• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Is this the future - Urban Sun 222nm UVC sources to keep us safe?

9 replies to this topic

#1 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,271 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 08 March 2021 - 10:51

This came up in my LinkedIn feed today - Urban Sun, a 222nm UVC source to create safe spaces free from viruses - https://www.studioro...oject/urban-sun

Is this going to be our future, wandering around with UVC bathing us where ever we go? What about the bacteria that we need on our skin for the skin to function properly, will they be killed too? I know from my photography at 254nm that even cosmetics without sunscreen in them absorb that wavelength, and I can believe that at 222nm the absorption is even stronger. Will that prevent the UVC from killing the virus on people wearing cosmetics rendering it pointless? 222nm is deemed 'safe', but in the photos you can see visible glow from the lamp, so there are obviously other wavelengths being emitted. Any of those wavelengths UVB or longer wavelength UVC? Should they be looking up at it in wonder?

I know I'm a bit of a Luddite, but this sort of thing does concern me. How would you feel about this?
Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#2 Bernard Foot

    Bernard Foot

  • Members+G
  • 718 posts
  • Location: UK

Posted 08 March 2021 - 11:19

View PostJMC, on 08 March 2021 - 10:51, said:


How would you feel about this?


Time to start wearing the full-body condom. Or else get a suit as shown in dabateman's avatar.
Bernard Foot

#3 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,418 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 08 March 2021 - 11:38

Well if they leave it to 'Nature' all will be well. Just because something is not to our liking, we shouldn't interfere.
But there are people with 'money', who think they have the power to alter things to their comfort & that usually translates to profit, as short lived that might be, then it is someone else's problem....

#4 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,771 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 08 March 2021 - 12:56

View PostBernard Foot, on 08 March 2021 - 11:19, said:



Time to start wearing the full-body condom. Or else get a suit as shown in dabateman's avatar.

I have switched up to wearing a dark thick robe and my ski mask like thing. So maybe we will all look like Arthur Dent gone skiing in the future. Just don't forget your towel, very important and can be used to stop light leaks around your camera and lenses when draped around them.

#5 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,613 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 08 March 2021 - 13:16

View Postdabateman, on 08 March 2021 - 12:56, said:

I have switched up to wearing a dark thick robe and my ski mask like thing. So maybe we will all look like Arthur Dent gone skiing in the future. Just don't forget your towel, very important and can be used to stop light leaks around your camera and lenses when draped around them.
42!
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#6 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,780 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 08 March 2021 - 20:55

I do not like that use of UVC !!

Jonathan mentions our skin bacteria. We need our skin flora to stay healthy just like we need our gut bacteria and any other useful inhabitants of our bodies. Last night I saw a television advertisement for a "body wash" which claimed to be antibacterial and kill 99% of bacteria. Very dangerous in my humble opinion !! Washing ones hands carefully in a pandemic is one thing, but killing the body's natural flora is a very stupid idea. Soap manufacturer trying to make a few dollars during a bad time by playing on peoples' fears, if you ask me.
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#7 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,271 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 11 March 2021 - 14:53

Our bacterial flora is a vital part of how our skin functions. Messing with the distribution of species is not a good thing if you have healthy skin already. This type of broad spectrum 'kill everything' type of approach is a bad idea and will lead to more issues than it solves. Even if it were 'working' it gives a false sense of security as the treatment is line of site - anything in shadow wouldn't be killed anyway. 222nm is so quickly absorbed, even something under a thin layer of cosmetic product wouldn't be exposed to the light and therefore would not be impacted. Madness.
Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#8 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,418 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 12 March 2021 - 04:13

I guess these 222nm UVC are LEDs, where would they be available please ?

#9 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 1,800 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 12 March 2021 - 11:45

No, they aren't LEDs, they are likely excimer lamps. It is possible to make LEDs down there, but they wouldn't do much at all.

Here you can find 235 nm LEDs: https://www.google.c...QOA-nmR2o8t-biK

The output power is not bad at 4-8 mW. Consider that these LEDs emit at 235 nm.

#10 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,418 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 12 March 2021 - 12:43

Thanks Stefano
I thought They were LEDs & a single wavelength.
I just thought single wavelength 222nm would be safer for fluorescence then the 254nm peak in a mercury vapour lamp.