Aa
A
A
A
Close
Coronavirus Community
75 Members
Avatar universal

Use of copper and UV light to defeat Coronavirus

Copper kills bacteria and viruses in minutes and even Coronavirus cannot survive for long.

" The process involves the release of copper ions (electrically charged particles) when microbes, transferred by touching, sneezing or vomiting, land on the copper surface. The ions prevent cell respiration, punch holes in the bacterial cell membrane or disrupt the viral coat, and destroy the DNA and RNA inside."

1. Why is Copper not used more in hospitals on door handles, toilet facilities etc?

Ultra violet light at certain frequencies kills viruses. They do use it in some hospitals to steralise rooms and equipment but it is hazardous for humans. However there is now a new frequency identified that is not harmful.

" far-UVC light (207-222 nm) efficiently inactivates bacteria without harm to exposed mammalian skin. This is because, due to its strong absorbance in biological materials, far-UVC light cannot penetrate even the outer (non living) layers of human skin or eye; however, because bacteria and viruses are of micrometer or smaller dimensions, far-UVC can penetrate and inactivate them. "

2. Why are hospitals not using this virus killing light in ICU setting and what about this new safe form of UV light?

(Could be used on school equipment too)
3 Responses
Avatar universal
Copper is very expensive, otherwise no reason not to use it. There are medical beds with copper railings in use in some places.
Far UVC is in a trial in clothing and helmets with the light directed away from the wearer. The goal of the trial is to attempt to prove that it creates a protective halo for the wearer. More on that in a few weeks when the professor finishes his trials. He said far-UVC light requires too much power if someone tries to use it in overhead light bulb systems.
3 Comments
Thanks. And yet I read it pays for itself in less than a year and never wears out. The other (harmful to us) UV spectrum used can be bought for home use so hopefully the new type will get cheaper and less demanding. I was just wondering why we are not hearing of the combined use as in this Virus crisis something that kills the virus in the air while people are working would be amazing. It seems to take ages before our NHS innovates. You would think in an emergency like this some mention of these protective environments would be discussed. I read that many doctors have never heard of copper as antimicrobial - and neither had I till recently! People don't believe it when you mention it.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/copper-virus-kill-180974655/
Using copper to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151110102147.htm
Destruction of Staphylococcus aureus genomes - https://aem.asm.org/content/82/7/2132
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/copper-virus-kill-180974655/
----
Dry copper kills bacteria on contact - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216120436.htm

"First, they figured out which items closest to a patient were the most contaminated with microbes—those were the bed rails, the nurse call button, the arm of the visitor chair, the tray tables, and the IV pole. Enveloping these items in copper reduced the presence of microbes by 83 percent. As a result, HAIs were reduced by 58 percent, even though the researchers had introduced copper to less than 10 percent of the surface area of the room."
----
"The process involves the release of copper ions (electrically charged particles) when microbes, transferred by touching, sneezing or vomiting, land on the copper surface. The ions prevent cell respiration, punch holes in the bacterial cell membrane or disrupt the viral coat, and destroy the DNA and RNA inside."
----
"... far-UVC light (207-222 nm) efficiently inactivates bacteria without harm to exposed mammalian skin. This is because, due to its strong absorbance in biological materials, far-UVC light cannot penetrate even the outer (non living) layers of human skin or eye; however, because bacteria and viruses are of micrometer or smaller dimensions, far-UVC can penetrate and inactivate them."
Far-UVC light: A new tool to control the spread of airborne-mediated microbial diseases - https://europepmc.org/article/med/29426899
Chronic irradiation with 222-nm UVC light is safe - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201259
Germicidal Efficacy and Mammalian Skin Safety of 222-nm UV Light - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5552051/
"We found that 222-nm light kills MRSA efficiently but, unlike conventional germicidal UV lamps (254 nm), it produces almost no premutagenic UV-associated DNA lesions in a 3D human skin model and it is not cytotoxic to exposed mammalian skin."
Avatar universal
"He said far-UVC light requires too much power if someone tries to use it in overhead light bulb systems." Unless he proves the clothing idea works, there doesn't seem to be any application for protecting people. I don't have a PhD in  biomedical engineering like he does so can't provide any more info.
Avatar universal
Still no word from the professor about the clothing, but here is another far UV light application in use.
"UVC light is also used in other devices being promoted for airports like the Cleanse Portal, a doorway-shaped arch that emits far UVC light meant to inactivate pathogens like viruses on the body.

The Florida company selling the portal, Healthe, said low exposure to the short waves of far UVC light is safe for humans and it is in the process of applying for approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It's already sold the device for office use."
11 Comments
Here is the product.  https://healthelighting.com/products/cleanse-portal?_pos=1&_sid=8d9a1a94a&_ss=r
But why?  We really don't get it because it's on the body, and really don't pass it that way.  While theoretically it adheres to surfaces, people really only get it from breathing it in, and you're not going to put UV light inside the body or on the mouth or the face.  Mostly, UV light is being investigated for cleaning surfaces like on the subway, but again, there's little evidence people get it that way.  All contact tracing shows close and fairly long contact with someone who had it breathing or coughing on them.  
1. The product and this thread is about far UVC light, not UV light. They are unrelated.

