So funny, I remember just a few short months ago when a certain nutritional epi was haphazardly pushing UV systems and was extremely dismissive when I urged him to stop due to various concerns - from regulatory, to efficacy, etc. Alas, it's not like I do this for a living…
https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1291761143908769795 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @SaskiaPopescu
Please tell me it wasn't that stupid intra-tracheal UV device.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
-
Replying to @SaskiaPopescu @dfreedman7
To be clear, UVC is effective against pathogens, it was part of how Riley showed that tuberculosis transmitted through aerosols. But, use ONLY if you can't solve the problem with filtering.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes but UV systems are costly and lose germicidal efficacy over time, requiring lots of preventative maintenance. As Dr. Popescu points out they aren’t well-regulated either in terms of safety or efficacy.
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @jljcolorado and
There is a reason I didn't mention UV systems in my public-facing article! The risks are real and there are too many UV lights available (for veterinarian purposes for example) that might get repurposed. It's definitely if-you-have-to-ask-leave-it-to-experts mitigation.
3 replies 0 retweets 14 likes
It's definitely a case where we need the authorities to step up with guidelines for what filter/dilute means and what to do. They apparently have guidelines for specific types of places in Japan (one for restaurant; one for gym). I may try to get those translated as examples.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.