Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
The discussions reflect a high level of engagement and curiosity, with examples such as mentions of specific wavelengths like 220 nm, safety calculations, and references to recent scientific articles, all of which suggest that participants are actively analyzing and debating the safety limits for UVC exposure based on new evidence and interpretations.
Most discussions acknowledge that current exposure limits may be overly conservative, with some advocating for revised safety standards based on recent studies.
Participants show high interest in the topic, engaging with scientific arguments, technical details, and safety implications.
The discussions demonstrate deep engagement through referencing studies, calculations, and safety limits, indicating thoughtful analysis.
The collective tone suggests that these discussions could influence future safety guidelines, though immediate impact remains moderate.
https://t.co/md8NkkobLZ A Need to Revise Human Exposure Limits for Ultraviolet UV‐C Radiation† David H. Sliney Bruce E. Stuck First published: 16 February 2021 最新のACGIHが記載されています。 #222nm #ACGIH #JIS #規格 #安全 https://t.co/DVtVNMt8uD
Guideline limits evolved from an initial ACGIH® proposal in 1971 https://t.co/0DXalhrTDO https://t.co/z8d8juRb1P
https://t.co/0DXalhrTDO https://t.co/QCrWwCUTMy
@davidmanheim @Zee_Perry Well, as far as I can tell, the daily exposure limit right now is around 30mJ/cm^2/day which is just 0.1W for a 30 square meter room. In the paper I got that diagram from, they propose ~200mJ/cm^2/day which is 0.7W for the same sized room. https://t.co/ghCD4Hhsno https://t.co/Mv12N9XcZV
@MooreMedtech @UVC_Far I think this follow the article by Sliney et al last year in "Photochemistry and Photobiology" journal. https://t.co/DuN6kQG8oJ
@flowermusickids @MxPunky I think it's based on this: https://t.co/HgITmPGI5Q . That's a limit for one shift. So not lifetime. :-)
Death from above—death to viruses. This video discusses the advantages and risks of an Open Source Upper Room UVGI light fixture, as well as requirements for safe installation. It explores key insights into virus…
@rfsafe @frankdevocht No, UVC is 100-280 nm (ISO 21348). 220 nm is less damaging to skin than other UVC wavelengths with higher exposure limits, based on generally short exposures.Hypocritical to complain about hazards of RF and then tell us that UVC (220 nm) is perfectly safe https://t.co/BS3v6l1u2i
@EpiEllie Also, you can go click on the citation numbers which will give you links to a couple of studies done as well as a discussion about lowering the exposure limits. But that might be too difficult for you, professor so here you go https://t.co/iLjtYrmExY
@TheFuturistist @vaticancameos69 @kadamssl https://t.co/sc1mVsnnwa https://t.co/iLjtYrmExY
@Michael59503746 Found this as well - https://t.co/XWpCk6UB6D just don't understand this well enough to understand the safe exposure hours per day (and conservative days) for these devices. Appreciate if you're able to help!
@flowermusickids @MxPunky I think it's based on this: https://t.co/HgITmPGI5Q . That's a limit for one shift. So not lifetime. :-)
@davidmanheim @Zee_Perry Well, as far as I can tell, the daily exposure limit right now is around 30mJ/cm^2/day which is just 0.1W for a 30 square meter room. In the paper I got that diagram from, they propose ~200mJ/cm^2/day which is 0.7W for the same sized room. https://t.co/ghCD4Hhsno https://t.co/Mv12N9XcZV
@RealSexyCyborg Please be careful. At 222nm, https://t.co/pYrpIUpnPl propose a new safety limit of 479 mJ/cm². At the numbers you are showing (0.850 mW/cm² of UVC), that would be a safety time limit of (479/0.85)= 563 s → 9 min. Again, I'm no expert, but still, please be careful :)
@MooreMedtech @UVC_Far I think this follow the article by Sliney et al last year in "Photochemistry and Photobiology" journal. https://t.co/DuN6kQG8oJ
2): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSnUce9xdNo
paramount: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSnUce9xdNo
https://t.co/Xyr1yPuaBi https://t.co/uCUfvJzZYs https://t.co/yJB0AQtGRL
Guideline limits evolved from an initial ACGIH® proposal in 1971 https://t.co/0DXalhrTDO https://t.co/z8d8juRb1P
@Philly852 Even ex-UN scientists say the UV is too strong. Is it used to harm people or to test/alter people's genes, I wonder:- https://t.co/2D8A2kO7vL
https://t.co/0DXalhrTDO https://t.co/wKK4QUZP3M
RT @UVC_Far: https://t.co/0DXalhrTDO https://t.co/QCrWwCUTMy
https://t.co/0DXalhrTDO https://t.co/QCrWwCUTMy
https://t.co/md8NkkobLZ A Need to Revise Human Exposure Limits for Ultraviolet UV‐C Radiation† David H. Sliney Bruce E. Stuck First published: 16 February 2021 最新のACGIHが記載されています。 #222nm #ACGIH #JIS #規格 #安全 https://t.co/DVtVNMt8uD