[HN Gopher] Ultrasound has potential to damage coronaviruses
___________________________________________________________________
Ultrasound has potential to damage coronaviruses
Author : tracyhenry
Score : 45 points
Date : 2021-03-16 16:47 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.mit.edu)
| twirlock wrote:
| Oh so some kind of high frequency wave. Who could have predicted
| that? Can you imagine all the science required to brainstorm
| about that one?
| pvaldes wrote:
| The theory that a bat virus would be damaged by the same type of
| sounds that bats produce non-stop for hours feels very strange to
| me. If true, this coronaviruses should be extinct since millions
| of years ago. No one single virus would stand the extra loudly
| bat colonies. Specially not rabies virus that has a much more
| fragile structure.
|
| As this does not seem to happen, my bet is that will not work as
| expected. My instinct might be wrong, of course.
| JabavuAdams wrote:
| This is not very convincing, though of course it should be
| followed up on. Considerably more is known about the structure of
| the virus than the article seems to imply.
|
| I'd like to see more about what they mean by simulations "in
| water". If they didn't simulate intermolecular forces at all,
| these results seem unlikely to be relevant.
|
| The details really matter here. Many early visualizations of the
| spike protein only showed the protein amino acid residues, not
| any attached sugars (glycosylation). Turns out the sugars act as
| a reconfigurable armour that was preventing targeting of the
| spike protein by meds.
|
| AI-Driven Multiscale Simulations Illuminate Mechanisms of SARS-
| CoV-2 Spike Dynamics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIReA3s1Nwk
| JetSetWilly wrote:
| > "We've proven that under ultrasound excitation the coronavirus
| shell and spikes will vibrate, and the amplitude of that
| vibration will be very large, producing strains that could break
| certain parts of the virus, doing visible damage to the outer
| shell and possibly invisible damage to the RNA inside," says
| Tomasz Wierzbicki, professor of applied mechanics at MIT.
|
| Why say they have proven it, when all they have done is a
| simulation and they have not demonstrated anything? It seems like
| they have a hypothesis, not that they have "proven" anything.
| scintill76 wrote:
| Also, at least as a layman, the RNA comment makes me a little
| worried about this technique leading to the accidental creation
| of a stronger mutant virus.
| JabavuAdams wrote:
| Gotta market the research to get the sweet sweet grant dollars.
| effie wrote:
| Exactly.
| jandrese wrote:
| As usual there is an xkcd for this.
|
| https://xkcd.com/1217/
|
| I'm not holding my breath on this one. Even if it does work the
| majority of the population will be vaccinated before it is
| approved.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| There's also no practical application for it.
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| COVID-19 is not the only coronavirus disease
| roflc0ptic wrote:
| If this actually causes physical damage to a virus, it raises the
| question for me: what else do ultrasounds physically damage?
| Surely COVID 19 can't be the only thing in our body with a
| resonance frequency in that range
| clairity wrote:
| ultrasounds are done on people all the time, especially during
| pregnancy on relatively fragile fetuses. we'd likely know of
| any serious risks by now. ultrasound is more akin to
| microscopic shaking than a mysterious flux of (highly potent)
| energy.
|
| also consider that the cov2 virus is particularly fragile, for
| instance, requiring the external support of water to remain
| intact. it's why you don't need masks in most common situations
| (just distance), because the virus disintegrates so easily.
|
| some viruses, on the other hand, can essentially hibernate and
| revive themselves once inside a host. those are the ones that
| would require enough excess energy that damage to other cells
| and organelles might be a genuine concern.
| brodouevencode wrote:
| Great point. If you've never had an ultrasound, it's safe
| enough that the technician doing them (who may see dozens of
| patients in a day) isn't even wearing any shielding or
| protection.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Ultrasound is highly directed. The practitioner isn't
| getting exposed to a significant amount of ultrasound
| energy.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Not only is it highly directed, ultrasonic acoustical
| frequencies disperse very quickly in air. At 1MHz, the
| energy absorption in air is ~160dB/meter, so a person
| sitting at arm's length away from the emitter (even if it
| weren't highly directed) would receive ~6*10^-17 of the
| power (if that weren't far below any possible noise
| floor, which it is).
