But the key question is whether it could reduce R below 1 whilst also allowing most economic activity. Epidemiological considerationsĮven an ideal Far-UVC solution that was harmless to humans, 100% lethal to covid-19 particles and easy to deploy at scale might not be sufficient to reduce R to exactly 0. The ultimate system might even adjust the power of the Far-UVC using AI. In the longer term, such “almost safe” Far-UVC could be combined with intelligent management at various levels of granularity imagine a lift that is bathed in Far-UVC every time people leave it, or “walls” of Far-UVC separating people that automatically turn off momentarily when a person walks through them. If the safety claims of Far-UVC are partially true rather than fully true, a combination of using Far-UVC with physical protection like eyewear may still cause only acceptable losses to cancer and eye damage. UV in the built environment could even be managed intelligently - computer vision could identify where the people were and turn on UV lights only in unoccupied areas, though such a project would at best be ready by the start of 2021 (and then only with wartime levels of effort and purpose). Sun-creams, clothing and eyewear that defend against UVC may be less bad than a semi-permanent lockdown or an exponentially growing covid-19 outbreak that results in millions or tens of millions of deaths.
#Far uvc lamp plus
Small harms from Far-UVC light might be much less bad than large harms from covid-19, or from the economic damage caused by the lockdown which one author estimates to be roughly $10 million per minute, plus much personal hardship which will be caused by the forthcoming recession.įurthermore, UV light is easier to defend a person against than a virus.
Balancing harms of action and inactionĮven if Far-UVC is somewhat harmful it might still be a good idea to implement. In addition, UV degradation of surfaces might result from chronic UV exposure. However, it seems to be the case that the 200-220nm band is not a strong producer of Ozone. There is some uncertainty about whether Ozone generation by this band (200nm-220nm) would be problematic. Why hasn’t this already been considered by relevant authorities? Far-UVC appears in a literature review by WHO, but it is not currently being acted upon as the amount of evidence in favor of safety and efficacy is small. If the Far-UVC light is indeed safe for humans, the Far-UVC could be on at all times and could destroy or deactivate viral particles before they can spread from person to person. This means that it might be possible to mount a long-term response to covid and other pathogens by constantly illuminating our built environment with light from specifically the Far-UVC band.
#Far uvc lamp skin
However, recent research suggests that the Far-UVC band is actually safe for human skin because it cannot penetrate through the thin layer of dead skin cells on the surface of our skin. It causes skin cancer and serious eye damage. Human beings are also vulnerable to UV radiation. Within the 200-400nm range we have UVA, UVB and UVC, and at the short-wave edge of the UVC band we have “Far-UVC”, from roughly 200nm–220 nm. Light below 200nm is called “vacuum UV” because it is strongly absorbed by the oxygen in ordinary air and therefore cannot exist except in a vacuum or some other non-air medium. Ultraviolet light on earth exists on a spectrum between 200nm and 400nm. The energetic photons of UVC light break chemical bonds in DNA and kill/inactivate both viruses and bacteria. Ultraviolet light is already being used as a disinfecting agent across the world it goes by the acronym UVGI - “Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation”. One of the most promising and neglected ideas for combating the spread of covid-19 is the use of ubiquitous ultraviolet light in our built environment (trains, offices, hospitals, etc). Tl dr: We should urgently investigate putting special human-safe Far-UVC lamps all over our built environment to ‘kill’ virus particles whilst they are in the air, thereby vastly reducing covid-19 spread. Epistemic status: Many different uncertainties here, but the idea has some good evidence in favor of it and a high potential payoff.
0 kommentar(er)
