|
Stipe-n Cap


Registered: 08/04/12
Posts: 7,623
Loc: Canada
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: Pscientist] 1
#28624773 - 01/17/24 04:05 PM (10 days, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
K
|
HelloImBob
Old Guy

Registered: 03/30/08
Posts: 219
Last seen: 33 seconds
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: Pscientist]
#28624791 - 01/17/24 04:19 PM (10 days, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
And how many people here are going to use it properly compared to not?
It's like playing with fire, there is a higher chance something bad is going to happen than it being helpful.
Plus what is properly in this hobby?
It has it's uses but it's better for fish tanks and post filter HVAC.
It scares me to think somebody who doesn't know what they are doing tries using it only to ruin their eyesight or something.
When something is contaminated get rid of it or do agar transfers or whatever.
-------------------- Quote from Stipe-n-Cap "You appear to be talking about boosting tryptamine content in mycelium by amending LC with....whatever your amendments are. I have to say I'm a tad disappointed that you're addressing us with the shorthand of a 13 yo girl who's texting her besty for make-up tips, instead of proper English, which causes me to have doubts."
|
Pscientist
KushKaptain




Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 2,679
Loc: Sirius X1
Last seen: 2 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: HelloImBob]
#28624798 - 01/17/24 04:24 PM (10 days, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HelloImBob said: It's like playing with fire, there is a higher chance something bad is going to happen than it being helpful.
Some may say that about a lot of things in this hobby, it all depends on perspective. It doesn't change facts.
-------------------- Any information posted on this website from this account is hypothetical and only to be used for legal purposes.
|
HelloImBob
Old Guy

Registered: 03/30/08
Posts: 219
Last seen: 33 seconds
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: Pscientist]
#28624809 - 01/17/24 04:32 PM (10 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Pscientist said:
Quote:
HelloImBob said: It's like playing with fire, there is a higher chance something bad is going to happen than it being helpful.
Some may say that about a lot of things in this hobby, it all depends on perspective. It doesn't change facts.
Change what facts that it's simpler to grow mushrooms without using uv-c?
That it's more useful in HVAC or a fish tank?
-------------------- Quote from Stipe-n-Cap "You appear to be talking about boosting tryptamine content in mycelium by amending LC with....whatever your amendments are. I have to say I'm a tad disappointed that you're addressing us with the shorthand of a 13 yo girl who's texting her besty for make-up tips, instead of proper English, which causes me to have doubts."
|
Stipe-n Cap


Registered: 08/04/12
Posts: 7,623
Loc: Canada
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: HelloImBob] 1
#28624815 - 01/17/24 04:35 PM (10 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
Sanitizing with soap, iso, or some other agent, is far more efficient/practical than UV. Noobs are constantly trying to reinvent the wheel by complicating things.
Still air? Too simple, what about a shmuvbox π€
Sanitation? Why use boring old sanitizing agents when we can harness the power of the electromagnetic spectrumπ€
Monotub? You mean automated air exchangers controlled by PID, hygrometer, and co2 sensorsπ€
But, what if I used all of these π€ I bet I'm the first to consider the massive implications for exponential gainz.

Or perhaps My fingers just have frostbite from hanging out too long at the summet of mount stupid.
|
Pscientist
KushKaptain




Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 2,679
Loc: Sirius X1
Last seen: 2 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: HelloImBob]
#28624822 - 01/17/24 04:37 PM (10 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
I don't think the OP was asking for the simplest way to grow mushrooms, I recall something about the uses of UV for sanitization.
-------------------- Any information posted on this website from this account is hypothetical and only to be used for legal purposes.
|
Pscientist
KushKaptain




Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 2,679
Loc: Sirius X1
Last seen: 2 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: Stipe-n Cap]
#28624832 - 01/17/24 04:42 PM (10 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: Sanitizing with soap, iso, or some other agent, is far more efficient/practical than UV. Noobs are constantly trying to reinvent the wheel by complicating things.
Still air? Too simple, what about a shmuvbox π€
Sanitation? Why use boring old sanitizing agents when we can harness the power of the electromagnetic spectrumπ€
Monotub? You mean automated air exchangers controlled by PID, hygrometer, and co2 sensorsπ€
But, what if I used all of these π€ I bet I'm the first to consider the massive implications for exponential gainz.

