I stay FAR away from any avoidable UV lights.
If it’s UV, it’s likely capable of harming human cells - there’s no long-term evidence otherwise. And exposing people to risks repeatedly while insisting IT'S MILD sounds awfully familiar.
It’s extremely concerning and odd that there are people being prompted to demand that government facilities, jails, and schools should implement a technology that has no proven long term safety, which is not FDA approved, and could have grave risks. Experimenting on prisoners, civil servants, children, and others with experimental medical technology which has potential for harm, little proven efficacy, and NO long-term safety evidence, flies in the face of the precautionary principle.1 And encouraging people to implement this in their homes to sell these products is so problematic.
There is a history of UV light disinfection done where people won't be exposed to it in ventilation ducts or vacated rooms. UV light not only kills viruses, but is also well-recognized as very dangerous to any humans and pets who get exposed. It's so treacherous to work with that robots are used to administer it in disinfecting formerly-occupied hospital rooms.2 Another long-standing version of UV germicidal irradiation (UVGI) is via lights near the ceiling of rooms that lack good ventilation -- high up where people don't go. That requires very carefully installed fixtures directed upwards to eliminate risk that people will be exposed to the hazardous light. And there have been incidents where workers at a university were harmed with eye damage because of improper installation of upper room UV.3
“FAR UVC” is UV light, and we know UV light has known damaging effects on skin and eyes. It’s the reason UV has the potential to kill viruses. So if “FAR UVC” wavelengths also kill viruses, it’s not unreasonable to guess that there’s some danger to human tissues. And there has been NO long term evidence on the safety or dangers of this “Far UVC” wavelength of UV.4 When someone claims it’s safer than other wavelengths, they’re making this claim on the absence of evidence, not evidence it’s safe.
Some people, often promoting products - or just hyping this “new technology” - often have been pointing to studies that have been ridiculously small and that don’t actually back up the safety claims at all. Fraudulent Appeal to Authority - the tactic of citing sources that don’t actually back up a claim,5 is sadly very much rampant in marketing that happens on social media.
In one case a study that has been cited, it was one person experimenting on themselves! This person exposed their own skin and gave themselves a yellow spot sunburn with the “far uvc” wavelength. We have no idea what’s going to happen to that person some years from now, or the tissue on that person’s body that was affected. This is not a reassuring thing to cite as reason to trust exposure to UV at any wavelength is safe. The study itself includes the statement: “This single individual study does not provide a definitive answer to the question of skin safety. Our study is the basis for future exploration above the current ICNIRP limit values, which would allow quicker inactivation of the virus than is currently permitted in occupied spaces. Furthermore, what this research and other published literature clearly highlight is that the hazard of all wavelengths emitted must be appropriately assessed—it is too simplistic to state that far-UVC devices are “safe for humans.””6
It's only appropriate to expose people to risks with uncertain benefits in the context of a research study with an appropriate consent process.
In 2020 Government Executive reported that during the Trump administration a union complaint to the IG objected to the Federal Bureau of Prisons spending $3 million on unproven UV coronavirus sanitizing portals because they hadn’t been studied enough to know if they’re safe or effective. A UV expert is quoted in the article as saying that there’s no research to show what are the long-term effects on humans of Far-UVC wavelengths. And the International Ultraviolet Association told Government Executive: "Based on currently available contract information, the International Ultraviolet Association understands the BOP has procured far UV-C devices (i.e., UV sanitary entry gates) that would be used to directly expose people to UV light, which IUVA cautioned against in April 2020.”7
Government workers are typically represented by unions which I hope will continue to push back against being guinea pigs in a “let’s see how long it takes for a whole department of civil servants to need disability retirement due to vision loss and skin cancer” experiment.
Kaitlin Sundling responded to someone on Mastodon who had their interest piqued by the mention of FAR UVC with this caution: ”unfortunately Far UVC is not a good precaution - not proven to work, and not proven to be safe. It’s unethical to expose people to unregulated and unproven UV devices without consent.”8 Dr. Sundling has some good advice for questions that should be asked9 before even considering purchasing such products:
Here is my list of questions that I would need suitably answered before considering use of Far-UVC technology in any setting:
How can a consumer tell that the device is working?
