![]() | A fact from Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 September 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article merged: See old talk-pages here and here
This article is mere propaganda, and does not deserve to be on Wikipedia's Main Page. UV's main drawback is its lack of a residual, meaning that any germ that by chance survives the radiation, can begin to reproduce happily in the piping system once this single hurdle of UV radiation is taken. The odds of survival are in fact quite high, because the radiation intensity decreases exponentially an a straight path, being further attenuated fpr spatial reasons (radial rather than parallel light beams), so that many commercial systems contain lines through which germs could theoretically pass rather unharmed. In fact, I have seen commercial systems where after the UV system the germ count was higher than before, owing to biofilm development at the exit parts that are not exposed to radiation, and where because of tha lack of a residual, there is no disinfection at all. In addition, "real" water contains lots of material that can scatter light, further attenuating UV intensity. Because of Rayleigh's scattering law (scattering depends on wavelength to the fourth power!!!), the popular absorbance measurements to determine UV teatability are just window dressing, and not based on thorough science. To make things worse, UV destroys all common chemicals that may have been used prior to the water being irradiated. The biased praise of UV in this article is unwarranted. (PeterH, 2006-09-12)
As the author of this let me state for the record: I wrote this based on an article I read in regards to ultraviolet used to remove allergens from circulating air. I wanted to check the article against Wiki and was surprised there was limited information about it in the Ultraviolet section. I had no agenda and I certainly don't advocate it. Just being bold. Please update the article with any information that corrects my errors. -- PDream
I changed "10's of seconds" to "under a minute." Originally I was going to just fix the "10's" ( http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp) but that still sounded awkward.
ChrisKurtz ( talk) 06:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
There are two articles with substantially overlapping content. I propose they be merged with this one. zazpot ( talk) 22:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph is a mismash of semi-related ideas. UV have nothing to do with making water hard. The boiling does not have to be done on a biomass stove. It is not clear what is meant by chlorine treating "larger organisms." The connection with UV and expensive drill rigs is non-existent. And UV does not make wells "immobile." The advantages section does not really give the advantages of UV. KudzuVine ( talk) 13:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This line is a chemical property of the mercury plasma and does not shift or widen with regard to power fluctuations. Article was updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.249.3 ( talk) 20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I wish this article said why reflective linings has the greatest positive effect on the SODIS method. I had figured out that by applying it onto the SODIS method, and testing my water samples. I'm still having trouble finding the answer to my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.121.218 ( talk) 21:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with PeterH, this is propaganda. The author just used scientific words. 24.225.121.218 ( talk) 16:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)g
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit old. Note, "Although research of this technology is still in its infancy, improvements to UV-LEDs are expected to occur rapidly following visible LED source trajectories, resulting in a high efficiency, low input power product." and "Limited research has been conducted on the effective- ness of UV-LEDs for water disinfection" and "Combining projected improvements to power output, lifetime, and cost per mW, results in UV-LEDs being a feasible option and an improvement over LP systems around the year 2013 ( Table 2 )."
Do we have sources showing these projections have been met? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
UV irradiation can remove estrogenicity from a water supply; such estrogenicity may be gained from exposure to EE2, which is overwhelmingly the most common type of synthetic, estrogen used in the contraceptive pill; a woman who takes the contraceptive pill, may excrete EE2 in her urine or feces. According to Zhang, 'Results showed that more than 95% of the estrogenicity was removed after 40 min irradiation and that the parent compound EE2 was mainly responsible for the observed estrogenicity. [1]
UV irradiation can remove estrogenicity from water; such estrogenicity may be gained from exposure to EE2, which is overwhelmingly the most common type of synthetic, estrogen used in the contraceptive pill; a woman who takes the contraceptive pill, may excrete EE2 in her urine or feces. In regard to the ability of UV irradiation to remove estrogenicity from an aqueous solution, Zhang states, 'Results showed that more than 95% of the estrogenicity was removed after 40 min irradiation and that the parent compound EE2 was mainly responsible for the observed estrogenicity.<ref>
I don't see a solution without finding some non-primary sources that put this type of research into context which we can then follow. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
References
I'm thinking of putting stuff like this in the article. DMBFFF ( talk) 19:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Can mention of "far-UVC" light, which is currently being used to kill germs in air, be added to this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 22:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
As of 2020-2021, there appears to be an internal war going on in the scientific community about how communicable infectious aerosols work:
It appears the latter is the more correct interpretation. As such the 2 meter / 6 foot social distancing recommended all throughout the 2020-2021 coronavirus pandemic is effectively useless and should be withdrawn as guidance, because it is mostly pointless except for not having large coughed or sneezed droplets of mucous directly land on you.