| brodouevencode wrote:
| Good point, and a fair one. I would imagine though if
| there were _any_ chance though they would have to be
| shielded.
| _Microft wrote:
| The proposed ultrasound frequencies are 10-100 times as high
| as the ones usually used for imaging purposes, so the
| conclusion that it must be harmless does not naturally
| follow.
| clairity wrote:
| i haven't delved into the specifics here, but note that a
| higher frequency doesn't necessarily mean a higher flux of
| energy, so that conclusion doesn't necessarily follow
| either.
| _Microft wrote:
| It does not need a _" higher flux of energy"_ to do
| damage. Exciting a system at its resonance frequency can
| increase the amplitude of its vibrations to the point
| that it gets damaged.
|
| This does not take lots of energy, it does not take large
| amplitudes, just periodic input of power at the right
| frequency. Knowing that a system is fine at one frequency
| does not say (that) much about other frequencies.
| clairity wrote:
| yes, resonance can be significant, but that still doesn't
| necessarily mean that the energies here are significant,
| nor that the frequencies applied are the right
| frequencies, and resonant enough, for damage.
|
| the underlying point is that unless we're capable of
| doing the relevant experiments ourselves, we need to
| trust that people in the field are cognizant enough to
| realize these obvious issues, test them, and report their
| findings. it's unlikely that lay people like us are going
| to find and _gotcha_ the researchers in the field.
|
| that's not to say that, in aggregate, we can't give
| researchers ideas about what to be researching. that, we
| can--and should--do, via conversations like this.
| [deleted]
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| But it's worth contrasting with focused ultrasound[1] which
| is used to either heat or shatter tissues, at higher
| frequencies and amplitudes.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
| intensity_focused_ultraso...
| nullserver wrote:
| For a visualization, A lower frequency but high intensity
| method can be used to cook meat.
|
| https://youtu.be/LHFhnnTWMgI
| aksss wrote:
| > "...vibrations between 25 and 100 megahertz"
|
| "Ultrasound frequencies in diagnostic radiology range from
| 2 MHz to approximately 15 MHz"
| https://radiopaedia.org/articles/ultrasound-
| frequencies?lang...
|
| So 10-50 times as high, but yeah.
| idrios wrote:
| Agreed. You could substitute ultrasound waves with
| electromagnetic waves in this same conversation. We use EM
| waves every day for diagnotics -- at the 740-380nm range
| because that's visible light. 10x-100x frequency of that is
| ultraviolet, which _is_ harmful. And as for resonant
| frequencies, it doesn 't seem unreasonable to me that
| certain frequencies could denature certain proteins or have
| other effects.
| goda90 wrote:
| Viruses are considerably smaller than cells, so that probably
| plays a part in damage. Though maybe we should study the
| effects on DNA and organelles within cells.
|
| Also, the body regularly damages itself in attempts to
| eliminate infections. It then can heal. Ultrasound might damage
| other parts of the body, but it might not be worse than what
| the infection itself causes.
| dheera wrote:
| The body is particularly bad at fixing certain kinds of DNA
| damage though, and just lets itself die from cancer.
| NoSorryCannot wrote:
| Ultrasound is just sound above frequencies that humans can
| hear, which is a vast range from ~20khz up to practical
| physical limits, gigahertz at least. Your body has resonant
| parts that can be damaged by frequencies in the _audible_
| range, the chief parts being in your ears but other parts, too,
| if the sound is sufficiently loud, e.g. a shockwave from a
| powerful explosion. So amplitude (volume) is clearly very
| important.
|
| All that to say, I don't think there's any cause here to draw
| suspicion upon sonograms or other time-tested procedures.
| burlesona wrote:
| I was wondering the same thing.
| ergest wrote:
| Might work wonders in being applied to air filters or
| disinfecting large spaces. Not sure if you could run this
| continuously especially when humans are around.
| mminer237 wrote:
| If you don't have humans to worry about, I would think UVC
| light would always be the more effective solution.
| seesawtron wrote:
| Only a simulations study, title misleads one to believe that it
| is "actually" scientifically proven to be true.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-16 23:02 UTC)