Ancestors

Toot

Written by Moto :rainbowinfinity: on 2024-10-11 at 20:43

Pretty much since the start of the COVID pandemic, Naomi Wu has been working to bring affordable high-quality far-UVC lights - deadly against pathogens, harmless to humans - to market.

I missed the product release announcement, but it’s alive! The devices output 222nm UVC for ~$150 per emitter. Each emitter is good for between 8 and 10m^3 of germicidal environment.

https://cybernightmarket.com/products/nukit-lantern-far-uvc-light

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from cmdrmoto@hachyderm.io

Descendants

Written by :jan:‍:abreath:🌬️:dandelion: on 2024-10-11 at 20:47

@cmdrmoto oh wow, at that price point this is huge!

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Crazypedia@pagan.plus

Written by John Cormier on 2024-10-12 at 00:55

@cmdrmoto that’s awesome! A pity the morons at Health Canada have banned one of the most useful technologies for killing the virus and ending this fucking pandemic.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from johncormier@mstdn.ca

Written by John Cormier on 2024-10-12 at 01:59

@cmdrmoto I really like the idea of briefly waving a 222nm wand around to eradicate pathogens e.g. on surfaces. However, I’m less a fan of installing fixed lamps in rooms without a better understanding of how continuous exposure might affect other organisms. For example, our skin harbours ecosystems of life forms, many of which play beneficial roles. The scientific papers that I’ve read on 222nm do not address this. Does anyone have any insights on this issue?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from johncormier@mstdn.ca

Written by kira :3 on 2024-10-12 at 02:15

@cmdrmoto hot fuck, is it actually from her too? this is super exciting, i would actually trust something made by naomi wu

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chrisisgr8@tech.lgbt

Written by Kevin Karhan :verified: on 2024-10-12 at 06:27

@cmdrmoto I'd still don't consider #UVC harmless for humans.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kkarhan@infosec.space

Written by Moto :rainbowinfinity: on 2024-10-12 at 06:35

@kkarhan Reasonable objection; I don’t trust most UVC either. Cheaper UVC lamps tend to use 450+nm emitters which can give you a sunburn, damage your eyes, or worse.

These use a far-UVC 422nm wavelength which was specifically selected for its inability to penetrate skin and corneas. That’s exactly why these are so appealing (despite being objectively less powerful on the dollars-to-photons scale).

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from cmdrmoto@hachyderm.io

Written by Kevin Karhan :verified: on 2024-10-12 at 06:51

@cmdrmoto granted, I have setup some UVC lamp in fishtank water system ages ago because that stuff can actually kill a lot of stuff in the loop and that stuff had all kinds of safety warnings, including the exlicit demand to never ever run it dry or use the light outside it's casing as it can permanently blind.one within seconds.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kkarhan@infosec.space

Written by Laberpferd on 2024-10-12 at 16:41

@kkarhan

Generally UV-C, including the mercury line 253,7nm, is very bad for health, efficiently at damaging organisms, thats why they are used for disinfection in general

Its a lucky coincidence that around 220nm is a "window" of wavelenghts that are non longer penetrating outer skin to reach living cells, but also still not produce ozone

Its important that lamps have strict filters, otherwise they also emit dangerous UV!

Here is one good article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5552051/

@cmdrmoto

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Laberpferd@sueden.social

Written by Kevin Karhan :verified: on 2024-10-12 at 23:51

@Laberpferd @cmdrmoto Which is why people need to really read the SDS before buying, installing and using.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kkarhan@infosec.space

Written by Laberpferd on 2024-10-13 at 05:20

@kkarhan

You are getting closer to understand it right

The lamp that @cmdrmoto has shown is exactly the safe filtered variant that is designed to be used to safely disinfect a room while humans are inside

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Laberpferd@sueden.social

Written by Kevin Karhan :verified: on 2024-10-13 at 05:33

@Laberpferd @cmdrmoto I'm still not convinced re: safety vs. effectivity, since a effective desinfection would necessitate the unsafe level.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kkarhan@infosec.space

Written by Laberpferd on 2024-10-13 at 05:41

@kkarhan

At this point i do trust enought in sources like the document from the "Nation Health Service" that i linked, and much more that i could also post, that have verified and accepted these lamps as "not harmful"

Have you read and understood this document at all? With their rxplicit comparision between filtered far-UV versus classic "kill all" UV-C

I do fully agree that "kill all" UV-C is close as dangerous as XRay but this discussion here is not about about these

@cmdrmoto

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Laberpferd@sueden.social

Written by Kevin Karhan :verified: on 2024-10-13 at 05:48

@Laberpferd @cmdrmoto Okay, then I do need to take a look at said #SafetyDataSheet - as stated before...

Certifications in that regard OFC change things...

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kkarhan@infosec.space

Written by Laberpferd on 2024-10-13 at 06:11

@kkarhan

Exactly, these are two different kinds of lamps that have been optimized for very different purposes

Low-Pressure Mercury lamps are inexpensive; long lived and energy efficient UVC-Lamps that are great for "kill all" desinfections of unoccupied rooms and surfaces, as well as energy source for photochemical reactions

Dedicatedly filtered Far-UV excimer lamps are complicated and more expensive, but they have the unique oint of beeing skin and eye safe

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Laberpferd@sueden.social

Written by Harald Wagener on 2024-10-12 at 18:08

@cmdrmoto I have a four unit set and the carry bag it comes with is excellent quality tio

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from oliof@treehouse.systems

Written by Kiki on 2024-11-02 at 10:42

@cmdrmoto

Did anyone else order something from the linked online store to be sent to Germany?

How long did the shipping take for you, if you already received yours?

I ordered the battery-powered four-unit set about two weeks ago, and the DPD parcel tracking status is still on "we got the data, but no parcel yet"... I'm starting to get nervous that they've lost/forgotten my order O.o

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from flauschzelle@chaos.social

Written by Kiki on 2024-11-05 at 13:45

@cmdrmoto

Update: my lamps have arrived today \o/

So it turns out - the seller probably did nothing wrong, it's just that DPD's international parcel tracking is kind of useless... it shows "we got the data" on october 19th, and the next update after that one is from this morning, when it was put into the delivery van. No updates in between, no "we got the parcel", "it was loaded onto a plane/ship", no "it has arrived in germany"...

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from flauschzelle@chaos.social