UV reactive parts expose PC radiation hazards?

[quanta]

With the recent trends of adding UV reactive components by case modding community, these components expose hidden sources of radiation that will otherwise gone unnoticed. The UV reactive components only lit up in colours visible by humans when there is a source of UV radiation. In most cases, the light source will be cold cathode or UV LED. Those components use a small fraction of the total power, and the visible light converted from UV light source is bright enough to see the parts in the dark. Since many case modders also add side windows to their cases, will such prolonged uses endanger computer users via UV radiation?

 

[Geniere]

UV is tricky stiff. You can?t see it so you don?t know how bright :light: it is. You don?t know your eyes are damaged because it may not be immediately apparent. The damage is caused by the initiation of chemical reactions and is accumulative. The more UV received over the years, the more harm done. Damage cannot be totally reversed. Bright visible light :sun: is also damaging, but since you?re aware of it, you turn away. The longer wavelength spectrum of visible light does not cause a damaging chemical reaction. The energy is converted to heat in the retina.

15 years from now, you may get a cataract because of looking at a UV source today.

The spectrum of UV light runs from 10 to 400nanometers. The shorter (higher energy) wavelengths are called UV-C, then UV-B, and UV-A for the longest (least energetic) wavelengths. UV-C kills bacteria and viruses very quickly. UV-B can be used for treating certain skin conditions. UV-A is used in sun tanning parlors, where you will note, the victims are given eye shields.

 

[dpopiz]

I don't know the scientific specifics of it, but you don't have to worry about UV fluorescent tubes because they (at least the ones that are just designed for visual effects, ie the ones in your comp) have a coating that absorbs the wavelengths that are damaging to cells.

 

[Mark R]

All UV light is potentially harmful (UVA, UVB and UVC) - potentially the latter 2 are more damaging than UVA (which is is produced by tanning lamps).

However, the amount of UV produced by a small CCFL is unlikely to be a significant health risk - indeed an acrylic window may block some of the UV (although this depends on the precise type of acrylic - some are highly UV transparent).

If you are concerned, then consider the use of UV blocking acrylic. It's also worth noting that many UV fluorescent coatings are also activated by deep blue light (e.g. from LEDs) which is not harmful.

 

[Geniere]

Originally posted by: dpopiz
I don't know the scientific specifics of it, but you don't have to worry about UV fluorescent tubes because they (at least the ones that are just designed for visual effects, ie the ones in your comp) have a coating that absorbs the wavelengths that are damaging to cells.

I disagree; the biological effects of UV radiation are well documented. All experts agree that one should minimize their exposure to UV radiation. The coating you speak of is not designed to reduce the UV radiation, but is meant to reduce the visible light radiation or enhance specific spectral components.

Mark R is correct.

If you have a UV source in your computer, it should be mounted so as to hide it from view or filtered out. It is not harmful to look at the resultant fluorescence of various components in the PC. If you are in a museum where some exhibits are viewed under UV radiation, note that the source of the radiation is hidden.

This thread jogged my memory of a visit to a planetarium where part of the exhibit area was lit by UV, but otherwise quite dark. An attractive young woman wearing a white dress entered just before I did. As I followed her, the white dress became almost invisible while her lingerie glowed brilliantly. I can?t recall the other exhibits.

 

[dpopiz]

ok, but are you sure the coating only filters out visible wavelengths? I have heard somewhere in the past that UV tubes that are designed for uses where they be exposed to peoples' skin and eyes (like comp ccfl's and club lights, etc), they have a coating which blocks (reduces to an insignificant level) the wavelengths that are harmful. I mean how could they be that dangerous? wouldn't there have to be a carcinogen warning on these UV tubes then?

 

[Geniere]

A coating for a visual effect UV source would be designed to allow UV-A (about 380 nanometer) radiation to pass through and block the visible radiation as well as the UVB&C. Since you can?t see UV, it does not reduce the contrast of the fluorescent object. Allowing too much of the visible spectrum to pass through would ?wash? out the effect like viewing TV in sunlight. Used properly, UV radiation is OK, but one would be foolish to stare at the source. I?m not certain, but I believe the packaging of UV sources always includes a safety warning.

I?m not trying to be an alarmist; merely pointing out that exposure to high energy radiation can have deleterious side effects. UV-A can be used for visual effects with less potential harm then the more energetic UV-C or UV-B. Don?t forget that just beyond UV-C lies the X-ray part of the spectrum. You wouldn?t carelessly expose yourself to that.

