In some previous discussions of far-UVC, on LessWrong the idea was to let the far-UVC light be focused on the space above people’s heads so that you clear a lot of viruses in the air while not directly going on people’s skin. Aerolamp on the other hand seems to advocate to place the lamps in a way where they directly shine on people’s skin.
The FAQ of the website seems to lack a question on the impact on the skin mircobiome and especially that of the face as it’s exposed the most.
If someone deploys a lamp in a way that put them constantly under the affect of direct far-UVC light on the face, doing before/after skin microbiome testing for the face might be a good idea.
In some previous discussions of far-UVC, on LessWrong the idea was to let the far-UVC light be focused on the space above people’s heads so that you clear a lot of viruses in the air while not directly going on people’s skin.
Link? That sounds like “upper room” UVC, which is longer wavelengths (ex: 254nm), not far-UVC (222nm).
In some previous discussions of far-UVC, on LessWrong the idea was to let the far-UVC light be focused on the space above people’s heads so that you clear a lot of viruses in the air while not directly going on people’s skin. Aerolamp on the other hand seems to advocate to place the lamps in a way where they directly shine on people’s skin.
The FAQ of the website seems to lack a question on the impact on the skin mircobiome and especially that of the face as it’s exposed the most.
If someone deploys a lamp in a way that put them constantly under the affect of direct far-UVC light on the face, doing before/after skin microbiome testing for the face might be a good idea.
Link? That sounds like “upper room” UVC, which is longer wavelengths (ex: 254nm), not far-UVC (222nm).