The discussions reflect a nuanced debate, with some posts emphasizing the potential dangers of 222nm UVC, citing specific findings about skin damage and DNA effects, while others question safety measures and underlying assumptions, as seen in remarks about oxidative stress and filtration techniques. The tone varies from cautious to skeptical, illustrating active engagement with the scientific implications of the research.
AgreementNeither agree nor disagree
Discussions reveal conflicting opinions about the safety of 222-nm UVC, with some agreeing that caution is needed while others question its safety claims.
InterestHigh interest
Participants demonstrate high curiosity, referencing multiple studies, safety concerns, and technical details about the UVC sources.
EngagementModerate engagement
The conversations show moderate engagement with questions about methodology, safety filters, and physiological effects, indicating active consideration.
ImpactModerate impact
The debates about safety standards, potential risks, and differing study conclusions suggest some influence on safety perceptions but not a widespread paradigm shift.
Abstract in brief
This study investigated whether a 222nm UVC light, commonly used for sterilization, is safe for human skin by testing its effects on healthy volunteers.
Results showed that even at low doses, the 222nm UVC could cause skin redness and DNA damage, specifically in the basal cell layer, suggesting it can harm skin before reaching sterilization levels.
While 222nm UVC is promising as a less irritating sterilization method, its potential to cause skin damage highlights the need for careful dose management and safety assessments.
In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy volunteer skin: a pilot study
https://t.co/JA0G4gZmmy
The result:
At low doses below the threshold bacteriostatic effect, the source was capable of inducing both https://t.co/Zv7FBkT9RB
Dec 11, 2023 · 78 likes · 14 shares · 7,888 followersView post →
E
Emily
@the_aiju · X
@judegomila @RajBhakta One paper claims an absorption depth issue, rather than reflectivity, to be the cause.
https://t.co/lM28UsCFS4
Seems to contradict the safety on skin (not sure what to make of it)
Mar 7, 2020 · 3 likes · 6,397 followersView post →
Aア
AFG(アンファング)
@6yZVjuxQn7n2tWL · X
@FarUV_Sterilray @mas44022884 When comparing Sterilray and Ushio's 222nm UVC, there is clearly a big difference in whether or not it produces erythema.
Do you use a band-pass filter to remove the harmful wavelengths?
This is all for safety reasons.
https://t.co/MxwUjZpZxV
Jan 26, 2021 · 3 likes · 1,685 followersView post →
AC
Aaron Collins
@masknerd · X
@joeyfox85 Interesting given the conclusion of Woods' work was "The source showed an erythemogenic or CPD potential at lower doses than those required to reach the reported threshold bacteriostatic effect." when using the Steril-Ray. Filtered 222nm didn't show that.
https://t.co/XwWmqls1NL
Aug 9, 2022 · 2 likes · 49,643 followersView post →
CK
Chris Komatsu
@chris_komatsu · X
@GainOfDystopia @ModelAyshaMirza 222 nm is also not necessarily safe for human exposure. Moreover, the Nature paper you referenced was going by the limit set by American Hygienists and not OSHA or the CDC. Moreover, that paper didn't investigate oxidative stress caused by Ozone at 222 nm https://t.co/sb3oxwfFvu
Sep 10, 2023 · 1 like · 4,215 followersView post →
J
Jordi
@jotabefe1 · X
12 de Diciembre de 2014
"El efecto de la prueba fotográfica UVC de 222 nm en la piel sana de un voluntario: un estudio piloto"
https://t.co/Yyy39ma1gz
This study investigates whether 222nm UVC light, used for sterilization, is safe for human skin. Results indicate it can cause redness and DNA damage at low doses, highlighting the importance of proper dose management…
This overview reviews the evidence for farUVC safety and its effectiveness in destroying viruses and bacteria, highlighting studies on skin effects, viral inactivation, and long-term safety considerations.