How can a consumer tell that the device is safe?
Is the device approved by the EPA or any other government agency pertaining to safety and efficacy?
What organizations certify the safety and efficacy of the device?
What professional medical or public health organizations have endorsed the device?
What is the spectral power distribution (how much light is emitted at various wavelengths) of the device? How can a consumer verify the power of light emitted at 222 nm (Far-UVC) compared to the power of light emitted at other wavelengths?
How does the safety and efficacy of the device change over time?
Are ozone or other toxic byproducts generated during use (from the interaction of Far-UVC light and materials in the room) that would impact indoor air quality?
How can consumers be sure they are not receiving a counterfeit device?
Provide the peer-reviewed publications detailing the research data regarding the safety of the device regarding eye exposure (corneal damage and cataract development) and skin damage (sunburn and skin cancer risk). Have the results been independently verified in multiple, large-scale clinical trials? What was the length of follow up?
So far, none of the devices I have come across pass muster.
And yet, today there are still more pushing to implement such pandemic profiteering Trumpian privatization boondoggle experimentation on government workers and prisoners. It’s hard to square this as being in line with public health activism, progressive values, and, again, the precautionary principle that is so fundamental to the point of pandemic public safety advocacy.
To impose FAR UVC at government facilities would be experimentation. Nobody should be suggesting that we implement experimenting with this in jails and detention centers. It’s unethical to use experimental medical technology on prisoners. There’s a long history of gruesomeness in this area. Reported in 2022: “A prominent California medical school has apologized for conducting dozens of unethical medical experiments on at least 2,600 incarcerated men in the 1960s and 1970s, including putting pesticides and herbicides on the men’s skin and injecting it into their veins.”10
I can just imagine that at the time somebody probably claimed that this was an exciting innovation. I can’t repeat enough that when you hear the word “innovation” it could be a glaring red flag that someone’s full of it and trying to promote or defend something dubious. History is full of examples, it wasn’t unique to Stockton Rush, famous for imploding himself and others in a shoddy submarine. Stockton Rush said he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation"11 and then went to his watery grave in a weird submarine that many had warned was not safe.12 Processed food manufacturers in the 1960s argued that stipulating that peanut butter needs to be made out of peanuts would “stifle innovation” in the peanut butter market.13
A lot of the hype around “FAR UVC” is done by scientists and engineers who are understandably excited about new technology and merely possible future usages for that technology. But history could give us a warning about people selling stuff based on scientists getting excited. A Behind the Bastards podcast about William Bailey told the story of how Marie Curie went around hyping excitement about radiation, and then a bunch of grifters used that hype to scam people with conditions and illnesses, selling them radiation quack “cures” that harmed and killed people desperate for treatment for various ailments.14 There’s a reason they covered this guy on Behind the Bastards podcast, Bailey was horrible - scamming people, promising cures, taking their money, and leaving them worse off dying of radiation poisoning. Marie Curie herself died of illness related to extensive exposure to radiation, and her body and her work notebooks are stored in lead because they’ll be radioactive for the next 1,500 years.15 One cannot assume that scientists and engineers working in their field, and speaking about it, are automatically experts on safety of their research focus.
Someone once sent me a screenshot from Facebook and what someone described as a copy pasted shipping email from a "Far-UVC" company claiming that their product had "completed and passed its final round of FCC regulatory testing" and had "consumer rated FCC approval" - which people took to mean some kind of efficacy or safety testing, but the FCC is not a medical regulatory body, they're the Federal Communications Commission, a government agency that issues radio licenses like for amateur operators of HAM or GMRS or commercial radio and television channels, their website describes the FCC as regulating "interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable."16
The EPA actually issued a statement in 2020 to say: “Unlike chemical pesticides, EPA does not routinely review the safety or efficacy of UV light devices and, therefore, EPA has not conducted a human health risk assessment to determine the safety of these products.”17
Another vendor has been promoting their products on their marketing website as a way to “expedite the return to normalcy” and suggested “widespread adoption” of their products was the ticket to that normalcy.