There is more discussion about this in a long-form article in Wired magazine, The 60-Year-Old Scientific Screwup That Helped Covid Kill: All pandemic long, scientists brawled over how the virus spreads. Droplets! No, aerosols! At the heart of the fight was a teensy error with huge consequences. 05-13-2021
It appears the fight over this is still ongoing. Although previously the US Centers for Disease Control was promoting upper room irradiation as a solution for fighting coronavirus, they have now withdrawn it with a tersely worded statement that it "may not reflect current guidance" but with no explanation as to why, or any way to get more information on why this change has happened.
CDC information page on Upper Room Germicidal Irradiation: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/ventilation/uvgi.html
My attempts to get further information about this change have been met with absolute silence from the CDC and the "National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases" cited at the bottom of that information page.
They don't want to talk about it, and I expect it is a huge hazardous hot potato topic for them because an important area of technology that could be used to fight the pandemic is now being quietly suppressed for political infighting reasons.
After all, if coughed and sneezed infectious particles DO immediately fall to the ground within 6 feet / 2 meters of the infected person as the CDC has been claiming all along, what good is an overhead germicidal death ray suspended about a meter about people's heads going to do?
It appears to me that in the USA and around the planet, we should be installing upper room UVGI everywhere. There should be billion-dollar government grant programs to get it into every school and indoor public commercial space.
It is very frustrating to see the technology now being quietly sidelined by the CDC and its representatives, for nonspecific undefined reasons that no one will step up and talk about.
-- Dale Mahalko, Gilman, WI USA DMahalko ( talk) 04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be more in the article about the claimed safety and efficacy of 222 nanometer/nanometre UV light, whether confirming or debunking it? I would have thought that there would be at least a section on this, if not a main article, given the importance of this breakthrough, if it is genuine. If it's not genuine, it's important to debunk the claim, and if a bit of both, to clarify the issues, I would have thought. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2 Polar Apposite ( talk) 18:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
https://uv-can.com/products/far-uv-222nm-safe-hand-sanitizer-station is an interesting product. I wonder whether it works as advertized and whether the idea is a sound one. If 222 nm UV really is harmless to the hands and eyes, why not? Polar Apposite ( talk) 19:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I deleted a block of text that was about using UV for germination. Maybe I undid some vandalism, I don't know. Certainly it didn't belong at all, and this should have been obvious. The heading was "Background" which seemed a bit weird. Polar Apposite ( talk) 21:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 September 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article merged: See old talk-pages here and here
This article is mere propaganda, and does not deserve to be on Wikipedia's Main Page. UV's main drawback is its lack of a residual, meaning that any germ that by chance survives the radiation, can begin to reproduce happily in the piping system once this single hurdle of UV radiation is taken. The odds of survival are in fact quite high, because the radiation intensity decreases exponentially an a straight path, being further attenuated fpr spatial reasons (radial rather than parallel light beams), so that many commercial systems contain lines through which germs could theoretically pass rather unharmed. In fact, I have seen commercial systems where after the UV system the germ count was higher than before, owing to biofilm development at the exit parts that are not exposed to radiation, and where because of tha lack of a residual, there is no disinfection at all. In addition, "real" water contains lots of material that can scatter light, further attenuating UV intensity. Because of Rayleigh's scattering law (scattering depends on wavelength to the fourth power!!!), the popular absorbance measurements to determine UV teatability are just window dressing, and not based on thorough science. To make things worse, UV destroys all common chemicals that may have been used prior to the water being irradiated. The biased praise of UV in this article is unwarranted. (PeterH, 2006-09-12)
As the author of this let me state for the record: I wrote this based on an article I read in regards to ultraviolet used to remove allergens from circulating air. I wanted to check the article against Wiki and was surprised there was limited information about it in the Ultraviolet section. I had no agenda and I certainly don't advocate it. Just being bold. Please update the article with any information that corrects my errors. -- PDream
I changed "10's of seconds" to "under a minute." Originally I was going to just fix the "10's" ( http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp) but that still sounded awkward.
ChrisKurtz ( talk) 06:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
There are two articles with substantially overlapping content. I propose they be merged with this one. zazpot ( talk) 22:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph is a mismash of semi-related ideas. UV have nothing to do with making water hard. The boiling does not have to be done on a biomass stove. It is not clear what is meant by chlorine treating "larger organisms." The connection with UV and expensive drill rigs is non-existent. And UV does not make wells "immobile." The advantages section does not really give the advantages of UV. KudzuVine ( talk) 13:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This line is a chemical property of the mercury plasma and does not shift or widen with regard to power fluctuations. Article was updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.249.3 ( talk) 20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I wish this article said why reflective linings has the greatest positive effect on the SODIS method. I had figured out that by applying it onto the SODIS method, and testing my water samples. I'm still having trouble finding the answer to my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.121.218 ( talk) 21:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with PeterH, this is propaganda. The author just used scientific words. 24.225.121.218 ( talk) 16:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)g
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit old. Note, "Although research of this technology is still in its infancy, improvements to UV-LEDs are expected to occur rapidly following visible LED source trajectories, resulting in a high efficiency, low input power product." and "Limited research has been conducted on the effective- ness of UV-LEDs for water disinfection" and "Combining projected improvements to power output, lifetime, and cost per mW, results in UV-LEDs being a feasible option and an improvement over LP systems around the year 2013 ( Table 2 )."
