Even if true, continued attempts to discredit him in the age of AI deepfakes isn't really gonna get much mileage. Hell, it might even get him more support.
Even if true, continued attempts to discredit him in the age of AI deepfakes isn't really gonna get much mileage. Hell, it might even get him more support.
second measles death in the us, this time an unvaccinated adult in new mexico
dying of preventable diseases to own the libs
In Texas, 39 new cases of measles have been reported in the past 3 days.
Now up to 198 cases.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/40-new...y?id=119545554
LOL yes it works, we nuke the rooms in our ED with it.
You also have to, you know, not be exposed to it. This is like the UV light tubes donny wanted to run down people's throat to kill covid.
Yeah, the harmless part threw me.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2Germicidal ultraviolet light, typically at 254 nm, is effective in this context but, used directly, can be a health hazard to skin and eyes. By contrast, far-UVC light (207–222 nm) efficiently kills pathogens potentially without harm to exposed human tissues.
Sent from my SM-A546U using Tapatalk
That seems unlikely to me. "Potentially without harm" is doing some real work.
The honest truth is that we have had HVAC and hepa filters available for decades and no one has even bothered installing them in schools. Good luck affecting public infrastructure in the US.
The literature is fun for this one. "The dose makes the poison" is true here, but you have to expose skin to levels hundreds of times the "exposure limit value" to induce damage. Key is to make sure you are blocking the slightly longer wavelength light which does cause skin damage.
This guy exposed his inner forearms to intense direct far-UVC light at 65x to 700x the exposure limut values and recorded the results - wasn't finding any molecular changes even at 65x the limit.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8638665/
Sent from my SM-A546U using Tapatalk
What about eye-health?
Here's a 3 year continuous exposure study showing no detrimental effect to the eyes
https://uvmedico.com/news/far-uvc-and-eye-safety
Anyway, the point of the above tweets is the difficulty of testing/approving a promising anti-disease device because the incentives don't line up.
Sent from my SM-A546U using Tapatalk
Eh, maybe. I just don't trust improbable claims coming from biological literature because they make stuff up.
UVA, B, and some of C (254~400nm?) are bad for you and cause skin cancer. X-rays (10nm) also cause cancer, this time deep in your organs too. Between them is one weird trick that industry doesn't want you to know about. Idk, just seems at least as likely to also be cancer to me.
UVA and UVB are the most likely to cause dimerization but frankly I wouldn't just sit under a UV light all day because that's also not good for you.
IDK why uv lights integrated into the HVAC never took off. Seemed like the best of both worlds. Or office lights in a timer or switch so they could be used when the room was empty.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Seeing MAGA comparing fluoride in water to developing "meth mouth".
ah, never heard the term 'far UV' then. still ambivalent on just posting them up everywhere.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy...D-B900347086ED
Measles is officially back, worldwide, after a 25 year hiatus. The anti-vaxxers got their groove back.