But this unproven technology, and possibly dangerous products being sold online without any guarantee of their wavelength and no way to be sure what the heck they are, are being hyped on social media by influencers who may not be disclosing compensation they’re getting to advertise these products. And if Kim Kardashian thought she could get away with not disclosing payment for hyping a cryptocurrency, imagine all the small fry that could get away with it because the SEC doesn’t necessarily investigate every small time influencer receiving a couple hundred dollars, like they do a Kardashian receiving $250k.18
Unproven products of various types are being target marketed especially on “covid twitter” and “still coviding facebook” groups, where worried high risk people are desperate for anything in the absence of proper public health measures and mitigations, and they are being sold dubious products promising to protect people from covid.
Dubious actors have pushed quack cures mostly to right-wingers since the start of the pandemic, but more recently have been targeting Long Covid sufferers across the political spectrum who are desperate for answers and willing to try dangerous and even disproven cures like colloidal silver,19 ivermectin,20 and treatments being prescribed off-label based on a more than year-old preprint of a small study that had not been through peer review.21
We are less likely to see our own cognitive biases being leveraged. It’s easy for many on the left to recognize how MAGA Trumpers are being manipulated by Qanon wellness influencers hyping products. But we forget that we may not notice our own confirmation biases and desires being targeted by manipulative advertising. An influencer may say “follow the science” and then link to an actual scientific study, but that is by no means a definitive robust support of their claims. Often in these instances it’s just some preliminary small study conducted years ago and never replicated, and in some cases bad actors or ignorant re-posters are guilty of straight up fraudulent appeal to authority and the linked item doesn’t back up the claim at all. Conspirituality Podcast has an episode that mentioned this, and other tips on what to look for and consider when reviewing a scientific study that is used to promote a health product.22
Some of the FAR-UVC science studies that get promoted as proof of efficacy have direct conflicts of interest, and they’re often disclosed, if you know to look for that: such as “The authors declare the following pending patent”23 or the author “has a granted patent”24 or information about the funding of the study being funded by the manufacturer of a product. Many of the studies that get passed around as in support of buying these products actually in fact warn of the potential safety issues, such as that “there is no positive study on the impact of this radiation on human eyes”25 and that “stray emissions can greatly impact the total hazard.”26 The FDA had issued a statement that “long-term safety data is lacking”.27
And then there are the people who are especially at risk from UV, so even if it might not be as huge a risk for some, for others, it can be far more serious, according to the American Cancer Society which has a list of factors that affect risk from UV rays, including organ transplants and medications that lower your immune system.28 So some people with high covid risk would be put especially at risk from UV light, more so than the average person, even light at supposedly less penetrating wavelengths.
UV lamps generate ozone, and that can adversely affect air quality. Ozone inhalation can be irritating to the airways.29 And there’s a report that says that FAR-UVC generates ozone in “amounts an order of magnitude larger than previous reports” had claimed.30 More evidence this isn’t settled science, not by a long shot.
And just in case somebody doesn’t know about the fake science, yes, that’s a thing - there are fake science journals and fake academic conferences, who according to a presentation at DEF CON 26 in 2018: “Until recently, these fake science factories have remained relatively under the radar, with few outside of academia aware of their presence; but the highly profitable industry is growing significantly and with it, so are the implications. To the public, fake science is indistinguishable from legitimate science, which is facing similar accusations itself. Our findings highlight the prevalence of the pseudo-academic conferences, journals and publications and the damage they can and are doing to society.”31
The bullshit asymmetry principle32 makes it very difficult to counter the vast PR that’s being promoted, both by paid actors, and true believer converts that have been convinced by advertising or online cults.33 If that’s you or someone you know, there’s no reason to feel bad about it, advertising and targeted marketing works - nobody is immune. That’s why companies spend so much on advertising, and why straight up scammers spend so much on social engineering online.34 Unfortunately the sunk cost fallacy bias35 means that many people who’ve already invested thousands of dollars or thousands of hours on this or who are being paid to promote it, will not want to face the music of the problems here. Nevertheless, it’s a public health issue, much like the pandemic. Safety issues can’t be ignored, they don’t go away on their own.
