4 ms·
This is precisely what's addressed by the article though. It's talking about far UV, which based on evidence to date does not cause any damage to skin or eyes.
by tempestn 3y ago
This is precisely what's addressed by the article though. It's talking about far UV, which based on evidence to date does not cause any damage to skin or eyes. The ozone issue certainly needs more study, but I don't see the justification for labelling this an unreliable source. It seems like an accurate overview to me.
- d3bunker 3y agoThis is not a scientific journal, anyway I read the article and it is mix of unrelated sources: - a test on certain UVC wavelength radiation on *MOUSES* - a study of UVC filters for eye safety That to conclude that we should use UVC as anti-virus measure. Has the journalist a degree in biology or medicine ? Are his conclusion supported by a serious medical study , with peer review ? * I don't think so, IMHO , is one that write stuff on Internet, so for someone he is a reliable source. OH PLEASE !!!