 

[dpopiz]

Originally posted by: Geniere
A coating for a visual effect UV source would be designed to allow UV-A (about 380 nanometer) radiation to pass through and block the visible radiation as well as the UVB&C. Since you can?t see UV, it does not reduce the contrast of the fluorescent object. Allowing too much of the visible spectrum to pass through would ?wash? out the effect like viewing TV in sunlight. Used properly, UV radiation is OK, but one would be foolish to stare at the source. I?m not certain, but I believe the packaging of UV sources always includes a safety warning.

I?m not trying to be an alarmist; merely pointing out that exposure to high energy radiation can have deleterious side effects. UV-A can be used for visual effects with less potential harm then the more energetic UV-C or UV-B. Don?t forget that just beyond UV-C lies the X-ray part of the spectrum. You wouldn?t carelessly expose yourself to that.

hmmm maybe that's why my eyesight is getting really bad now. I used to stare at the UV tubes at school dances quite a bit. it's kinda cool to stare at them because the tube and everything a few inches around appears really blury for some reason...must be something to do with the UV interfering with visible light in your eye

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: dpopiz

Originally posted by: Geniere
A coating for a visual effect UV source would be designed to allow UV-A (about 380 nanometer) radiation to pass through and block the visible radiation as well as the UVB&C. Since you can?t see UV, it does not reduce the contrast of the fluorescent object. Allowing too much of the visible spectrum to pass through would ?wash? out the effect like viewing TV in sunlight. Used properly, UV radiation is OK, but one would be foolish to stare at the source. I?m not certain, but I believe the packaging of UV sources always includes a safety warning.

I?m not trying to be an alarmist; merely pointing out that exposure to high energy radiation can have deleterious side effects. UV-A can be used for visual effects with less potential harm then the more energetic UV-C or UV-B. Don?t forget that just beyond UV-C lies the X-ray part of the spectrum. You wouldn?t carelessly expose yourself to that.

hmmm maybe that's why my eyesight is getting really bad now. I used to stare at the UV tubes at school dances quite a bit. it's kinda cool to stare at them because the tube and everything a few inches around appears really blury for some reason...must be something to do with the UV interfering with visible light in your eye

I imagine that it's because the UV light is putting out more light than you can actually perceive, but it does still affect the internals of your eyes.

 

[0roo0roo]

If you are concerned, then consider the use of UV blocking acrylic. It's also worth noting that many UV fluorescent coatings are also activated by deep blue light (e.g. from LEDs) which is not harmful.

guess my uv led fans are safe

 

[Description]

Regarding "tanning," what does your skin expect to accomplish by growing darker? How is this protective?

 

[Pulsar]

The UV produced by your computer is harmless.

In my plant environment, we use several highly focused UV emitters to look for oil leaks (all oil we use has a UV additive that glows so we can trace leaks). These are used by the same people every day, and over the 25 year operation of the plant we've seen no issues. This is 100x the amount your computer gives off.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: Description
Regarding "tanning," what does your skin expect to accomplish by growing darker? How is this protective?

Skin contains growing and replicating cells in order to replace the ones that die and fall off. Dividing DNA is at high-risk of damage by radiation (including UV light).

The cells can protect themselves by producing a dark pigment - this absorbs the UV light leaving less light to reach the DNA.

 

[Geniere]

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar
The UV produced by your computer is harmless.

In my plant environment, we use several highly focused UV emitters to look for oil leaks (all oil we use has a UV additive that glows so we can trace leaks). These are used by the same people every day, and over the 25 year operation of the plant we've seen no issues. This is 100x the amount your computer gives off.

It seems your company is in violation of at least 1 OSHA standard if the employees are not wearing eye-protection.

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.133 Eye and Face Protection

?? employers "shall ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation."

Originally posted by: Description
Regarding "tanning," what does your skin expect to accomplish by growing darker? How is this protective?

Human evolution and its recent urbanization has been accompanied by health problems relating to dietary deficiency and lack of exposure to the natural environment. Being at the top of the food chain requires us to obtain all dietary necessities from food. Lower species can manufacture some or all their needs within their body. The US government has required certain food manufacturers to add vitamins and other items to their products where their lack has caused health issues. Examples are iodine added to table salt and vitamin D added to milk. Vitamin D is normally produced by UV generated photosynthesis in the skin. Skin should be considered an organ just as the liver and heart are. Considering the natural environment as we progressed up the evolutionary ladder included naked exposure to sunlight, it must be assumed that some exposure to sunlight and its UV component is necessary. It is known that high doses of UV cause a variety of health problems. As with most things moderation is the intelligent course of action.