Image is text of a quote: “The corporations and their hired guns market their studies and reports as sound science, but actually they just sound like science. Such bought and paid for corporate research is sanctified, while any academic research that might threaten corporate interest is vilified.” - Dr. David Michaels, The Triumph of Doubt 2020
Image is the meme with the face of the cartoon Garfield the cat and the caption reads You are not immune to propaganda.
Image is a photo of Carl Sagan with his quote: "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." - Carl Sagan, the demon-haunted world, 1995
References:
Sonia Boutillon, The Precautionary Principle: Development of an International Standard, 23 MICH. J. INT'L L. 429 (2002). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol23/iss2/7 Having its origin with the rise of environmentalism in Germany in the 1970s,2 the precautionary principle was exported to the United States in the 1980s before it became an element of the European Community's environmental policy in the 1990s.3 At the same time, the principle was incorporated into numerous international conventions and declarations, not limited to environmental law.4 Despite this thirty year history, defining the precautionary principle remains problematic (as will be further discussed), with the Rio Declaration providing the most commonly stated definition: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."5 As this definition indicates, although significant scientific advances have been made, science is, as yet, incapable of addressing ever-growing global threats to human health and the environment. The precautionary principle is intended to take into account these limits of science in addressing grave or irreversible risks. More importantly, however, it addresses the temptation for decision makers to rely on scientific expertise in order to avoid taking responsibility for their policies, requiring experts to recognize the imperfection of their science and placing the burden on policymakers to decide what level of risk is acceptable. The precautionary principle applies when (1) a situation (use of a substance, or behavior, for example) exists, (2) which may threaten the environment or human health in a grave or irreversible way, and (3) there is a serious risk that the threat will materialize. Implicit in this setting is the scientific uncertainty about the nature and extent of the threat, or uncertainty as to the realization of the risk into a major harm.
Geneseo faculty say an experiment using ultraviolet light to kill COVID-19 damaged their eyes - WXXI News | By Beth Adams Published April 14, 2022 The inspection report, obtained by WXXI, indicated that caution signs were not used to warn against the UVC light fixtures’ potential hazards, and that they were improperly installed in five Welles Hall classrooms. The manufacturer's instructions say they should be placed 9 feet from the floor, but those fixtures were mounted at between 7 feet and 7 feet, 9 inches. Some were installed upside down. In addition, the violation notice said the devices were not assessed before they were installed at Welles Hall.
Internet Archive webpage - US FDA - UV Lights and Lamps: Ultraviolet-C Radiation, Disinfection, and Coronavirus There is some evidence that excimer lamps, with peak wavelength of 222-nm may cause less damage to the skin, eyes, and DNA than the 254 nm wavelength, but long-term safety data is lacking.
Extreme Exposure to Filtered Far-UVC: A Case Study - Ewan Eadie, Isla M. R. Barnard, Sally H. Ibbotson, Kenneth Wood - First published: 20 January 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13385 This single individual study does not provide a definitive answer to the question of skin safety. Our study is the basis for future exploration above the current ICNIRP limit values, which would allow quicker inactivation of the virus than is currently permitted in occupied spaces. Furthermore, what this research and other published literature clearly highlight is that the hazard of all wavelengths emitted must be appropriately assessed—it is too simplistic to state that far-UVC devices are “safe for humans.”
