Study shows proof that a safer UV light effectively kills virus causing Covid-19
hiroshima-u.ac.jp
hiroshima-u.ac.jp
It won’t do any good in close contact, but at least as air is recirculated we can be confident that the air is being cleaned effectively.
Had them installed on my house years ago because of an air quality problem and they worked great.
Attaching a UV to that isn’t killing anything. Nothing that can be killed is fitting through an RO membrane.
A side effect people should be aware of is that living in a sterile environment can harm your children's immune systems, if you have children.
If it was a semiconductor clear room I'd say that worry would be merited, but not a domestic HEPA filter, especially if you open the windows or walk around the garden
we keep looking for silver bullets to covid when the most effective solution is simply distancing. even masks are of limited utility next to distancing (for a variety of reasons that highly limited and controlled studies don't negate).
also, we have a huge, free, high-powered wide-spectrum uv emitter bathing us in light and warmth every day (understanding that some of that specrum gets filtered out by our atmosphere). hang stuff outside if desired, but it's really not generally going to make a material difference for covid.
Iunno where you live, but my jurisdiction actively discourages drinking beers/wine outside and really wants you to drink on a patio next to a wall or entirely indoors. I can’t understand why.
https://nowtoronto.com/food-and-drink/drinks/public-drinking...
Debatable controls for “order” win out over public health. We’re screwed.
you see this kind of thing a lot in (poorly constructed) regulations, where the intended effect is intentionally indirect, with lots of negative side effects that are simply unaccounted for (charitably speaking). it seems like that rule is primarily intended to prevent disorderly drunkenness and littering, but instead of addressing that directly, they made a rule saying don't drink outside anywhere, without regard to potentially negative consequences.
just brainstorming, targeting disorderly drunkenness with a night in jail would likely curtail that behavior quickly, if it was truly a problem in the first place. and just publicly shaming litterers by posting videos online would probably help curtail littering, along with more, and more visible, public trash cans.
This must be the third time these days when I see someone claim that cleanliness is harmful... where do you get this idea from?
And as for hygienic hypothesis ... benefits from hygiene are huge and easy to observe while link to autoimmune diseases is disputed. And if it exists is probably through parasites we got rid of, not bateria or viruses that were not so easy to get rid of.
First saw this installed in Chihuly Garden and Glass – Seattle https://www.chihulygardenandglass.com/elevatingclean
Can someone who is knowledgeable explain to me how this virus could have evolved in nature with such sensitivity to UV light? I've heard it explained that the driving belief that this virus was modified in a lab for study of SARS class viruses and escaped (not released, not as a weapon) is because it never had to adapt to sunlight. Is there a way that science could answer or prove this virus is in fact a natural mutation/evolution?
No great mystery.
How could we have evolved from single celled organisms?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-scientists-think-of...
Which is why the comment said "evidence" and not "proof".
Maybe the murder caught on camera is a lost identical twin, or victim of a very elaborate frame-up. The standard for conviction is beyong reasonable doubt. What is reasonable?
Maybe we have laws of physics wrong, and next tuesday sun will rise in the west, and Jesus rises from the dead. Again.
Do yoy trust governments and scientists? They used to claik smoking is a great way to get your essential vitamins.
Do you trust your own mind, because research has shown people can be manipulated into remembering things that never happened.
Ib radical doubt, the only thing you can proove is 'I think, therefore I am".
If you are asking me to proof a negative, that's virtually impossible.
It's impossible to prove that it was not grown in a lab, which is why the burden is to show that it _was_ grown in a lab. Until we have that, we shouldn't be sharing stories about how it _might_ have been grown in a lab.
It is extremely unlikely that the virus was grown in a lab, because it's unlikely anyone has the technology to create a virus quite like this one.
I presume you're not a big fan of conspiracy theories - well, a big part of where they come from is the media doing something similar to what you're complaining about, stating what might be true, as unequivocally true. It would also be interesting to know how much of the polarization in society can be attributed to the fantasy world the media projects into people's minds using these techniques.