Do we have sources showing these projections have been met? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
UV irradiation can remove estrogenicity from a water supply; such estrogenicity may be gained from exposure to EE2, which is overwhelmingly the most common type of synthetic, estrogen used in the contraceptive pill; a woman who takes the contraceptive pill, may excrete EE2 in her urine or feces. According to Zhang, 'Results showed that more than 95% of the estrogenicity was removed after 40 min irradiation and that the parent compound EE2 was mainly responsible for the observed estrogenicity. [1]
UV irradiation can remove estrogenicity from water; such estrogenicity may be gained from exposure to EE2, which is overwhelmingly the most common type of synthetic, estrogen used in the contraceptive pill; a woman who takes the contraceptive pill, may excrete EE2 in her urine or feces. In regard to the ability of UV irradiation to remove estrogenicity from an aqueous solution, Zhang states, 'Results showed that more than 95% of the estrogenicity was removed after 40 min irradiation and that the parent compound EE2 was mainly responsible for the observed estrogenicity.<ref>
I don't see a solution without finding some non-primary sources that put this type of research into context which we can then follow. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
References
I'm thinking of putting stuff like this in the article. DMBFFF ( talk) 19:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Can mention of "far-UVC" light, which is currently being used to kill germs in air, be added to this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 22:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
As of 2020-2021, there appears to be an internal war going on in the scientific community about how communicable infectious aerosols work:
It appears the latter is the more correct interpretation. As such the 2 meter / 6 foot social distancing recommended all throughout the 2020-2021 coronavirus pandemic is effectively useless and should be withdrawn as guidance, because it is mostly pointless except for not having large coughed or sneezed droplets of mucous directly land on you.
There is more discussion about this in a long-form article in Wired magazine, The 60-Year-Old Scientific Screwup That Helped Covid Kill: All pandemic long, scientists brawled over how the virus spreads. Droplets! No, aerosols! At the heart of the fight was a teensy error with huge consequences. 05-13-2021
It appears the fight over this is still ongoing. Although previously the US Centers for Disease Control was promoting upper room irradiation as a solution for fighting coronavirus, they have now withdrawn it with a tersely worded statement that it "may not reflect current guidance" but with no explanation as to why, or any way to get more information on why this change has happened.
CDC information page on Upper Room Germicidal Irradiation: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/ventilation/uvgi.html
My attempts to get further information about this change have been met with absolute silence from the CDC and the "National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases" cited at the bottom of that information page.
They don't want to talk about it, and I expect it is a huge hazardous hot potato topic for them because an important area of technology that could be used to fight the pandemic is now being quietly suppressed for political infighting reasons.
After all, if coughed and sneezed infectious particles DO immediately fall to the ground within 6 feet / 2 meters of the infected person as the CDC has been claiming all along, what good is an overhead germicidal death ray suspended about a meter about people's heads going to do?
It appears to me that in the USA and around the planet, we should be installing upper room UVGI everywhere. There should be billion-dollar government grant programs to get it into every school and indoor public commercial space.
It is very frustrating to see the technology now being quietly sidelined by the CDC and its representatives, for nonspecific undefined reasons that no one will step up and talk about.
-- Dale Mahalko, Gilman, WI USA DMahalko ( talk) 04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be more in the article about the claimed safety and efficacy of 222 nanometer/nanometre UV light, whether confirming or debunking it? I would have thought that there would be at least a section on this, if not a main article, given the importance of this breakthrough, if it is genuine. If it's not genuine, it's important to debunk the claim, and if a bit of both, to clarify the issues, I would have thought. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2 Polar Apposite ( talk) 18:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
https://uv-can.com/products/far-uv-222nm-safe-hand-sanitizer-station is an interesting product. I wonder whether it works as advertized and whether the idea is a sound one. If 222 nm UV really is harmless to the hands and eyes, why not? Polar Apposite ( talk) 19:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I deleted a block of text that was about using UV for germination. Maybe I undid some vandalism, I don't know. Certainly it didn't belong at all, and this should have been obvious. The heading was "Background" which seemed a bit weird. Polar Apposite ( talk) 21:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)