Government Executive - Federal Bureau of Prisons Spent $3M on Unproven UV Coronavirus Sanitizing Portals The gates intended to disinfect staff as they enter facilities haven’t been studied enough to know if they are safe or effective, union says in complaint to IG. Courtney Bublé | August 6, 2020 While some studies have shown UV can be used against the coronavirus, “the problem is that there’s no research to show what the long-term effect of these wavelengths is on humans,” said Jim Bolton, international expert on the application of UV light. “In my view it’s not advisable to go ahead with the application...until the research is done.” Similarly, the International Ultraviolet Association gave the following statement to Government Executive: "Based on currently available contract information, the International Ultraviolet Association understands the BOP has procured far UV-C devices (i.e., UV sanitary entry gates) that would be used to directly expose people to UV light, which IUVA cautioned against in April 2020. Further, per its July 2020 position paper, IUVA holds that there is not yet sufficient evidence to support widespread application of far UV-C where direct human exposure is anticipated, and that far UV-C not be implemented as an unshielded disinfection technology until sufficient evidence for safety is presented, and suitable protocols for application are established.” The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine also said more research is needed on using UV light to curb the spread of coronavirus.
Kaitlin Sundling, MD, PhD @kaitlinsundling@med-mastodon.com Jul 10, 2024, 18:58 @ChrisFerguson @luckytran unfortunately Far UVC is not a good precaution - not proven to work, and not proven to be safe. It’s unethical to expose people to unregulated and unproven UV devices without consent. More info on proven air cleaning and the problems with Far UVC. https://precaution.substack.com/p/safer-air-needs-proven-technology I appreciate her advocacy for masks and air filtration. [mask smiley emoji]
STAT - California medical school apologizes for unethical prisoner experiments By Associated Press Dec. 23, 2022 “A prominent California medical school has apologized for conducting dozens of unethical medical experiments on at least 2,600 incarcerated men in the 1960s and 1970s, including putting pesticides and herbicides on the men’s skin and injecting it into their veins.”
BBC News US & Canada - Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show. By Rebecca Morelle, Alison Francis & Gareth Evans, June 23, 2023 Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation". The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said. "I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'". In the messages, Mr Rush, who was among five passengers who died when the Titan experienced what officials believe was a "catastrophic implosion" on Sunday, expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures. "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often," he wrote. "I take this as a serious personal insult." Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65998914
The Guardian - Titanic submersible: documents reveal multiple concerns raised over safety of vessel. Exclusive: OceanGate founder told Guardian his sub was designed to get ‘very close’ to wreck, after industry leaders urged firm to have it assessed. Jonathan Yerushalmy and Ashifa Kassam, Tue 20 Jun 2023 On Tuesday, the New York Times published a letter written in 2018 by industry leaders in the submersible vessel field, warning Rush of possible “catastrophic” problems with Titan’s development. The Marine Technology Society, an industry group made up of ocean engineers, technologists, policymakers and educators, expressed “concern regarding the development of Titan and the planned Titanic expeditions” and warned against the “current experimental approach adopted by OceanGate”. At issue was whether the Titan vessel would be independently assessed by industry regulators or risk assessors. The Marine Technology Society was critical of OceanGate issuing marketing material that stated the Titan design would “meet or exceed the DNV-GL safety standards” while apparently not intending to have the vessel assessed by that same organisation.
KRAMPNER, JON. Creamy and Crunchy: An Informal History of Peanut Butter, the All-American Food. Columbia University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.7312/kram16232 Neither was Desmond impressed by the peanut butter industry’s argument that imposing a minimum of 90 percent in peanuts in peanut butter would stifle innovation. Questioning Skippy official Lee Avera during the hearings, she bridled when he said, “I feel we must not and cannot freeze America or industry at its present levels of expertise in food manufacture, because we have too much to gain on the plus side.”61Desmond’s retort: “May we not also gain very bad health, which would be on the minus side, from too much experimentation with improperly tested additives with respect to the lifetime effects?”62
Business Insider - Personal effects of 'the mother of modern physics will be radioactive for another 1500 years - Barbara Tasch Aug 24, 2015 Marie Curie, known as the "mother of modern physics," died from aplastic anemia, a rare condition linked to high levels of exposure to her famed discoveries, the radioactive elements polonium and radium.
Federal Communications Commission | About the FCC \ What We Do The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY COMPLIANCE ADVISORY October 2020 - EPA Regulations About UV Lights that Claim to Kill or Be Effective Against Viruses and Bacteria Unlike chemical pesticides, EPA does not routinely review the safety or efficacy of UV light devices and, therefore, EPA has not conducted a human health risk assessment to determine the safety of these products. For the same reason, EPA cannot confirm whether, or under what circumstances, UV light devices might be effective against any pest, including viruses and bacteria.
