This press release suggests SARS-CoV-2 particles can be zapped with "Far-UVC" light, ultraviolet light with (I think) a wavelength in the 122 to 200 nm range. Given that Covid infections generally happen indoors, I'm tempted to buy a UV sanitiser lamp as it seems you can get ones emitting in this range.
Or is it a bit more complicated than that? E.g. only works in idealised conditions, or unintended consequences?
Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?
- Brightonian
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm
- Location: Usually UK, often France and Ireland
- science_fox
- Snowbonk
- Posts: 512
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:34 pm
- Location: Manchester
Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?
I'm sure most viruses are susceptible to UV in any form. Even good old sunlight. And Covid is hugely spread by inhaling aerosol droplets rather than any surface to surface transmission.
Masks and good ventilation go a long long way further than shining a funky light at them for a few minutes.
Masks and good ventilation go a long long way further than shining a funky light at them for a few minutes.
I'm not afraid of catching Covid, I'm afraid of catching idiot.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?
To sanitise something in particular or to illuminate the whole room? In not entirely sure it's a good idea to illuminate the whole room when you're in it.Brightonian wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:32 pmThis press release suggests SARS-CoV-2 particles can be zapped with "Far-UVC" light, ultraviolet light with (I think) a wavelength in the 122 to 200 nm range. Given that Covid infections generally happen indoors, I'm tempted to buy a UV sanitiser lamp as it seems you can get ones emitting in this range.
Or is it a bit more complicated than that? E.g. only works in idealised conditions, or unintended consequences?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- basementer
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
- Location: 8024, Aotearoa
- Contact:
Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?
The release makes it clear that they tested it on bacteria, not viral particles. So making the headline about COVID seems a bit of a stretch.
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell
Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?
It'll definitely work on CoVID. And skin cells.basementer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:10 pmThe release makes it clear that they tested it on bacteria, not viral particles. So making the headline about COVID seems a bit of a stretch.
UVC lamps are already used in HVAC systems to kill off mold that can grow on cooling coils and to sanitize air. They're about $70 on Amazon.
Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?
I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part, but if you're suggesting the reason there's less transmission outdoors is because of UV killing the virus then that's false, as no UVC reaches Earth's surface.Brightonian wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:32 pmThis press release suggests SARS-CoV-2 particles can be zapped with "Far-UVC" light, ultraviolet light with (I think) a wavelength in the 122 to 200 nm range. Given that Covid infections generally happen indoors, I'm tempted to buy a UV sanitiser lamp as it seems you can get ones emitting in this range.
Or is it a bit more complicated than that? E.g. only works in idealised conditions, or unintended consequences?
- TAFKAsoveda
- Clardic Fug
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:15 pm
Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?
Indeed, even Big Clive is wary of those lampsdyqik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 11:25 pmIt'll definitely work on CoVID. And skin cells.basementer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:10 pmThe release makes it clear that they tested it on bacteria, not viral particles. So making the headline about COVID seems a bit of a stretch.