[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] Grommet

[Paul Garmon]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 8:28 PM Robert Primak <bobprimak at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Natural UV is still the best!
>


I thought Natural UV is the one that's generally accepted to be bad for
people? On top of that, it's too weak to hurt the virus!

Otherwise, why are we all buying so much sunscreen with high SPF #s?

[Obviously the CDC has not revised this to say UV Radiation
<https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/features/uv-radiation-safety/index.html> is the
best. Plus, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 5 to 15 minutes
of sun exposure 2 to 3 times a week, so they need to get with the program
too, huh?]


What I like (which has nothing to do with previously mentioned product) is
possibly using UVC to create a "laminar flow style" virus killer versus
having the current scheme of expensive/unfriendly plexiglass separation,
Well, if it could be made to work!

Ed Nardell, an infectious disease researcher with Harvard Medical School
who has spent much of his career examining UV sanitation, also thinks
far-UVC light is safe enough to use. The light is so easily blocked by dead
skin cells or clothing, he says, that it can be a harm-free method for
disinfecting the air in front of people’s faces — say, in a nail salon
between technician and client.  from:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/are-ultraviolet-sanitizing-lights-safe-for-humans


😂 😷

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20200715/eade9a15/attachment.html>