Or perhaps My fingers just have frostbite from hanging out too long at the summet of mount stupid.

Who hurt you?
-------------------- Any information posted on this website from this account is hypothetical and only to be used for legal purposes.
|
Stipe-n Cap


Registered: 08/04/12
Posts: 7,623
Loc: Canada
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: Pscientist] 1
#28624834 - 01/17/24 04:42 PM (10 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
The answer:
Don't use UV in place of sanitizing agents like 70% isopropyl.
Quote:
For these reasons and other concerns, the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) does not recommend the use of UV lights in BSCs.
The National Sanitation Foundation doesn't even recommend it, so just don't. Check out what boring old soap can do:
Isopropyl is widely used, the fumes are irrelevant, but do whatever you guy's want, I'm not even your real dad anyways.
Quote:
Pscientist said: Who hurt you?
I have PNSD (post noob stress disorder) from engaging in so many asinine conversations over the years.
|
HelloImBob
Old Guy

Registered: 03/30/08
Posts: 219
Last seen: 33 seconds
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: Pscientist]
#28624880 - 01/17/24 05:03 PM (10 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
It's useless unless you have a special quartz glass, useless if it's not transparent, useless useless useless for 99% of the people that's might attempt to use it and just end up hurting themselves in the process
Sure there might be some use for it but should people that don't know any better play around with something that has a way higher chance of being dangerous than it does useful?
If you cared about your fellow man you wouldn't defend a topic that could so easily cause them harm without them knowing any better.
They can be dangerous and there is no point to them in this hobby unless your smart enough to figure out that reason on your own.
I'm all ears if you come up with a tek on how to use it correctly
It's not like we're trying to keep a secret hidden from everybody.
-------------------- Quote from Stipe-n-Cap "You appear to be talking about boosting tryptamine content in mycelium by amending LC with....whatever your amendments are. I have to say I'm a tad disappointed that you're addressing us with the shorthand of a 13 yo girl who's texting her besty for make-up tips, instead of proper English, which causes me to have doubts."
|
Stipe-n Cap


Registered: 08/04/12
Posts: 7,623
Loc: Canada
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: HelloImBob] 1
#28624946 - 01/17/24 05:25 PM (10 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
UV is essentially a Noob Goldberg machine, like all of the other over-nooblicated contraptions listed above. Does UV sanitize shit? Let me answer with a question: Do humidifiers add humidity to monotubs?
Sure, breh. Do whatever makes Y'all happy. I only post to add balance to otherwise ridiculous threads overrun by the unjustifiably overconfident, you know, for posterity and the folks who've figured out the search function.
Am I salty, yes, but what's life without a healthy pinch of salt? Anywho, did you know that labs running UV used to report folks with sick tans? true story. Worse case scenario you'll end up looking like a bronze myco-stud.
|
stubb
Dahg Rastubfari


