1/9 More reassuring data confirming the safety of Far-UVC with respect to the skin. In this thread I'll summarise the key points from the authors. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ph…
2/9 The skin’s first line of defence against *all* UV radiation is the outermost layer of the epidermis - the stratum corneum - which acts as a biomechanical barrier.
3/9 Unlike UVB and UVA which penetrate deeper into the skin’s layers, potentially causing damage to dividing cells, UVC is absorbed by the stratum corneum only. Nevertheless, safety thresholds are set by the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)…
4/9...for all UV wavelengths, to minimize any specific biological effects. The current Far-UVC 222 nm limit is set at 480 mJ/cm2 (that’s the amount of energy striking a unit area of the skin).
5/9 This study exposed hairless albino mice (known to be particularly sensitive to UV light and to show skin damage typically seen in humans) to UVC in the 200-270 nm range over a 72 hr period. Photographs of irradiated skin were then compared with non-irradiated sites.
6/9 Skin reddening (erythema), a standard visual feature for evaluating adverse skin effects, was not observed across the UVC spectrum within the threshold doses set by ACGIH. In fact, at 222 nm, the dose had to be increased by ~2.5 times to elicit any skin response - see below.
7/9 The authors concluded that the limits set by ACGIH for Far-UVC 222-230 nm wavelengths are overly conservative. They also noted that the mouse stratum corneum is up to 6 times thinner than in humans, further suggesting significant leeway in the safe exposure limits.
8/9 However, the authors could not completely rule out other stratum corneum skin responses, such as scaling (microscopic dandruff) or some water loss, and recommend further studies. [*All * scientists want to conduct more studies -that’s how we get paid!]
9/9 So... possibly some microscopic dandruff or a *tiny* bit of water loss from the dead outer layer of skin....
OR...
...potentially fatal or life changing H5N1, Sars-CoV-2, anti-bactericidal super-bugs, seasonal flu, RSV, TB etc, etc etc.
Your call.
#FarUVC
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Reducing our dependence on drug & chemical quick fixes with new, clean, preventative technologies will usher in a new era, with far reaching implications for human and environmental well-being.
This is beyond COVID – it’s *much* bigger than this.
3/ Amongst many promising alternative technologies, #FarUVC is a multi-faceted tool with significance for all these issues and is likely to play a major role in the future - if promoted and widely adopted. There is real cause for optimism here!
See example links in next post.
Great thread.
"Exciting white paper: Anyone who disinfects the air in their restaurant with far-UV light saves up to 290 CHF (or € , exchange rate is almost 1:1) per Swiss franc invested because employees get sick less often. 1/4"
"In doctor's waiting rooms or in hospitals, the return on investment would be CHF 100, in offices CHF 30. And that applies even for a "normal" winter. In a Covid-19 wave, the RoI would be much higher. 2/4"
"If Far-UVC were introduced in all restaurants, waiting rooms and offices in Switzerland, the RoI would be CHF 1,400 and 2.4 days of sick leave avoided per person. This could reduce sickness absences by 40 percent. 3/4"
Very significant!!!
The CIBSE are a critical influence on building standards, & Mike Ralph is Principle Engineer at NHS Scotland Assure, the organisation that oversees hospital design for NHS Scotland.
… cost the NHS £bns & action is essential.
He says the long-term solution for⬇️HAIs & making the NHS pandemic resilient, is hard-wired UVC light disinfection.
Ralph states that mechanical filtration/ventilation has key drawbacks:
- costly and disruptive if upgrades needed
2/4
- can restrict essential clinical space
- ⬆️energy use
In contrast, he states that upper level UVC
- has effective decontamination rate >10 air changes/hour
- low cost
- aligns with net zero targets
- low maintenance
- Far-UVC for occupant level being assessed for future use
3/4
@AureliaAllen @1goodtern @gwladwr @Saffiya_Khan1
This is a wilfully manipulative and misleading article from the BBC, misinterpreting and minimizing data. This is dangerous for an open and democratic society. It will only lead to more deaths and more chronic illness.
1/4
They suggest a 24% rise in hospitalisations is a "very small increase"!!! They ignore recent data from Scotland where we have seen increases of 40%+ for the last two weeks, and hospital trusts under immense pressure.
They calculate the infection rate at 1 in 25,000 (!!!) based on current testing regimes, and compare this to 1 in 13 in March 2020.
Apart from being totally scientifically inumerate, this also sounds factually wrong; March 2020 wasn't the big infection wave! 3/4