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION - Press Release SEC Charges Kim Kardashian for Unlawfully Touting Crypto Security FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2022-183 Washington D.C., Oct. 3, 2022 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against Kim Kardashian for touting on social media a crypto asset security offered and sold by EthereumMax without disclosing the payment she received for the promotion. Kardashian agreed to settle the charges, pay $1.26 million in penalties, disgorgement, and interest, and cooperate with the Commission’s ongoing investigation. The SEC’s order finds that Kardashian failed to disclose that she was paid $250,000 to publish a post on her Instagram account about EMAX tokens, the crypto asset security being offered by EthereumMax. Kardashian’s post contained a link to the EthereumMax website, which provided instructions for potential investors to purchase EMAX tokens. "This case is a reminder that, when celebrities or influencers endorse investment opportunities, including crypto asset securities, it doesn’t mean that those investment products are right for all investors," said SEC Chair Gary Gensler. "We encourage investors to consider an investment’s potential risks and opportunities in light of their own financial goals."
Lefty zine promoting right-wing pseudoscience protocols of an expensive concierge clinic? Chloe Humbert · Apr 10, 2024 It’s a telehealth clinic in the concierge startup model whose website says they’re serving less than 10 states at this time, with plans to serve more, and that boasts offering a range of treatments “based on the latest research” — which I guess seems to mean including remedies which have not been proven effective or not been proven safe. The link takes you directly to about 35 seconds into the video to a point where on the screen is a presentation slide with the words “colloidal silver” next to a screenshot of a PLOS ONE study titled “Evaluation of silver nanoparticles for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health workers”.
A Long Hauler Redditor. A review of a long hauler’s self-reported story posted across 9+ months of reddit posts. Chloe Humbert · Apr 30, 2024 On June 26, 2023, Hi_its_GOD posted in the r/covidlonghaulers reddit saying Dr. Vaughn had “graded” their “microclots pervasiveness” as 3.5/4.0. They said they expected to take an antiviral plus 3 blood thinners, but they gave them a script for ivermectin, which they were skeptical about, but also had heard the (inaccurate) defense that the studies were supposedly “designed to fail”.[7] (There’s no evidence of this.)
Vaughn, what team is he actually on? A second opinion on the politics of the pandemic healthcare landscape. Chloe Humbert · May 8, 2024 In September 2023, NPR reported that Pretorius was sharing not yet peer-reviewed data from a study that was not a clinical trial, of an experimental treatment that showed some risks including reported nosebleeds and a gastrointestinal bleed.[60] In late December 2023, Pretorius laments that the establishment hasn’t been convinced of the “diagnostic methods and treatments available” and tags radiologist Graham Lloyd-Jones, respiratory physician David Joffe, and Dr. Jordan F Vaughn.[61] The March 2023 preprint is still listed as a preprint in May 2024.[62] In the interview with Gez Medinger in May 2023, Jordan Vaughn says “Jaco is really kind of my um you know in many ways mentor on this therapy” and says “for the most part my triple therapy or triple treatment is basically straight off what Jaco is doing” — referring apparently to Gert Jacobus (Jaco) Laubscher, the first listed co-author on the “Triple Anticoagulant Therapy” study preprint, and he mentioned planning to publish with Doug Kell soon, also a co-author on that preprint.[63]
Buonanno M, Welch D, Brenner DJ. Exposure of Human Skin Models to KrCl Excimer Lamps: The Impact of Optical Filtering†. Photochem Photobiol. 2021 May;97(3):517-523. doi: 10.1111/php.13383. Epub 2021 Feb 5. PMID: 33465817; PMCID: PMC8247880. The authors declare the following pending patent: Patent Title: “Apparatus, method and system for selectively affecting and/or killing a virus”. Applicant: The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. Inventors: Gerhard Randers‐Pehrson, David Jonathan Brenner, Alan Bigelow. Application #: US20180169279A1. Aspect of manuscript covered in patent application: Spectrum filtering elements such as multilayer dielectric filters or chemical filters are used to remove unwanted wavelengths, or those wavelengths that can be outside of the preferable range of wavelengths.