Registered: 03/23/19
Posts: 1,310
Loc: Memory
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: nickchinn]
#28625572 - 01/18/24 06:48 AM (10 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Pscientist said:
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: UV-C lamps are not permitted on cabinets at the NIH because the risk outweighs the benefit, If it's not good enough for them, it's not good enough for you.
In your claim you mention the risks of UV but then go on to say.
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: UV-C is subject to the inverse-square law, cannot penetrate glass, plastic, or liquids which makes UV quite pointless for mush cult.
When used properly UV light really isn't that unsafe, with an emphasis on properly. Does UV work to help sanitize a surface? Yes. Is it necessary for the work people do on this website? No. Are shoes necessary to walk outside? No.
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: Even if UV-C were 100% effective, the moment the light is switched off in a normal open air environment, any benefit gained on the swings is lost on the roundabouts.
I agree with parts of this statement, but when you shut the light off the entire surface doesn't immediately become as contaminated as when you started (necessarily). Contaminants will fall randomly onto the surface over time. So the benefit is not all lost immediately, it is lost gradually over time (with regards to the surface sanitization). The light doesn't have to be used in an open air environment as you described though.
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: UV-C provides a false sense of security, much like using antibacterial agar but without gruesome DNA mutations.
This is an unrelated point, but are you claiming antibacterial agar doesn't impede the growth of bacterial species that are sensitive to the antibiotic being used? I have to disagree with that.
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: UV-C has very few, if any uses for home cultivation purposes, unless you're attempting some advanced mutagenesis type shenanigans.
This is probably true for the most part, but the OP was asking about the use of UV for sanitization purposes.
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: UV-C absolutely does not outperform isopropyl for sanitizing your work surfaces, ISO conveniently comes with zero risk. You cannot sanitize the atmosphere, so stop trying.
Iso is flammable and must be purchased regularly, so there are risks and greater requirements for resupply. In an ideal world you should use both for maximum sanitization.
Also just to be a further contrarian, you can technically sanitize and even sterilize the atmosphere in small spaces like labs, this is how labs are decontaminated in cases of serious biological release. It can be done with formaldehyde gas, but before you even say it, of course it has no place in this line of work.
I agree with everything below.
Quote:
Ultraviolet radiation is a form of non-ionizing radiation, and biological effects from it vary with wavelength, photon energy, and duration of exposure. The 100-280 nm wavelength band is designated as UV-C, which is used for germicidal purposes.
The sterilization/decontamination activity of UV lights is limited by a number of factors, including:
Penetration β In the dynamic air streams of BSCs, microorganisms beneath dust particles, plastics, and work surfaces are not affected by the UV light because it cannot penetrate particles so far from the UV source.
Relative humidity β The germicidal effects of UV light drop off precipitously when relative humidity is above 70%.
Temperature and air movement β The optimum temperature for the UV lamp to be effective is 77-80 degrees F. Temperatures below this range result in reduced efficacy, and air movement can exacerbate this.
Cleanliness β Dust and dirt block the germicidal effectiveness of the UV lamp, so weekly cleanings are necessary.
Age β Check UV lamps every six months to assure proper function, as the amount of germicidal wavelength emitted decreases with bulb age and hours of use.
Overuse β UV lights are routinely left on overnight or longer in an effort to decontaminate workspaces, but this practice can result in the germicidal wavelength no longer being produced by the bulb.
For these reasons and other concerns, the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) does not recommend the use of UV lights

 Is this an endorsement? What's supposed to be the takeaway from all that?
OP asked:
Quote:
nickchinn said: Anyone try this, or have honest feedback?
Have you? Do you?
--------------------
ππ΄π
°πΌ π
²π»π
Έπ½π
Άπ
ππ°π
Ώ You wake up. The room is spinning very gently round your head. Or at least it would be if you could see it which you can't. It is pitch black. > TURN ON LIGHT
|
Mwj12977
OLD DAD


Registered: 12/12/23
Posts: 79
Last seen: 3 hours, 42 minutes
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: stubb]
#28625622 - 01/18/24 07:52 AM (10 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
If these bulbs create ozone then why is everyone so worried about our ozone layer? Canβt we just make a bunch of giant ozone producing light bulbs to repair it? Just kidding! π
|
stubb
Dahg Rastubfari


Registered: 03/23/19
Posts: 1,310
Loc: Memory
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: Mwj12977] 1
#28625712 - 01/18/24 09:34 AM (10 days, 5 hours ago) |
|
|
You jest, but things like that were considered. O3's heavier than O2 tho, the ozone layer is suspended betwixt the upward convection of the troposphere and the downward weight of the stratosphere. No good way to generate or to transport generated ozone up there, more practical to find alternatives to ozone depleting substances.
--------------------
ππ΄π
°πΌ π
²π»π
Έπ½π
Άπ
ππ°π
Ώ You wake up. The room is spinning very gently round your head. Or at least it would be if you could see it which you can't. It is pitch black. > TURN ON LIGHT
|
Pscientist
KushKaptain




Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 2,679
Loc: Sirius X1
Last seen: 2 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: stubb]
#28625831 - 01/18/24 11:40 AM (10 days, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
stubb said:
Quote:
Pscientist said:
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: UV-C lamps are not permitted on cabinets at the NIH because the risk outweighs the benefit, If it's not good enough for them, it's not good enough for you.
In your claim you mention the risks of UV but then go on to say.
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: UV-C is subject to the inverse-square law, cannot penetrate glass, plastic, or liquids which makes UV quite pointless for mush cult.
When used properly UV light really isn't that unsafe, with an emphasis on properly. Does UV work to help sanitize a surface? Yes. Is it necessary for the work people do on this website? No. Are shoes necessary to walk outside? No.
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: Even if UV-C were 100% effective, the moment the light is switched off in a normal open air environment, any benefit gained on the swings is lost on the roundabouts.
I agree with parts of this statement, but when you shut the light off the entire surface doesn't immediately become as contaminated as when you started (necessarily). Contaminants will fall randomly onto the surface over time. So the benefit is not all lost immediately, it is lost gradually over time (with regards to the surface sanitization). The light doesn't have to be used in an open air environment as you described though.
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: UV-C provides a false sense of security, much like using antibacterial agar but without gruesome DNA mutations.
This is an unrelated point, but are you claiming antibacterial agar doesn't impede the growth of bacterial species that are sensitive to the antibiotic being used? I have to disagree with that.
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: UV-C has very few, if any uses for home cultivation purposes, unless you're attempting some advanced mutagenesis type shenanigans.
This is probably true for the most part, but the OP was asking about the use of UV for sanitization purposes.
Quote:
Stipe-n Cap said: UV-C absolutely does not outperform isopropyl for sanitizing your work surfaces, ISO conveniently comes with zero risk. You cannot sanitize the atmosphere, so stop trying.
Iso is flammable and must be purchased regularly, so there are risks and greater requirements for resupply. In an ideal world you should use both for maximum sanitization.
Also just to be a further contrarian, you can technically sanitize and even sterilize the atmosphere in small spaces like labs, this is how labs are decontaminated in cases of serious biological release. It can be done with formaldehyde gas, but before you even say it, of course it has no place in this line of work.
I agree with everything below.
Quote:
Ultraviolet radiation is a form of non-ionizing radiation, and biological effects from it vary with wavelength, photon energy, and duration of exposure. The 100-280 nm wavelength band is designated as UV-C, which is used for germicidal purposes.
The sterilization/decontamination activity of UV lights is limited by a number of factors, including:
Penetration β In the dynamic air streams of BSCs, microorganisms beneath dust particles, plastics, and work surfaces are not affected by the UV light because it cannot penetrate particles so far from the UV source.
Relative humidity β The germicidal effects of UV light drop off precipitously when relative humidity is above 70%.
Temperature and air movement β The optimum temperature for the UV lamp to be effective is 77-80 degrees F. Temperatures below this range result in reduced efficacy, and air movement can exacerbate this.
Cleanliness β Dust and dirt block the germicidal effectiveness of the UV lamp, so weekly cleanings are necessary.
Age β Check UV lamps every six months to assure proper function, as the amount of germicidal wavelength emitted decreases with bulb age and hours of use.
Overuse β UV lights are routinely left on overnight or longer in an effort to decontaminate workspaces, but this practice can result in the germicidal wavelength no longer being produced by the bulb.
For these reasons and other concerns, the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) does not recommend the use of UV lights

 Is this an endorsement? What's supposed to be the takeaway from all that?
Yes, it is. Glad you were able to decipher that .
UV + iso > iso alone (for sanitizing a surface).
-------------------- Any information posted on this website from this account is hypothetical and only to be used for legal purposes.
|
stubb
Dahg Rastubfari


