Unheard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 01/16/2019 - 11:38
Posts: 2278
Location: Germany

Wash your hands and be done.

BfS statement:

Quote:
Aktuell kommen UV-C-Desinfektionssysteme auf den internationalen Markt, die als “sicher” oder zumindest als risikoärmer beworben werden und in öffentlichen Räumen eingesetzt werden sollen, während sich dort Personen aufhalten (“occupied areas”). Ermöglichen sollen diese Anwendung Lampen, die kurzwellige UV-C-Strahlung im Bereich um 222 nm (“Far-UV-C”) abgeben. Postuliert wird, dass die Eindringtiefe dieser Wellenlängen in Auge und Haut so gering ist, dass praktisch keine DNA-Schäden entstehen.

Aktuelle Studien – überwiegend tierexperimentelle Untersuchungen an Nacktmäusen – belegen die Unterschiede zur herkömmlichen 254-nm-Strahlung. Die vorliegenden Forschungsergebnisse lassen dennoch derzeit keine belastbare Einschätzung gesundheitlicher Risiken zu. Sie ermöglichen beispielsweise keine belastbaren Erkenntnisse über Wirkungen regelmäßiger oder chronischer Exposition an verletzter oder geschädigter Haut oder auf empfindliche Personengruppen wie Kinder.

Zudem spielt das abgegebene Spektrum der Desinfektionslampen für die biologischen Wirkungen eine zentrale Rolle. In den aktuellen Studien wurden UV-C-Quellen verwendet, bei denen die längerwelligen Anteile des UV-C-Spektrums herausgefiltert wurden. Ist dies nicht der Fall, muss davon ausgegangen werden, dass zumindest die längerwelligen Anteile der UV-C-Strahlung durch die Hornschicht der Haut dringen und in lebenden Zellen Schäden setzen können.

The BfS finds that the risk to sensitive persons like children is unknown, as well as the risk of exposing injuries. Also, there’s no data about frequent use of 222nm UV-C (high dose accumulation).

It is way too early to using this technology, which might cause more damage than the Corona virus.

Smile, you cannot kill them all.

Zayn
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 01/20/2021 - 01:34
Posts: 3
Location: China

LOL, OK, Dear, thanks for your reply.

Souichirou
Souichirou's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 3 hours ago
Joined: 04/05/2019 - 21:32
Posts: 695

I find it amusing that a mouse was used as an example to “confirm” its safe for humans…. were the mice shaven to apply direct skin exposure to UV ? cause humans don’t have the density nor the coverage of hair….

Unheard
Unheard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 01/16/2019 - 11:38
Posts: 2278
Location: Germany

Souichirou wrote:
I find it amusing that a mouse was used as an example to “confirm” its safe for humans…. were the mice shaven to apply direct skin exposure to UV ? cause humans don’t have the density nor the coverage of hair….

Nude mice were actually used.

Smile, you cannot kill them all.

Dalamar
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 04/25/2019 - 21:13
Posts: 272

Unheard wrote:
Wash your hands and be done.

BfS statement:

Quote:
Aktuell kommen UV-C-Desinfektionssysteme auf den internationalen Markt, die als “sicher” oder zumindest als risikoärmer beworben werden und in öffentlichen Räumen eingesetzt werden sollen, während sich dort Personen aufhalten (“occupied areas”). Ermöglichen sollen diese Anwendung Lampen, die kurzwellige UV-C-Strahlung im Bereich um 222 nm (“Far-UV-C”) abgeben. Postuliert wird, dass die Eindringtiefe dieser Wellenlängen in Auge und Haut so gering ist, dass praktisch keine DNA-Schäden entstehen.

Aktuelle Studien – überwiegend tierexperimentelle Untersuchungen an Nacktmäusen – belegen die Unterschiede zur herkömmlichen 254-nm-Strahlung. Die vorliegenden Forschungsergebnisse lassen dennoch derzeit keine belastbare Einschätzung gesundheitlicher Risiken zu. Sie ermöglichen beispielsweise keine belastbaren Erkenntnisse über Wirkungen regelmäßiger oder chronischer Exposition an verletzter oder geschädigter Haut oder auf empfindliche Personengruppen wie Kinder.

Zudem spielt das abgegebene Spektrum der Desinfektionslampen für die biologischen Wirkungen eine zentrale Rolle. In den aktuellen Studien wurden UV-C-Quellen verwendet, bei denen die längerwelligen Anteile des UV-C-Spektrums herausgefiltert wurden. Ist dies nicht der Fall, muss davon ausgegangen werden, dass zumindest die längerwelligen Anteile der UV-C-Strahlung durch die Hornschicht der Haut dringen und in lebenden Zellen Schäden setzen können.