Buonanno, M., Welch, D., Shuryak, I. et al. Author Correction: Far-UVC light (222 nm) efficiently and safely inactivates airborne human coronaviruses. Sci Rep 11, 19569 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97508-9 “The authors declare the following pending patent: Patent Title: “Apparatus, method and system for selectively affecting and/or killing a virus”. Applicant: The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. Inventors: Gerhard Randers-Pehrson, David Jonathan Brenner, Alan Bigelow. Application #: US20180169279A1. Aspect of manuscript covered in patent application: Use of filtered 222 nm UV light to kill viruses
Hessling M, Haag R, Sieber N, Vatter P. The impact of far-UVC radiation (200-230 nm) on pathogens, cells, skin, and eyes - a collection and analysis of a hundred years of data. GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2021 Feb 16;16:Doc07. doi: 10.3205/dgkh000378. PMID: 33643774; PMCID: PMC7894148. Conclusion: The approach is very promising, especially for temporary applications, but the data is still sparse. Investigations with high far-UVC doses over a longer period of time have not yet been carried out, and there is no positive study on the impact of this radiation on human eyes.
Buonanno, M., Welch, D., Shuryak, I. et al. Far-UVC light (222 nm) efficiently and safely inactivates airborne human coronaviruses. Sci Rep 10, 10285 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67211-2 Due to their increased penetration (17), such off‐nominal wavelengths could potentially traverse and damage the DNA of human cells. As we demonstrated here, it is incorrect to presume the TLV of a lamp by considering only the peak of the spectral output. Such assumptions can result in incorrect calculations of the effective hazard of a lamp since stray emissions can greatly impact the total hazard.
Internet Archive webpage - US FDA - UV Lights and Lamps: Ultraviolet-C Radiation, Disinfection, and Coronavirus There is some evidence that excimer lamps, with peak wavelength of 222-nm may cause less damage to the skin, eyes, and DNA than the 254 nm wavelength, but long-term safety data is lacking.
American Cancer Society - What Factors Affect UV Risk? What other factors affect my risk of damage from UV rays? In addition to skin tone, other factors can also affect your risk of damage from UV rays. You need to be especially careful in the sun if you: Have had skin cancer in the past Have a family history of skin cancer, especially melanoma Have many moles, irregular moles, or large moles Have freckles and burn before tanning Have fair skin, blue or green eyes, or blond, red, or light brown hair Live or vacation at high altitudes (UV rays are stronger the higher up you are) Live or vacation in tropical or subtropical climates Work indoors all week and then get intense sun exposure on weekends Spend a lot of time outdoors Have certain autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE or lupus) Have certain inherited conditions that increase your risk of skin cancer, such as xeroderma pigmentosum (XP) or nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome (Gorlin syndrome). Have a medical condition that weakens your immune system, such as infection with HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) Have had an organ transplant Take medicines that lower or suppress your immune system Take medicines that make your skin more sensitive to sunlight
California Air Resources Board - Ozone & Health - Health Effects of Ozone Inhalation of ozone causes inflammation and irritation of the tissues lining human airways, causing and worsening a variety of symptoms. Exposure to ozone can reduce the volume of air that the lungs breathe in and cause shortness of breath. Ozone in sufficient doses increases the permeability of lung cells, rendering them more susceptible to toxins and microorganisms. The occurrence and severity of health effects from ozone exposure vary widely among individuals, even when the dose and the duration of exposure are the same.
Significant Production of Ozone from Germicidal UV Lights at 222 nm Zhe Peng, Douglas A. Day, Guy A. Symonds, Olivia J. Jenks, Harald Stark, Anne V. Handschy, Joost A. de Gouw, and Jose L. Jimenez Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2023 10 (8), 668-674 DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00314 Lamps emitting at 222 nm have attracted recent interest for germicidal ultraviolet disinfection (“GUV222”). Their impact on indoor air quality is considered negligible. In this study, ozone formation is observed for eight different lamps from five manufacturers, in amounts an order of magnitude larger than previous reports.