Normally I wouldn't say anything, but you did pull a "well, actually" there, so out-pedantifying seems warranted if only for the humour of the situation.
Scientists pretty much agree that this virus was not created in a lab. Howver, that doesn't mean the virus could not have been taken into a lab from the wild and allowed to reproduce under controlled conditions and basically speeding up the evolutionary process to make it more virulent in order to make it easier to study in lab conditions.
This is common practice in lab study and is not possible to tell definitively that it has been done. Because it doesn't involve genetic manipulation per se. It is simply an artificially manipulated environment for the virus to grow in "naturally".
It has been suggested that the propensity of the virus to spread well indoors rather than outside may be due to the fact that it spent time indoors in a lab selecting for that before it escaped back into the wild.
So that's the background on how the UV light acts and disrupts a cells ability to survive. Now, about your question on how could a virus evolve if UV light kills it. Easy... the virus doesn't spend a ton of time outside of your body. Most transmission is person-to-person, there isn't a ton of person-to-surface-to-person spread therefore it's not like the virus is sitting on a handrail in the sun for days. Also, as I mentioned above, some mutations don't result in any change. There is a lot of redundancy in the DNA code (see DNA codon table 1). Not every combination produces a unique aminoacid.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_codon_table
My microbiology background is a bit dated, so my facts might be a bit off here and there.
So I've heard. Doesn't this mean that the UV news is of little impact?
There is virtually no way for scientists to look at DNA and say "oh yeah this was manmade" (or not manmade). Possibly if there is some really obvious splicing marker used or something.
the entire sequence can be put into a computer and custom generated.
Ah, here we go: https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-la...
No, that doesn't rule out manmade 100%, but it makes it quite unlikely. It's essentially saying "hey, I built a virus in a structure that doesn't rely match a well-working virus class. Also, it completely fails to do what we want to do in simulations. We should invest a lot of money to build that".
Occam's barbershop would like to point out the very high number of unlikely events required to go down that path ;)
I don't think the sensitivity is specific to COVID-19. I believe it extends to all coronaviruses, if not all flu viruses.
They developed in places that are not water and moved to other places through water by occupying small spots of non-water while in transit.
Same with the virus. It developed in places that UV doesn't reach, like insides of larger living things, and travel to other habitable places by exposing themselves to UV only very briefly while being somewhat shielded by water in breathed out droplets.
Most viruses dont contain the mechanisms to resist damaging solar radiation
This sounds like it is a limiting factor to use. Excimer lamps in general come with a host of environmental and production concerns. I can't even say anything about the availability or characteristics of krypton-chloride gas.
> The type of material for UV LED is AlGaN, which will have a layer of aluminum grown on top of GaN on either Sapphire or SiC substrate. Aluminum as metal is conductive, but on AlGaN it is not. To get to a far UV band like 222nm, high density of aluminum needs to grow, which becomes non-conductive. You would need to compensate it with extremely high voltage current to generate really low level of wattage, let alone all the heat it generates. So there is no commercial vitality to it. That's the reason the whole industry on 222nm is on excimer light.
This is a gist of some comments on: https://www.reddit.com/r/Optics/comments/fyqhht/how_are_leds...
Quotes here generally look like the above, the indentation thing is meant for code and abused to show quotes.
There'll be products on Ebay, even Amazon, that tout LED UV -- but I'm sure tons of people will be suckered into buying those with the belief that they work.
I believe you may even need to buy a true (for example) deuterium + quartz tube to get the frequencies discussed.
It can create Ozone, which kills bacteria and damages respiratory tracks. It can be a bug or a feature in the right hands.
Hard UV also leaves a nasty sunburn.
In Russia it's used for domesric disinfection for a long time - you turn on a big lanp and leave the room for a few hours.
HN sometimes has a misplaced admiration of ex-USSR-ian resourcefulness, but the cultural climate of top-secret alternative cures and conspirology is exactly what popularizes breathing cures, DIY bleach injection, "bringing the light inside," and other desperate, dangerous self-experimentation.
