Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Poll: How many of you are hanging your face masks on your rearview mirrors? [View all]sl8
(16,284 posts)42. I had always thought that all UVC was dangerous to humans, until a couple of months ago.
A couple of months ago there was a flurry of articles about using certain wavelengths of far UVC for sanitizing, saying that those particular wavelengths were safe. If you google"far UVC safe", you'll see what I mean. They may have all been based on the same study, I'm not sure.
Here's an excerpt from a recent study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2
[...]
Ultraviolet (UV) light exposure is a direct antimicrobial approach4 and its effectiveness against different strains of airborne viruses has long been established5. The most commonly employed type of UV light for germicidal applications is a low pressure mercury-vapor arc lamp, emitting around 254?nm; more recently xenon lamp technology has been used, which emits broad UV spectrum6. However, while these lamps can be used to disinfect unoccupied spaces, direct exposure to conventional germicidal UV lamps in occupied public spaces is not possible since direct exposure to these germicidal lamp wavelengths can be a health hazard, both to the skin and eye7,8,9,10.
By contrast far-UVC light (207 to 222?nm) has been shown to be as efficient as conventional germicidal UV light in killing microorganisms11, but studies to date12,13,14,15 suggest that these wavelengths do not cause the human health issues associated with direct exposure to conventional germicidal UV light. In short (see below) the reason is that far-UVC light has a range in biological materials of less than a few micrometers, and thus it cannot reach living human cells in the skin or eyes, being absorbed in the skin stratum corneum or the ocular tear layer. But because viruses (and bacteria) are extremely small, far-UVC light can still penetrate and kill them. Thus far-UVC light potentially has about the same highly effective germicidal properties of UV light, but without the associated human health risks12,13,14,15. Several groups have thus proposed that far-UVC light (207 or 222?nm), which can be generated using inexpensive excimer lamps, is a potential safe and efficient anti-microbial technology12,13,14,15,16,17,18 which can be deployed in occupied public locations.
[...]
Ultraviolet (UV) light exposure is a direct antimicrobial approach4 and its effectiveness against different strains of airborne viruses has long been established5. The most commonly employed type of UV light for germicidal applications is a low pressure mercury-vapor arc lamp, emitting around 254?nm; more recently xenon lamp technology has been used, which emits broad UV spectrum6. However, while these lamps can be used to disinfect unoccupied spaces, direct exposure to conventional germicidal UV lamps in occupied public spaces is not possible since direct exposure to these germicidal lamp wavelengths can be a health hazard, both to the skin and eye7,8,9,10.
By contrast far-UVC light (207 to 222?nm) has been shown to be as efficient as conventional germicidal UV light in killing microorganisms11, but studies to date12,13,14,15 suggest that these wavelengths do not cause the human health issues associated with direct exposure to conventional germicidal UV light. In short (see below) the reason is that far-UVC light has a range in biological materials of less than a few micrometers, and thus it cannot reach living human cells in the skin or eyes, being absorbed in the skin stratum corneum or the ocular tear layer. But because viruses (and bacteria) are extremely small, far-UVC light can still penetrate and kill them. Thus far-UVC light potentially has about the same highly effective germicidal properties of UV light, but without the associated human health risks12,13,14,15. Several groups have thus proposed that far-UVC light (207 or 222?nm), which can be generated using inexpensive excimer lamps, is a potential safe and efficient anti-microbial technology12,13,14,15,16,17,18 which can be deployed in occupied public locations.
[...]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
42 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Poll: How many of you are hanging your face masks on your rearview mirrors? [View all]
TexasTowelie
Sep 2020
OP
My work N95 I keep in a paper bag and wear it for a total of 8 hours my person procedure mask
mucifer
Sep 2020
#5
On the passenger seat while driving, on the mirror when I pull into driveway.
MerryBlooms
Sep 2020
#7
Well, it looks like I'm going to get some unusual stories with this thread.
TexasTowelie
Sep 2020
#18
The UV from the sunlight does sanitize it down here I the summer and the heat probably does also.
LiberalArkie
Sep 2020
#22
That should be fine then.. I only need one of the backups about 1 time a month.
LiberalArkie
Sep 2020
#29
I had always thought that all UVC was dangerous to humans, until a couple of months ago.
sl8
Sep 2020
#42
My face mask hangs around my neck in the car. I sew my own face masks with a color coordinated
ARPad95
Sep 2020
#15
"I ride my bike or walk so I don't have anywhere to hang my facemask." NT
mahatmakanejeeves
Sep 2020
#20