The BfS finds that the risk to sensitive persons like children is unknown, as well as the risk of exposing injuries. Also, there’s no data about frequent use of 222nm UV-C (high dose accumulation).

It is way too early to using this technology, which might cause more damage than the Corona virus.

That’s patently wrong and authoritarian. Auth is evil.

You are 1000000000000% responsible for harms to yourself. Others only become responsible when not warning you.

Don’t use UVC light without full body protection, and you better be damn sure it actually works. Arc welding gear should be fine, it’s more or less for the purpose.
Yeah, it’s overkill…. these things should come with disclaimers.

UVC is mostly for rock collectors, and I’d expect they use glass that blocks the emitted UV in display cases.
EDIT: And yeah, they probably shaved the mice. I expect the fur would block most of the skin exposure. As would tight/heavy clothes. A study without the full context is always meaningless, can’t recount how many claim good things but with a huge but/if. Sterilization machines are typically used on a timer with no one in the room.

I only like high CRI. Collection:

Fireflies NOV-MU 21 4500k E21A

Fireflies ROT66 219B SW45 D220

Fireflies E07 Copper 219B SW45k? (odd/higher lumen bin with lower r9 and higher cct?)

Fireflies E07 219B SW45k

Fireflies E07x Pro sst20 FA4 4000k 

 

Varmint removal:

Convoy M21A C8 ver SST20 4000k (5a)

Convoy S2+ SST20 4000k  FB4 (3200ma)

Memes:

BLF GT94

Emisar D18 660nm SST20 

 

 

CRI test dump https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kcl_uOhgfpR4RSsa8F4b-UUVP9mkL6Cr...

Unheard
Unheard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 01/16/2019 - 11:38
Posts: 2278
Location: Germany

Dalamar wrote:

EDIT: And yeah, they probably shaved the mice.

No, they don’t. It’s a knock-out stem. Those mice don’t have any fur.

Don’t know what authority you’re talking about. The BfS is an executive, but not a legislative organisation. They warn, they do not forbid buying or using UV-C lights. Since they have a point, I quoted their statement. Guess that’s only fair in the light of the original posting.

Smile, you cannot kill them all.

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 23 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 6863
Location: Ślōnsk

I’ve been to a camping trade fair last year.
Many campers had UV-C devices inside to make people feel safe. Facepalm

I avoided them, but visited some nevertheless. I still have mixed feelings about that.

wle
wle's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 01/07/2015 - 13:49
Posts: 2567
Location: atlanta ga

i doubt it actually works to kill corona or any virus enough to trust

i doubt it is dangerous if powered by AA batteries, but also would not work at that low power either

powered by household AC, yes it can easily damage eyes and skin

ideally it would only be used in a closed box somehow

"You never have the wind with you - it's either against you, or you're having a good day."
    Daniel Behrman, "The Man Who Loved Bicycles".
It never gets easy, you just go faster.   
-Greg Lemond.
       ,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¸

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 15873
Location: nyc
Unheard wrote:
Souichirou wrote:
I find it amusing that a mouse was used as an example to “confirm” its safe for humans…. were the mice shaven to apply direct skin exposure to UV ? cause humans don’t have the density nor the coverage of hair….
Nude mice were actually used.

Yeh. That’s why Micky Maus always had to wear those red shorts.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Lux-Perpetua
Lux-Perpetua's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/01/2018 - 04:39
Posts: 3196

Lightbringer wrote:
Yeh. That's why Micky Maus always had to wear those red shorts.

So, is that why Goofy wears white gloves?

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 15873
Location: nyc

Naw, that’s just to hide his deformity: 4 fingers on one hand, and 3 on the other.

(Shhhh. He’s very self-conscious.)

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

will34
will34's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 12/18/2012 - 00:12
Posts: 4108

1000% safe germicidal (no actual mice involved)

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 15873
Location: nyc

And that’s One-Eyed Micky…

See? All those mutations (missing fingers, missing eyes), I think clearly we can say that UV-C is not safe.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

turkeydance
turkeydance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 02/20/2020 - 18:53
Posts: 1082

Ultra Violet succumbs to Disney.
you just did not know HOW evil.

https://www.nexttv.com/news/ultraviolet-set-to-shutter

Boaz
Boaz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 11/07/2010 - 09:31
Posts: 7720
Location: Birthplace of Aviation

 This thread doesn't fit the  WTS very well 

       καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν

                            

       Dc-fix diffuser film  >…  http://budgetlightforum.com/node/42208

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 8 sec ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 17280
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

Boaz wrote:

This thread doesn't fit the  WTS very well 

Well, all of Zayn's posts are about UV light, and most were commercial in nature but posted in the wrong place.

Enough BLF members marked his posts as spam, and now he has no BLF account.  :-)