A top result for "ozonator" in Russian advertises that ozone therapy is "used for wound-healing, immune system recovery, removal of cellulite, and obesity." Just breathe it in!
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/0/00/Ozonator.jpg
Sure there is a fascination with alternative medicine in Russia, but thats a separate problem, among many others.
There were folks advising my parents to treat skin burns with urine of a young piglet, but fortunately no-one was taking them seriously.
Pretty sure they work fine. But they take a lot longer than wiping with soap and hot water or disinfectant. For dishwashers it's going to be difficult to make sure you expose every surface of every utensil, compared to filling the machine with hot air and steam. You'd need a much more space-hungry design than standard models.
Proper UV sterilization takes time (minutes, hours). I'd worry that many people will just wave a light and think "its clean". It doesn't work that way.
But yes, this is how UV light is sometimes actually used. Shining on an empty table in a lab, for one hour. Even then, you don't take it as a 100% guarantee that there are no viruses left.
Second, UV light hurts humans, too. Ignore the safety and remain in the room when the UV light is turned on, you get cancer. In the lab, people are careful. In an average household, it would be a question of time before someone gets exposed to the UV light.
If you are careful, you can use the UV light on your room, or kitchen, and it is "better than nothing". (Not sure if you even need to cover your windows, because I think glass already reduces the UV part of light, plus the intensity is reduced by square of distance so you probably wouldn't hurt random people on the street.) But it takes a lot of time, and it only reduces the number of viruses by some fraction.
Considering that COVID-19 is usually spread by air, not by touching surfaces, opening your windows probably achieves much more than using the UV light in your room or kitchen. For some other viruses, the numbers could be different.
Also, the dishwasher already kills a lot of viruses by using higher temperature than when you wash dishes by hand.
[1] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/uvlyzer-sleek-uvc-sanitiz...
Just like for kids living in a clean environment (no dogs, dirt, etc.) are more prone to illnesses.
12 person family in crazy small places, no window, mud floor, sharing one bed
The levels of hygiene were nowhere close to the ones we have today. Simple things like bathing weren't by any means standard depending on which time in history and part of the world you're talking about.
It is administered, and is likely working, but never went through the rigorous testing we now do for vaccines; furthermore, after it was introduced, tetanus incidence decreased considerably also in places that did not use a vaccine. The history of the tetanus vaccine is not what I expected when I started looking at it.
I'm not an immunologist, but I don't think you're correct here.
>It is administered, and is likely working, but never went through the rigorous testing we now do for vaccines; furthermore, after it was introduced, tetanus incidence decreased considerably also in places that did not use a vaccine. The history of the tetanus vaccine is not what I expected when I started looking at it.
Deaths worldwide from Tetanus didn't decrease substantially until the 80s when the vaccine starting being administered everywhere. So don't know what you're talking about.
Mate...
Natural immunity lasts for four months, like common cold. "Vaccine" doesn't make sense.
It would be masks, if only people would wear them when they need to. It's also a social & compliance problem.
And the longer interview: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_brenner_can_light_stop_the_c...
i.e., it's easier for multicellular life to develop resistance to these kinds of things than unicellular life
The problem is that far UV lights are rather expensive at the moment.
https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/far-uvc-light-safely-kil...
But it might be helpful to know that the power/strength of light diminishes according to the inverse-square law. That is, if one doubles the distance, there is quarter the amount of light falling on a given area (vis: it is quarter of the strength), and, vice versa, if one halves the distance, the amount of light increases four-fold.
Due to this rate of fall-off, it means that it is much more effective if the light source is closer.
222nm is blocked by the (upper, I believe) atmosphere.
"Safer UV light effective in destroying virus particle associated with transmission of Covid-19"
I’m hopeful we can see a lot of low cost Far-UVC appliances over the next year that safely killed coronavirus in indoor places so that we can start living a normal life before vaccines become widespread.
To my knowledge they don't exist yet. Do you know of any manufacturer that produces them?
>An in vitro experiment by HU researchers showed that 99.7% of the SARS-CoV-2 viral culture was killed after a 30-second exposure to 222 nm UVC irradiation at 0.1 mW/cm2.