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 13, 2023 · 14 shares · 752 followersView post →
RW
Rupert wilson
@Oxfordite · X
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 13, 2023 · 14 shares · 1,665 followersView post →
D
Dee
@winthrop317 · X
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 11, 2023 · 14 shares · 1,003 followersView post →
SI
Sterilray, Inc.
@FarUVSterilray · X
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 11, 2023 · 14 shares · 2,481 followersView post →
SS
Scott Squires @scottsquires.bsky.social
@scott_squires · X
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 11, 2023 · 14 shares · 15,721 followersView post →
D
Deb
@Debp197 · X
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 11, 2023 · 14 shares · 2,899 followersView post →
MP
@msmaryjodetroit@union.place
@msmaryjodetroit · X
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 11, 2023 · 14 shares · 888 followersView post →
TS
The Scritcher
@UnknownOutrider · X
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 11, 2023 · 14 shares · 1,454 followersView post →
YG
YO PEEP GAME!
@YDWYPG · X
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 11, 2023 · 14 shares · 2,397 followersView post →
EB
Ellen Brockaway
@happyhexer · X
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 11, 2023 · 14 shares · 1,208 followersView post →
E
Elvira
@binamaggio1970 · X
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 11, 2023 · 14 shares · 577 followersView post →
A
Adrian
@SillyPutty78 · X
RT @NukitToBeSure: In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy vo…
Dec 11, 2023 · 14 shares · 4,294 followersView post →
N
Nukit
@NukitToBeSure · X
In the following study by Woods et al. a Sterilray emitter was used:
The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy volunteer skin: a pilot study
https://t.co/JA0G4gZmmy
The result:
At low doses below the threshold bacteriostatic effect, the source was capable of inducing both https://t.co/Zv7FBkT9RB
Dec 11, 2023 · 78 likes · 14 shares · 7,888 followersView post →
CK
Chris Komatsu
@chris_komatsu · X
@GainOfDystopia @ModelAyshaMirza 222 nm is also not necessarily safe for human exposure. Moreover, the Nature paper you referenced was going by the limit set by American Hygienists and not OSHA or the CDC. Moreover, that paper didn't investigate oxidative stress caused by Ozone at 222 nm https://t.co/sb3oxwfFvu
Sep 10, 2023 · 1 like · 4,215 followersView post →
AC
Aaron Collins
@masknerd · X
@joeyfox85 Interesting given the conclusion of Woods' work was "The source showed an erythemogenic or CPD potential at lower doses than those required to reach the reported threshold bacteriostatic effect." when using the Steril-Ray. Filtered 222nm didn't show that.
https://t.co/XwWmqls1NL
Aug 9, 2022 · 2 likes · 49,643 followersView post →
Aア
AFG(アンファング)
@6yZVjuxQn7n2tWL · X
@FarUV_Sterilray @mas44022884 When comparing Sterilray and Ushio's 222nm UVC, there is clearly a big difference in whether or not it produces erythema.
Do you use a band-pass filter to remove the harmful wavelengths?
This is all for safety reasons.
https://t.co/MxwUjZpZxV
Jan 26, 2021 · 3 likes · 1,685 followersView post →
J
Jordi
@jotabefe1 · X
12 de Diciembre de 2014
"El efecto de la prueba fotográfica UVC de 222 nm en la piel sana de un voluntario: un estudio piloto"
https://t.co/Yyy39ma1gz
@judegomila @RajBhakta One paper claims an absorption depth issue, rather than reflectivity, to be the cause.
https://t.co/lM28UsCFS4
Seems to contradict the safety on skin (not sure what to make of it)
Mar 7, 2020 · 3 likes · 6,397 followersView post →
F
RDI | London
Facebook
php/hivmed/article/view/450 We hope you find the paper ... The paper can be viewed here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hiv. 12156/abstract.
N
E
Aア
AC
CK
J
TW
RW
D
SI
SS
D
MP
TS
YG
EB
E
A
G