Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can ultraviolet lightbulbs end the next pandemic before it starts?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 61 posts

Re: Can ultraviolet lightbulbs end the next pandemic before it starts?

#11

Post by heraclius1729 »

tempestn wrote: post #9
heraclius1729 wrote: post #7

UV light is also pretty bad for humans, is it not? Sunburn, skin-cancer, and all that. I seem to recall a recent mistake where some UV disinfectant lights were used at an event, resulting in sunburns and eye problems for many attendees. The article does address this and is talking about a variety of techniques for UV light that has less exposure to people and doesn't result in immediate harm. But presumably this woul…

As described in the article, far UV does not appear to be directly dangerous to humans at all. However it does produce Ozone, which can be dangerous - the question is how significant that would be in real, world settings, which is being studied.

Right, but just because it doesn't appear to be dangerous doesn't mean it won't be in the long term. Unless there've been studies already done on the effects of long term exposure, I'm inclined to be cautious. Things like this can have long term effects that aren't immediately apparent.

Re: Can ultraviolet lightbulbs end the next pandemic before it starts?

#12

Post by SECProto »

nine_k wrote: post #5
bsder wrote: post #3

> Ultraviolet light can kill almost all the viruses in a room. Why isn’t it everywhere? Simple--cost. Specifically, UV lamps require maintenance and can be dangerous to those doing the maintenance since the flux is large and damaging to humans. UV LEDs change this calculus slightly as they can last a lot longer, but they are still dangerous to maintenance people. The interesting question is whether the Far UVC (222nm…

Imagine UV-ing common spaces, like doorways, when people are not around. Sunlight has a fair amount of UV; I suspect that subjecting people indoors to an amount of UV radiation comparable with a day outside might be OK. (Ozone will likely be generated where the UV light is intensive; better ventilation would also help dispel dangerous microbial aerosols.)

> I suspect that subjecting people indoors to an amount of UV radiation comparable with a day outside might be OK

And I suspect this is very incorrect. UV is beneficial at low quantities, but has serious negative impacts on human health at high quantities.[1] Your mention of using it in common areas (where individuals would only be for a few minutes a day) seems much more reasonable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Human_health-relat...

Re: Can ultraviolet lightbulbs end the next pandemic before it starts?

#13

Post by mgarfias »

heraclius1729 wrote: post #10
mgarfias wrote: post #6

Why not put the uv lights in the hvac systems?

I didn't think of that. This seems like a very good idea. Put the lights where the people aren't , but where the pathogens will be circulating.

And toss in some filtration just in case.

Re: Can ultraviolet lightbulbs end the next pandemic before it starts?

#14

Post by alexose »

bsder wrote: post #3

> Ultraviolet light can kill almost all the viruses in a room. Why isn’t it everywhere? Simple--cost. Specifically, UV lamps require maintenance and can be dangerous to those doing the maintenance since the flux is large and damaging to humans. UV LEDs change this calculus slightly as they can last a lot longer, but they are still dangerous to maintenance people. The interesting question is whether the Far UVC (222nm…

I'd love to see the 222nm LEDs finding their way into sterilization products, but unfortunately that's still a long ways off. They're really only useful for sensing applications at this point (although that's still a very important use case).

More here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4Zjm8ycWhg6PzFwnF/far-uvc-li...

Re: Can ultraviolet lightbulbs end the next pandemic before it starts?

#15

Post by alexose »

mgarfias wrote: post #6

Why not put the uv lights in the hvac systems?

I wonder if it would be possible to have a small, battery powered device that could gently blow sterile air back at you for a couple of hours. Or maybe something you could wear around your neck?

Re: Can ultraviolet lightbulbs end the next pandemic before it starts?

#16

Post by XorNot »

SECProto wrote: post #12
nine_k wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine UV-ing common spaces, like doorways, when people are not around. Sunlight has a fair amount of UV; I suspect that subjecting people indoors to an amount of UV radiation comparable with a day outside might be OK. (Ozone will likely be generated where the UV light is intensive; better ventilation would also help dispel dangerous microbial aerosols.)

> I suspect that subjecting people indoors to an amount of UV radiation comparable with a day outside might be OK And I suspect this is very incorrect. UV is beneficial at low quantities, but has serious negative impacts on human health at high quantities.[1] Your mention of using it in common areas (where individuals would only be for a few minutes a day) seems much more reasonable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…

The far UV spectrum being talked about here is not the same as conventional UVC germicidal lamps, nor the same as UVA/B from the sun. UV is only dangerous because at UVC wavelengths it penetrates cell nucleii and damages DNA.

The interesting thing about far UV though is that while it will still damage DNA, it can't penetrate regular cells - it's blocked by the cell membrane/proteins. But viral particles don't have a cell membrane or a nucleus, so they have no protection against it.

Basically, far UV can't damage cells, but can damage viruses.

Re: Can ultraviolet lightbulbs end the next pandemic before it starts?

#20

Post by d3bunker »

Because sterilizing lamp use UVC ( more than 250 nm ) that hare ionising radiation, they cause cancer in long / medium term and burn your eyes immediately. Recently I read about a party where "diversely intelligent people" used UVC sterilising lamps as light effect, with this result:

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/msnbc/bored-ape-yacht-club-eye-b...

This is not a scientific journal, anyway I read the article and it is mix of unrelated sources:

- a test on certain UVC wavelength radiation on MOUSES*

- a study of UVC filters for eye safety

That to conclude that we should use UVC as anti-virus measure. GREAT !!!

A critic to HN in general, not related to this specific post: lately I see a proliferation of posts related to pseudo scientific article, should be more simple to flag them, especially when, as in this case, could give really bad ideas to people easily convertible in series injuries.

What happen if some parent put UVC lamps in children rooms to save them from infection ?

Maybe matter of medicine and public health should be taken from reliable sources, not from VOX. Just my opinion.I'm waiting for someone suggest game rays next times, sure they are more effective for sterilisation.

P.S. The more laughable part is when he use as reference an article from the '30s, when people could purchase objects made from really dangerous isotopes because there wasn't little or no clue about the effects of radiations in general. In the '50s, some shop in USA had a x-ray machine to check if shoes was of the right dimensions.

Post reply on HN