Yeah, I saw from @RajBhakta’s link. I’m a bit surprised there is such a huge difference between the two wavelengths.
-
-
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 -
I suspect that the power density thing is an honest mistake and someone just typed mJ instead of mW. The numbers seem sensible with that correction. Embarrassing, but shit happens. Bit surprised it hasn’t been fixed in the edited version, though.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
0.0062 mW for seven hours does add up to 157 mJ, so that indeed seems to be the proper interpretation, but the 0.0008 mJ/cm^2 (or mW/cm^2) figure for the conventional lamp is still puzzling.
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.