Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

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


Recommended Posts

This came up in my LinkedIn feed today - Urban Sun, a 222nm UVC source to create safe spaces free from viruses - https://www.studioroosegaarde.net/project/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?

Link to comment

 

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.

Link to comment

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....

Link to comment

 

 

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.

Link to comment

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!

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
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.
Link to comment

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.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.optanled.com/products/optan-235-nm&ved=2ahUKEwjI2oK01qrvAhXLuKQKHfwgC6gQFjAAegQIARAC&usg=AOvVaw2riECpuQOA-nmR2o8t-biK

 

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

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...