Sterilizing Lavs

T

Tom Sheats

Member
Is there a practical way to sterilize lav mics after each use?

I was thinking of wiping the capsule and the cable down with 90% alcohol. Would that damage the mics in any way?
 
Regular soap and water works good for COVID-19 type viruses which is not a living organism, so anything that dissolves fat can be effective. I have used rubbing alcohol in the past for cleaning, though it's been said alcohol can have a negative affect on cables and plastic over time. Avoid getting anything directly on a mic's element.
 
Alcohol works fine. However, the sanitising cloths everyone is using is by far the simplest - they dry out when the alchohol evaporates in a few minutes - so ideal for mics. We've used them for years - not detrimental effects at all.
 
Alcohol is definitely easiest, and nearly as effective as wiping with a soapy damp cloth. Rick R was absolutely correct... you can clean electronics casings with soap. I've done it regularly for over a dozen years working in hospitals. Just be careful, and of course don't suds your lav all up with hot water and expect it to work... sud up a cloth, wring out most of the water, and wipe just like a disinfecting wipe. Wait 20ish seconds, and wipe off with a damp, non-soapy cloth.

Again, it's very effective (arguably most effective), but a cloth dampened with 70% alcohol is much much much easier and worry-free.
 
David W. Jones said:
UV-C Lamp.
Click to expand...

THere are a number of problems with trying to use UVC. First is it's line of sight only, so not great with odd shapes and as a normal person you have an almost zero chance of getting ahold of a real UVC unit. UVC is VERY damaging to living flesh. The units used in hospitals are closed systems kind of like a microwave oven. The "wands" that are all the rage are either way to weak to do much or don't put out UVC at all. Liability would be huge if that were not the case because UVC is NOT something you want to be exposed to. UV in sunlight (UVA, UVB, with basically no UVC) will also work but it takes hours of exposure, and again you have the shado issue. And of course UV of all flavors is rather hard on plastics.
But realistically you probably can't get an effective tool and even if you can it's not particularly effective on things like microphones with lots of nooks and crannies.
 
Noiz2 said:
THere are a number of problems with trying to use UVC. First is it's line of sight only, so not great with odd shapes and as a normal person you have an almost zero chance of getting ahold of a real UVC unit. UVC is VERY damaging to living flesh. The units used in hospitals are closed systems kind of like a microwave oven. The "wands" that are all the rage are either way to weak to do much or don't put out UVC at all. Liability would be huge if that were not the case because UVC is NOT something you want to be exposed to. UV in sunlight (UVA, UVB, with basically no UVC) will also work but it takes hours of exposure, and again you have the shado issue. And of course UV of all flavors is rather hard on plastics.
But realistically you probably can't get an effective tool and even if you can it's not particularly effective on things like microphones with lots of nooks and crannies.
Click to expand...

Yup, good advice. The type of UV light that kills this virus is also extremely dangerous to humans.


Also, do we think we should even be using lavs in these times??? Difficult to socially distance while applying one...
 
Disinfect it, place it on a disinfected surface, allow the talent to then pick it up and instruct them on fitting it themselves.

Alternately, it you really have to, it's not a huge deal to make sure you're wearing a mask, disinfect your gloved hands, and make a quick adjustment... disinfect afterwards or toss the gloves and you'll be fine. Dentist and hygenists put their hands quite solidly in your piehole with similar safety measures, I think tweaking a lav shouldn't be considered a grave risk.
 
Not a grave risk, for sure, but an unnecessary one, particularly given all the faffing around with disinfectant. Also, I always hide lavs, so not so easy to instruct the talent. BTW dentists are shut here due to the supposed risk of COVID-19.
 
Liam Hall said:
Not a grave risk, for sure, but an unnecessary one, particularly given all the faffing around with disinfectant. Also, I always hide lavs, so not so easy to instruct the talent. BTW dentists are shut here due to the supposed risk of COVID-19.
Click to expand...



Use a shorgun mic. then no contact at all. Though it does depend what you are recording.
 
The "risk" is complicated because it's not a known risk. Or rather the consequences are not defined. The average risk is not huge, many folks won't even know they had the virus and most of the rest will have somewhere between mild symptoms and the worst flu you ever had, but won't end up in the hospital. The catch is the rest who will be in grave danger, and there is no way at this time to know which of those groups you will fall in. A LOT has been made of the danger of "older" folks but A) that is fatality for folks who ended up in the hospital and B) it's skewed because of some of the places where the hotspots developed first. The "younger" folks who were told pretty much "don't worry" are actually at as high as or greater risk of getting seriously ill, they just have a higher survival rate. But serious patients have a fairly high risk of long term damage to their kidneys and liver, heart and lungs. And it's looking like folks in the "safer" categories are overly represented in people dyeing from stroke and heart attack, caused by blood clots. And now it turns out kids are not as immune as people thought so...