 

[NeoPTLD]

Originally posted by: quanta
With the recent trends of adding UV reactive components by case modding community, these components expose hidden sources of radiation that will otherwise gone unnoticed. The UV reactive components only lit up in colours visible by humans when there is a source of UV radiation. In most cases, the light source will be cold cathode or UV LED. Those components use a small fraction of the total power, and the visible light converted from UV light source is bright enough to see the parts in the dark. Since many case modders also add side windows to their cases, will such prolonged uses endanger computer users via UV radiation?

No. The UV light you're speaking of is blacklight. Harmless stuff. If you take your computer into a shed that has its windows fitted with visible light filter, your computer parts will glow a lot brighter than they would with mini blacklight.

You get exposed to much more UV just walking outside.

 

[Pulsar]

>>It seems your company is in violation of at least 1 OSHA standard if the employees are not wearing eye-protection.

>>OSHA 29 CFR 1910.133 Eye and Face Protection

>>?? employers "shall ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to
>>eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or
>>vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation."

Or perhaps the wavelength of UV light used to excite our oil marker isn't "injurious"... you need to be careful when you start throwing accusations like that.

 

[Geniere]

I stand by my statements!

 

[wacki]

Originally posted by: NeoPTLD

No. The UV light you're speaking of is blacklight. Harmless stuff. If you take your computer into a shed that has its windows fitted with visible light filter, your computer parts will glow a lot brighter than they would with mini blacklight.

You get exposed to much more UV just walking outside.

Do you have any links? Statistics on intensity of sunlight UV vs Blacklight UV?

Originally posted by: Geniere
This thread jogged my memory of a visit to a planetarium where part of the exhibit area was lit by UV, but otherwise quite dark. An attractive young woman wearing a white dress entered just before I did. As I followed her, the white dress became almost invisible while her lingerie glowed brilliantly. I can?t recall the other exhibits.

What planetarium was this? Oooo Laa Laaaa

 

[wacki]

ohhh check this out

Harmless UVA?

Quote from above paper
"UV-A - Longwave UV, also known as "blacklight", the major type of UV in sunlight, responsible for skin tanning, generally not harmful, used in medicine to treat certain skin disorders.

UV-B - A small, but dangerous part of sunlight. Most solar UV-B is absorbed by the diminishing atmospheric ozone layer. Prolonged exposure is responsible for some type of skin cancer, skin aging, and cataracts (clouding of the lens of the eye).

UV-C - Also known as "shortwave" UV, includes germicidal (253.7nm wavelength) UV used for air disinfection. Unintentional overexposure causes transient redness and eye irritation, but does NOT cause skin cancer or cataracts."

Bulb stats

Interesting Paper on Sunlight vs. Bulbs

I only spent about 30 seconds looking up articles, so forgive me if the articles aren't form the best sources. Time is such a valuable thing.

 

[Mark R]

I disagree with the above comments on UV light - I've abridged the information below from medical texts and guidelines from dermatologists as well as some other sources.

UVA - Long-wave UV (320-400 nm) - This represents the vast majority of natural UV light. Because of the high levels of natural UVA light artifical sources are, for most people, almost insignificant. It penetrates deep into the skin where it triggers tanning, and can cause burning with more intense exposure. Previously regarded as relatively non-harmful, mounting medical evidence suggests that it is carcinogenic, with some studies suggesting that it significantly enhances the carcinogenicity of UVB. It is used medically for treatment of various skin conditions (such as psoriasis) but there are strict guidelines on the maximum number of treatments that can be given over a life-time because at the doses used it does significantly increase the risk of skin cancer (although in medical use it is often given with a 'sensitising' drug to enhance its effects). It is implicated in skin aging and wrinkling. It is also implicated in the development of age-related macular degeneration (a common cause of blindness).

UVB - medium-wave UV (290-320 nm) - Aproximately 10% of UV light reaching the earth's surface is UVB. It is absorbed in the upper layers of the skin, where it stiumlates production of Vitamin D (essential for healthy bones). However, it is thought to be responsible most skin cancers and is also responsible for sun-burn. Prolonged exposure can cause damage to the eyes, particularly cataracts.

UVC - short wave UV (220-290 nm) - Virtually absent in natural light because the ozone layer filters it with extreme efficiency. Major risks are industrial - particularly welding and germicidal lamps, but other potential sources include industrial lasers and xenon arc (HID) lamps. UVC is a potent carcinogen in laboratory experiments, but there is essentially no human data since few people get significant long-term exposure. Short duration exposures can cause extremely painful burns to both the skin and the eyes (e.g. 'welder's eye'). These burns ususally heal relatively quickly.

A useful single reference is a text by the UK's national Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) - Link

 

[wacki]

Oh, nice link Mark R.

Time to add the UK's national Radiological Protection Board to my long list of bookmarks.