Issues with studies from the most-cited far-UVC researcher, plus thoughts on influencers posting misinformation online
A great breakdown of some far-UVC studies that are frequently misused and make dubious claims. We do not know the actual efficacy of far-UVC when it comes to deactivating airborne pathogens, the lamps in studies are not the same as the ones for consumer or business use, and the idea that they're safe for extended use is 1. an assumption with no scientific backing 2. If it's true, aerosolized and droplet-borne pathogens recieve as much or more protection as human eyes with proper tear production 3. The studies showing high efficacy for UVC exceed safe limits for radiation exposure to gain that high efficacy.
It's so frustrating to me that safe-to-use/maintain, cheap, efficient broad spectrum UV light boxes could be produced and deployed to help mitigate the spread of disease, but instead places like Germany are implementing unknown safety and efficacy lamps in public places all because people like the person mentioned in this article are more concerned with selling a product than making a product that does what they say it does.
