@Eladar
You are not telling us anything we didn't already know. It seems your interest in science is only related to whatever political stance you think you can alter or kill.
We don't need to go to a site saying light doesn't kill C19. UVC will probably kill ANY germ, bacteria or virus, since the wavelength is similar to the size of the actors. UVC does not penetrate even past the first layer of skin in humans so will not cause burns or such used in reason. If you happen to have a 1000 watt UVC light all bets are off. I am in the process of getting one myself, a company called Xsterilize has them, for about 70 ish bucks.
The bit about taking off your shoes when entering the house for instance could be ameliorated by shining UVC on the soles of shoes for a few minutes and the like.
I also see the possibility of a development of a strong version wearable like those headlights that strap to your forehead but in this case UVC but don't know the power requirements or if there are UVC LED's. LED's are inherently more efficient than most other sources of UV so just not sure, A, if there are at all LED's in that wavelength band and B, the power requirement and therefore the battery life that would allow such a device to be active long enough to make a difference.
Is that enough science for you? I bet a headlight UVC source didn't occur to you.
The most effective wavelength for inactivation, 260 nm (55), falls in the UVC range, so-named to differentiate it from near-UV found in ground-level sunlight, i.e., the UVB and UVA portions of the spectrum, 290 to 320 nm and 320 to 380 nm, respectively (51). Nucleic acids are damaged also by UVB and UVA but with lower efficiency than by UVC radiation (64).
64. Setlow, R. 1960. The use of action spectra to determine the physical state of DNA in vivo. Biochim. Biophys. Acta39:180-181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280232/#!po=41.5000
@eladar saidI'm curious as to how you're getting these references. What I suspect is that you've learnt to type search terms into PubMed, which is fine - but. The "but" is a little complicated and to do with bias. When I do PubMed searches for contributions to this forum I'll sometimes state methods - typically something like "I searched PubMed with the query: "Destruction of viruses with UV light " and only looked at the first page, I selected articles which were free to read.". This is far away from ideal which is read every abstract that comes up and have pre-selected inclusion and exclusion criteria. One ought to also search using additional search queries like: "Destruction of viral DNA by UV", and "Destruction of viral RNA by UV", as well as including some synonyms for destruction. One then eliminates abstracts on the grounds of irrelevance and ends up with a list of papers, which then need to be read and as many eliminated as possible at this stage. This can involve tens of thousands of abstracts and thousands of papers. Clearly this is too much work for a single forum post - I'm just trying to get across the notion that finding odd papers that support what you're saying is not the same as proving anything. You've got a selection bias thing going on, even if it is unintentional.
Case in point, they believe stuff like this without question, the claim to know the science
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/03/30/fact-check-sunlight-does-not-kill-new-coronavirus/2931170001/
Instead of reading this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280232/#!po=41.5000
The most effective wavelength for inactivation, 260 nm (55), falls ...[text shortened]... rmine the physical state of DNA in vivo. Biochim. Biophys. Acta39:180-181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
@DeepThought
I just Google a topic then open links, PubMed is something that is seen as more reliable than wiki. I never search PubMed.
Are you trying to claim the articles I post are not factual?
Everyone should be checking the UV rating to see if the sun is strong enough to do the job.
Seems to me you need high UV to be effective.
LA
https://uv.willyweather.com/ca/los-angeles-county/los-angeles.html
Compared to New York
https://uv.willyweather.com/ny/new-york-county/new-york.html
@eladar saidNo, but you can get a situation where the evidence is unclear and some papers report an effect and others report its absence, so its good to be able to demonstrate that a paper you're quoting isn't the only one to support whatever case you're making with every other one contradicting it. By giving the search terms we can replicate your search. What I was getting at is that that's what makes the discussion scientific rather than just an exercise in propaganda.
@DeepThought
I just Google a topic then open links, PubMed is something that is seen as more reliable than wiki. I never search PubMed.
Are you trying to claim the articles I post are not factual?
If you're looking for papers on medical subjects then PubMed is a good place to search, it'll produce a list of abstracts of peer reviewed articles. The advantage with google is that it produces results like the DHSST report which wouldn't appear in a peer reviewed journal.
@Eladar
I looked deeper at UVC and it is listed as carcinogen so care has to be taken with that wavelength band. Around 200 Nanometer wavelength.
I wonder what X rays would do to viruses. Probably the same but X rays can't be made with LED's just yet😉
@sonhouse saidAnd if you really want to get rid of the virus and don't mind a bit of collateral:
@Eladar
You are not telling us anything we didn't already know. It seems your interest in science is only related to whatever political stance you think you can alter or kill.
We don't need to go to a site saying light doesn't kill C19. UVC will probably kill ANY germ, bacteria or virus, since the wavelength is similar to the size of the actors. UVC does not penetrate eve ...[text shortened]... e a difference.
Is that enough science for you? I bet a headlight UVC source didn't occur to you.
Science is Science, politics should not be involved.
What will happen will happen. Seasonal viruses hit during flu season and go away during the summer. It is common knowledge.
What is not common is the super virus that is not destroyed by what destroys other viruses. Politics says Coronavirus is such a virus. Science says it is destroyed the same way other viruses are destroyed.
@deepthought saidThank you for taking the scientific viewpoint.
I'm curious as to how you're getting these references. What I suspect is that you've learnt to type search terms into PubMed, which is fine - but. The "but" is a little complicated and to do with bias. When I do PubMed searches for contributions to this forum I'll sometimes state methods - typically something like "I searched PubMed with the query: "Destruction of viru ...[text shortened]... same as proving anything. You've got a selection bias thing going on, even if it is unintentional.
May I add? It already cuts a lot of sensationalism if you read original papers instead of what science journalists report (and have to sell) and what journalists report and sell.
If I near a Topic I don't know much About I try to look up recent review papers first (I use Scopus and can filter for "review"😉 this should give a Rough idea About the state of scientific discussion.To go directly into specialist papers is normally a bit cumbersome along with the bias deepthought mentioned.
@Ponderable
I guess you do not understand what I am saying. If someone links a scholarly report on a subject and you disagree, the link an opposing scholarly report.
Do not simply link news article. Worse yet, do not simply state a political point of view.