DEF CON 26 - Svea, Suggy, Till - Inside the Fake Science Factory - Sep 17, 2018 Fake News has got a sidekick and it's called Fake Science. This talk presents the findings and methodology from a team of investigative journalists, hackers and data scientists who delved into the parallel universe of fraudulent pseudo-academic conferences and journals; Fake science factories, twilight companies whose sole purpose is to give studies an air of scientific credibility while cashing in on millions of dollars in the process. Until recently, these fake science factories have remained relatively under the radar, with few outside of academia aware of their presence; but the highly profitable industry is growing significantly and with it, so are the implications. To the public, fake science is indistinguishable from legitimate science, which is facing similar accusations itself. Our findings highlight the prevalence of the pseudo-academic conferences, journals and publications and the damage they can and are doing to society.
Williamson, P. Take the time and effort to correct misinformation. Nature 540, 171 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/540171a Most researchers who have tried to engage online with ill-informed journalists or pseudoscientists will be familiar with Brandolini’s law (also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle): the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Is it really worth taking the time and effort to challenge, correct and clarify articles that claim to be about science but in most cases seem to represent a political ideology? I think it is. Challenging falsehoods and misrepresentation may not seem to have any immediate effect, but someone, somewhere, will hear or read our response. The target is not the peddler of nonsense, but those readers who have an open mind on scientific problems. A lie may be able to travel around the world before the truth has its shoes on, but an unchallenged untruth will never stop.
Ally, role model, or celebrity influencer? For Thee But Not For Me is not public health. A few things to consider regarding the social media public health cult of personalities and the appearance of impropriety. CHLOE HUMBERT JUN 02, 2023 But these are people who are putting themselves out there as role models and leaders and social media influencers. And they often cultivate that following which makes it more confusing for some of us - why on earth they would diss their disabled and immunocompromised followers so blatantly. They enjoy the celebrity, but seem to think that their followers should just accept whatever they do, even when they say one thing and do another.
Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow, 2013 An ironic example that Thaler related in an early article remains one of the best illustrations of how mental accounting affects behavior: Two avid sports fans plan to travel 40 miles to see a basketball game. One of them paid for his ticket; the other was on his way to purchase a ticket when he got one free from a friend. A blizzard is announced for the night of the game. Which of the two ticket holders is more likely to brave the blizzard to see the game? The answer is immediate: we know that the fan who paid for his ticket is more likely to drive. Mental accounting provides the explanation. We assume that both fans set up an account for the game they hoped to see. Missing the game will close the accounts with a negative balance. Regardless of how they came by their ticket, both will be disappointed— but the closing balance is distinctly more negative for the one who bought a ticket and is now out of pocket as well as deprived of the game. Because staying home is worse for this individual, he is more motivated to see the game and therefore more likely to make the attempt to drive into a blizzard. These are tacit calculations of emotional balance, of the kind that System 1 performs without deliberation. The emotions that people attach to the state of their mental accounts are not acknowledged in standard economic theory. An Econ would realize that the ticket has already been paid for and cannot be returned. Its cost is “sunk” and the Econ would not care whether he had bought the ticket to the game or got it from a friend (if economists have friends). To implement this rational behavior, System 2 would have to be aware of the counterfactual possibility: “Would I still drive into this snowstorm if I had gotten the ticket free from a friend?” It takes an active and disciplined mind to raise such a difficult question.
I once considered a UV light for inside my furnace (so definitely not exposing us directly), but it purposely put hydrogen peroxide in the air, and also couldn't guarantee not to put O3 in the air. I could not find any research into the safety of such a thing, and was thoroughly worried that this was a thing people could just buy.
Thanks for some science-based, non-commercial comments! I totally agree, as someone with vision issues who really, really needs to avoid unnecessary UV lights as a result. I'd be happy to have them INSIDE vents, but NOT shining down on humans!