254nm dangerous for eyes. 222nm reflects off eyes.
-
-
Replying to @judegomila
Yeah, I saw from
@RajBhakta’s link. I’m a bit surprised there is such a huge difference between the two wavelengths.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @the_aiju @RajBhakta
due to reflection mechanics? yes, layers of cell material might be resonating to reflect that specific freq. I have been thinking of the evolutionary reasons for this or whether just an offshot of the cell arch. would love more papers on those mechanics
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
just like microwaves and food heating. unexpected! just like the secret notes on a guitar...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @judegomila @RajBhakta
One paper claims an absorption depth issue, rather than reflectivity, to be the cause. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phpp.12156 … Seems to contradict the safety on skin (not sure what to make of it)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @the_aiju @RajBhakta
I suspect its both, where does it contradict? I seem to recall that paper just being counter intuitive.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @judegomila @RajBhakta
Well, it says volunteers had skin reddening and increased CPD levels (which increase skin cancer risk).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The difference may be that the study claiming that it was safe included filtering to let through only 222 nm light. The raw excimer lamp produces other wavelengths too.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think there is also def a max dosage and flux that is going to be dangerous to humans, what flux and dosage did they run it at? Ie if you put all the power of a nuke through this wavelength you will destroy most things...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This is the 222 nm study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5552051/ … The mice got a total of "157 mJ/cm^2 in a 7 h period". But they also give numbers for "power density" in mJ/cm^2, which is a bad sign. (Power is measured in watts, not joules.)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
And while they make assertions about it being eye safe, they provide zero proof. Okay, it won't get to the lens, but the cornea is another matter.
-
-
true! so I def keeping putting 'safe' in inverted commas. As there is a flux and dosage limit that clearly would be dangerous even with 222nm. It might just be a 'safer' method...
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.