2. " people really only get it from breathing it in, " Maybe, but according to the CDC quote below this is not correct, so the world is currently busy washing and disinfecting hands and surfaces as they believe it will prevent one method of Covid transmission. (I hope this is a waste of time, because that is the hardest for me to perfect, whereas it is easy to be away from people.)

Data from published epidemiology and virologic studies provide evidence that COVID-19 is primarily transmitted from symptomatic people to others who are in close contact through respiratory droplets, by direct contact with infected persons, or by contact with contaminated objects and surfaces.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
www.who.int › docs › 20200402-sitrep-73-covid-19

Coronavirus (COVID-19) frequently asked questions | CDC
www.cdc.gov › coronavirus › 2019-ncov › faq
May 12, 2020 - How does the virus spread?
I see keveen also mentions UV light although his question number 2 was about far UVC light.
Same problem.  You don't get covid from your body, you get it from breathing it into the sinuses or mouth.  The surface thing is purely theoretical, as nobody has ever gone through contact tracing and been found to have gotten the virus from touching a surface.  They have all had intimate contact with a human breathing on them.  So while it is theoretically possible people are getting it from surfaces, so far nobody has seen it happen in real life.  I wouldn't stop taking some precautions, but I've never done the sanitizer thing because sanitizer destroys the immune system on your skin.  That can also allow catastrophe to happen if you do it too often, just like taking too many antibiotics can do.  But that's me, every expert recommends wiping down door handles and such out of an abundance of caution and so everyone should know that is the expert advice.  I don't follow it because I don't believe it makes a difference as long as you wait a bit before touching something others have touched.  These are the folks who have not reported any disease formation from touching things:  grocery shoppers touching produce others have touched, medical professionals touching things others have touched, etc. etc.  In other words, tons of touching of things but no traced disease resulting.  Doesn't mean it hasn't happened or won't happen, but it's not likely and not a big source of concern when you listen to interviews of those who are treating the disease.  Also unlikely to get it outdoors, as it doesn't travel well in the outside air.  Doesn't mean everyone should abandon protective behaviors, but it does mean getting outdoors and moving shouldn't be avoided as the threat is minimal.  UVC light can't be used near the face, it will damage eyes, and can't be used inside the mouth or nasal cavity, so what it does isn't what is making people sick as far as we know.  What it looks like to me is sort of like HIV, which is present in sperm and theoretically possible to get through oral sex.  But nobody ever has, so while no scientist will say it's impossible, they will say it's not a risk.  It looks to me, and nobody should act on what things look like to me, is this is like that, theoretically possible but hasn't apparently happened, but who knows?  Maybe it has.  Most who have it probably weren't contact traced thoroughly enough to know yet.  Peace.
I meant to add, I think the big thing about surfaces isn't getting it from touching but by touching your face after touching a surface and breathing it in.  This was one reason for the initial advice not to wear a mask, because wearing on pretty much requires a lot of face touching to keep them from sliding around and getting in your eyes and such.  That advice changed but the touching of masks hasn't so again, I'm guessing the surface issue isn't the big threat.
Far UVC l;ight is not UV light. You are interchanging them as if they were the same thing but farUVC is harmless to mammals skin, eyes etc. Read keveen21's original post about its effects.
The product in the link ends up shining on people's faces, eyes and their clothes in the airports.
Google it, Anxious.  Says it damages eyes.  Pretty badly.  Doesn't damage skin as much, but really bad for the eyes.  That's as far as I can say about it, but I wanted to know more, you aroused my curiosity, and the warnings about eyes is pretty much the first thing you see.
This is the first link of many I found. https://www.newsday.com/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-ultraviolet-airborne-1.44287805
Where is your link talking about bad damage?
https://www.klaran.com/is-uvc-safe.  While most sources of exposure, such as LED lights, won't do this, you're talking about shining a light long enough and that is strong enough to kill a virus.  I'm assuming this would require more intense and more prolonged exposure, though again I'm not an expert here and only googled it because it sounded really interesting and I didn't know anything about it.  Your post did something I almost never do, which was to go to the Google machine and this kept popping up.  I don't know how likely it is and the damage probably won't be permanent, but since surfaces aren't really the problem here it sounds like a very expensive way to do something we might not really need to do.  Rubbing alcohol is really really cheap.   Soap and water is even cheaper.  
Your link does not talk about far-UVC light.
Your link describes UVC light which is not far-UVC light.
Your link describes LED light is not far-UVC light.
Nothing in your link applies to the far-UVC device they are putting in airports or to the professor's attempted application of far-UVC in clothing and helmets.

I'm not sure why you keep interchanging UVC, and UV with far-UV light since they are not the same.
Here is another link which explains the difference.  https://www.hepacart.com/blog/effective-uv-disinfection-lights-4-benefits-of-far-uv-sterilray     Note this part "Safer for use around humans because it CANNOT penetrate skin or eyes."
This discussion was closed by the MedHelp Community Moderation team. If you have any questions please contact us.
Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
Learn more with our FAQ on Ebola.
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Here’s how your baby’s growing in your body each week.
These common ADD/ADHD myths could already be hurting your child
This article will tell you more about strength training at home, giving you some options that require little to no equipment.
In You Can Prevent a Stroke, Dr. Joshua Yamamoto and Dr. Kristin Thomas help us understand what we can do to prevent a stroke.