Registered: 03/23/19
Posts: 1,310
Loc: Memory
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: Pscientist]
#28625895 - 01/18/24 12:53 PM (10 days, 2 hours ago) |
|
|
Right on. I've only used UV-C tubes for EPROMs. Definitely underestimated it, burned myself pretty good first time I erased a bunch. How do you employ your UV-C tube for cult work?
--------------------
ππ΄π
°πΌ π
²π»π
Έπ½π
Άπ
ππ°π
Ώ You wake up. The room is spinning very gently round your head. Or at least it would be if you could see it which you can't. It is pitch black. > TURN ON LIGHT
|
normalperson
Stranger


Registered: 10/31/19
Posts: 729
Last seen: 32 seconds
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: Pscientist] 1
#28625947 - 01/18/24 01:53 PM (10 days, 1 hour ago) |
|
|
I think that it would be best that a person practice their sterile technique instead of relying on either chemicals or uv lights to produce clean work. this shit ain't rocket science.
|
HelloImBob
Old Guy

Registered: 03/30/08
Posts: 219
Last seen: 33 seconds
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: normalperson]
#28626108 - 01/18/24 04:13 PM (9 days, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
I will be so glad when this thread stops being bumped.
-------------------- Quote from Stipe-n-Cap "You appear to be talking about boosting tryptamine content in mycelium by amending LC with....whatever your amendments are. I have to say I'm a tad disappointed that you're addressing us with the shorthand of a 13 yo girl who's texting her besty for make-up tips, instead of proper English, which causes me to have doubts."
|
Pscientist
KushKaptain




Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 2,679
Loc: Sirius X1
Last seen: 2 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: HelloImBob]
#28626119 - 01/18/24 04:18 PM (9 days, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
It seems a few here are suggesting we shouldn't discuss something because it could be dangerous when not used in a safe and informed way?
That's a very enlightened perspective. I wonder if that concept has ever failed culturally in the past?
-------------------- Any information posted on this website from this account is hypothetical and only to be used for legal purposes.
|
HelloImBob
Old Guy

Registered: 03/30/08
Posts: 219
Last seen: 33 seconds
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: Pscientist]
#28626244 - 01/18/24 05:31 PM (9 days, 21 hours ago) |
|
|
You sound brilliant.
When you figure out a way to use it, let us know.
Until then I'll only use it for HVAC and fish tanks, EEPROMS ect.
How are you going to sterilize something that grows beneath the surface?
Use agar for cleaning up a culture.
People here waste time and energy trying to do things that will fail instead of doing them the ways that work and have been described in full detail with pictures.
It doesn't get much easier than starting clean grain spawn over and over until you run out of room instead of trying to fix a problem that isn't broken.
Throw out your contams and start over unless your trying to save a rare ass clone or something and in which case you probably aren't in this situation.
-------------------- Quote from Stipe-n-Cap "You appear to be talking about boosting tryptamine content in mycelium by amending LC with....whatever your amendments are. I have to say I'm a tad disappointed that you're addressing us with the shorthand of a 13 yo girl who's texting her besty for make-up tips, instead of proper English, which causes me to have doubts."
|
Pscientist
KushKaptain




Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 2,679
Loc: Sirius X1
Last seen: 2 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: Anyone use UV-C for sterilization? [Re: HelloImBob]
#28626282 - 01/18/24 05:55 PM (9 days, 21 hours ago) |
|
|
There are many possible solutions.
You could purchase a grow tent (6 ft x 4 ft 6ft) for your work and place the uv lamp above your work surface (small desk in tent). You can iso the surface before, shut the tent and turn on the light with the tent closed for 10 minutes and then shut the light off (all from the outside of the tent using the UV lamp cable).
Then go in and iso the surface again if you want (or don't I don't care what anyone does here).
Or you could mount one in a SAB (with an external power cable), UV doesn't really pass through plastic as some naysayers have already pointed out.
Instead of being sure something can't work people should open their minds a bit and think of ways it could.
I want to be clear, I think most of the work people do here can be done in open air, but if we are talking optimal setups there is no need to be close-minded.
-------------------- Any information posted on this website from this account is hypothetical and only to be used for legal purposes.
Edited by Pscientist (01/18/24 05:56 PM)
|
|