The whole mask thing doesn't protect you much, unless you are wearing a properly fitted respirator, it mostly helps cut down on the amount of spray you generate thus protecting others.

Headlines have focused on "the risk", and that is either bad or not much depending on how you look at it. But the real issue is not the risk but the consequences. So it's not the end of the world and the odds are you will be OK and maybe only have a rough couple of weeks, but one still needs to be carful because even if you are fine the person you infected might not be so lucky. I know a couple of doctors and we have had a pretty up close and personal experience with this bug here in Detroit. While they do encourage masks, mostly to keep you from spraying surfaces, their big thing is that you are MUCH more likely to pick it up off a surface and infect yourself by touching your face. So they are very big on handwashing and diinfecting surfaces.
With some care it should not be a big deal to place a lav without putting talent at risk.
 
Noiz2 said:
The "risk" is complicated because it's not a known risk. Or rather the consequences are not defined. The average risk is not huge, many folks won't even know they had the virus and most of the rest will have somewhere between mild symptoms and the worst flu you ever had, but won't end up in the hospital. The catch is the rest who will be in grave danger, and there is no way at this time to know which of those groups you will fall in. A LOT has been made of the danger of "older" folks but A) that is fatality for folks who ended up in the hospital and B) it's skewed because of some of the places where the hotspots developed first. The "younger" folks who were told pretty much "don't worry" are actually at as high as or greater risk of getting seriously ill, they just have a higher survival rate. But serious patients have a fairly high risk of long term damage to their kidneys and liver, heart and lungs. And it's looking like folks in the "safer" categories are overly represented in people dyeing from stroke and heart attack, caused by blood clots. And now it turns out kids are not as immune as people thought so...

The whole mask thing doesn't protect you much, unless you are wearing a properly fitted respirator, it mostly helps cut down on the amount of spray you generate thus protecting others.

Headlines have focused on "the risk", and that is either bad or not much depending on how you look at it. But the real issue is not the risk but the consequences. So it's not the end of the world and the odds are you will be OK and maybe only have a rough couple of weeks, but one still needs to be carful because even if you are fine the person you infected might not be so lucky. I know a couple of doctors and we have had a pretty up close and personal experience with this bug here in Detroit. While they do encourage masks, mostly to keep you from spraying surfaces, their big thing is that you are MUCH more likely to pick it up off a surface and infect yourself by touching your face. So they are very big on handwashing and diinfecting surfaces.
With some care it should not be a big deal to place a lav without putting talent at risk.
Click to expand...

You're getting lost in the details. The point of taking safety measures is to slow the spread. It's best to assume everyone is asymptomatic.
 
UVC is not dangerous to humans. The wavelength is so short it can't penetrate the first layer of skin or the cornea of the eye. It is being deployed in hospitals to help prevent airborne pathogens from surviving long enough to be dangerous. UVB is the most dangerous form, causing cataracts and contributing to development of skin cancers.
 
UVC is not dangerous to humans.
Click to expand...
Well...
From WHO
"The three types of UV radiation are classified according to their wavelength. They differ in their biological activity and the extent to which they can penetrate the skin. The shorter the wavelength, the more harmful the UV radiation. However, shorter wavelength UV radiation is less able to penetrate the skin.

Short-wavelength UVC is the most damaging type of UV radiation. However, it is completely filtered by the atmosphere and does not reach the earth's surface."
Click to expand...

And a company that makes UVC sterilizing equipment
"It is unlikely that UVC from artificial sources presents an acute or long-term hazard to human skin. However, UVC is likely to cause acute photokeratitis… UVC exposure is unlikely to cause acute or long-term damage to the skin but can cause severe acute damage to the eye and should not be permitted at all from any tanning device."
Click to expand...

and
"UVC Effect on Skin
Acute (short-term) effects include redness or ulceration of the skin. At high levels of exposure, these burns can be serious. For chronic (long-term) exposures, there is also a cumulative risk, which depends on the amount of exposure during your lifetime. The long-term risk for large cumulative exposure includes premature aging of the skin and skin cancer."
Click to expand...

You are sort of correct in that outside of artificial sources humans on Earth are not going to be exposed to UVC because it is absorbed in the upper atmosphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top