It's good for an airlock or surface disinfection though.
One of the studies that was investigating the use of hydroxychloroquine came up with an interesting statistic that had nothing to do with HCQ: They found that individuals with no PPE interacting at less than 6' from someone infected with SARS-CoV-2 had about a 15% chance of contracting it after 10 minutes of exposure. I'd imagine UV would reduce this even further.
This study was covered in Dr. Seheult's update 81[1] video. It's a bit ironic, because the study showed a failure of HCQ, but I'm not completely sure I'd suggest the study itself failed since there's valuable insight that came as a consequence of it!
It'd be interesting to consider this for doctor's waiting rooms, boarding areas for planes & trains, and waiting areas for restaurants. Just waiting for your table or appointment could sanitize you with zero additional effort. Not 100% but reducing the impact/risk in otherwise close quarter space would reduce the overall spread.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu...
Most of the studies I've seen use very low power sources that appear to be fairly safe, but I'd imagine there's long term exposure risk.
Here's another article[2] worth reading. It appears to me that the specific wavelengths most of the research has focused on is far-UVC which is probably different from the frequencies of UVC currently more well studied.
So, I think the answer is "it depends."
[1] https://www.klaran.com/is-uvc-safe
[2] https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/are-ultraviolet-sani...
> ... placing the Far-UVC lamp 24 centimeters above the surface of the plates.
"Suppose that we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light," Trump said at the White House coronavirus press briefing, adding: "Supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way."
It was absolutely not considered a scientific impossibility that UV light would have an affect on the virus outside the body.
"A Cedars-Sinai research team is in the pre-clinical stages of developing a technology that harnesses intermittent ultraviolet (UV) A light for treating viruses and bacteria. The technology has not been tested or used on patients. Cedars-Sinai has filed for patents related to the technology and has signed a licensing agreement with Aytu BioScience with the aim of potentially enabling near-term use as a COVID-19 intervention for critically ill, intubated patients."
It was a suggestion to explore it (all possibilities).
We know that he won’t stop being who he is though, so we are being extorted by the situation to change.
I think your reply was kind of self-defeating in this context.
People never contested that UV light could kill the virus (there were many experiments running at the time, and I think some conclusions too).
The Trump suggestion is stupid simply because UV light isn't selective, and whatever it did to the virus inside your body, it would do exactly the same to your body too. Just like his suggestion of injecting bleach - it would almost certainly kill the infection, just as soon as it would kill you.
Citation required. UV light as a disinfectant is fairly well known.
It's not because he suggested UV light that people went ballistic. It's because he suggested shining it inside people's bodies. In that same press conference he also suggested using bleach inside the body.
And you wonder why we call it fake news.
Here is the actual quote:
https://www.statesman.com/news/20200713/fact-check-did-trump...
In a briefing where they presented "a study that found sun exposure and cleaning agents like bleach can kill the virus when it lingers on surfaces." he suggested putting a "disinfectant" inside human bodies. Totally different thing. Let's just use one of the other disinfectants that's safe to put inside the body instead. [1] /s
It's fortunate that being a good communicator isn't one of the required skills in his job. /s
I think your bar for calling something "fake" needs to be revised.
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177
"Not only does consuming or injecting disinfectant risk poisoning and death, it's not even likely to be effective.
Equally, by the time the virus has taken hold inside your body, no amount of UV light on your skin is going to make a difference.
And since UV radiation damages the skin, using it to kill the virus could be a case of - to borrow a well-worn phrase - the cure being worse than the disease."
> And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it'd be interesting to check that
What the original post mentions is directly hitting the virus. If we hit the body with enough UV light to destroy the virus inside us we would destroy the body too.
If the virus transmits in aerosols, as we have determined, does this 222nm light kill that? No. It shows a smear of virus on a plate is killed by 222nm light. I think it's the right solution for the wrong problem.
Alas I couldn’t find any 222nm light bulbs for sale. I imagine hundreds of Chinese companies are setting up production lines as we speak.