OT: CEO responses to Covid-19

[David Brown]

On 15/03/2020 16:03, John S wrote:

On 3/15/2020 7:54 AM, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 23:49, John S wrote:

Mail was only an example. I do not use it anywhere on my body. My
dermatologist tells me to stay out of the sun. I take vitamin D instead.

Because of the cost of drugs here, I have an occasional package of drugs
delivered from Turkey. The next package will receive a thorough dose of
UV-C.

That is wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start. But the
biggest mistakes are out of your direct control - unless you voted for
the morons that built your astoundingly bad health system.

Unless you have some serious medical condition resulting in a poor
immune system, you don't need to use it on /anything/.

My immune system is 78 years old. I had asthma in my younger days
(probably caused by my parents' smoking).

Probably not.

> And then I picked up smoking.

That is primarily your own fault, but you can blame your parents'
smoking here if you like, as there is a strong correlation.

I stopped over 20 years ago. However, there is something the doctors do
not like at the lower end of one lung. I am at risk. I will try to do
every thing I can to avoid all viruses. I get the seasonal flu virus
shot every year. I have the latest pneumonia shot. But, I am still at
risk, I know.

It makes sense to take reasonable precautions. Unreasonable ones, less so.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 3:52:26 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 2:11:03 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

Can't you read? What is this idea of "virtue-signaling bullshit"? Sounds like one of your fantasies. They need more time to do more cleaning and more time to restock the shelves since they are handling more inventory. They also probably are thinking of their employees too. Why expose their stockers to the general public when they don't need to?

Why do you immediately jump into irrational thinking mode?

Oh, I'm sorry Ric - I didn't give you the full details.
It was 8:20 PM Saturday night. The store closed at 8 PM.

There were (4) cars in the parking lot, including ours.
The store is roughly 35,000 square feet.

What do you think the odds are that those remaining three cars belonged to employees who were sufficiently equipped and trained to not only disinfect (in any meaningful way) 35,000 square feet of public space, but to re-stock the shelves too?

Or, it is more likely the whole staff just got a (possibly paid) early time off, with little or no notice, and little or no planning to go with it?

My niece works at Publix in another city. I'll ask her if she knows more..

But to finish the story, went to the nearby Walmart for ice.
Out front, they had a battery-operated hand-gel dispenser.
Dead batteries (most likely?), or for whatever reason, was not working.

Again: The appearance of "doing something", but with no ACTUAL benefit.

And look, I realize my two isolated comments don't amount to anything.
But human nature, such that it is, is that people feel better when they think something is being done, even when it isn't. (Sort of like airport security - don't get me started.)

Publix may even think closing early helps - and maybe some paid expert told them so? But I didn't get any impression whatsoever they were cleaning the store any more than usual, and/or re-stocking. Though I did not go there today to check.

I look at the "facts" you provide and I see a totally different picture. Yeah, the hand cleaner at Walmart didn't work. That's ok, the hand cleaner doesn't really work well anyway... not unless you spend some time using it. So yeah, for most people it will prove to be other than useful. So? They ARE doing something. It isn't perfect but like an XKCD cartoon where he talks about wearing a condom while teaching, it is preferable to the alternative... even if only slightly. Wait, maybe that's not making my point. lol

I see companies trying to do something even if it is only marginally useful.. Bottom line is there isn't much that can be done. The virus will spread whether we like it or not.

I guess what bugs me is people bitching about others who are trying to be helpful, but not doing anything useful themselves. Are you offering to bell the cat? Or maybe you are complaining about the moose turd pie?

This situation is going to be with us for a while, so you might as well get used to it. Having a sour disposition will only make things worse for you and everyone around you.

--

Rick C.

+++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

Given the relative age distribution of posters to the group, I'm wondering how many here will survive and how many will not be here in 2021?

For reasons that have nothing to do with health, I spent the month of January in an effective quarantine. Then in Feb I caught the flu and spent two weeks in isolation. Now my good friend in a retirement community is effectively in lockdown and I will be in a virtual quarantine because I won't be traveling to see him. This is going to be a lonely year.

--

Rick C.

++++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/03/20 20:07, David Brown wrote:

Wherever you are, use a cutting board that can go in the dishwasher. That's how
you ensure there are no bacteria left on the board.  And wash your hands, so
there are no bacteria left on your hands.  And cook the chicken properly,
killing those that are in it.  At no point is either hydrogen peroxide or UVC a
sensible treatment.

Agreed.

I'd add triclosan to that list.

 

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 20:19:58 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2020-03-15 19:06, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 1:06:01 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
[...]

Any population has to maintain enough genetic diversity that no single
pathogen can wipe it entirely out.

Sounds great in theory, but how does the population know which genes to diversify to maintain the species?
[...]

Weird question, the mark of a profound misunderstanding. There is
no purpose in diversity. Some variants might work, many might not.
If a species is confronted with some pathogen and has no variants
that can survive it, it goes extinct.

Jeroen Belleman

Right. It's impressive how many people don't believe in evolution.

Natural selection doesn't just cull individuals; it culls entire
species.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:53:06 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:08:02 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 19:21:11 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 1:22:18 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Nuclear extinction. Nuclear winter. Global cooling. Global warming.
Sea level rise. Ozone hole. The Population Bomb. Y2K. Ebola. SARS.
MERS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoryoomsday_scenarios

This sort of thing is ever popular.

Not popular; vitally important. We live and die by our collective ability to
handle these (and other) plausible scenarios.

The key phrase here is "plausible."

Key to what? The 'global cooling', unless it refers to nuclear winter, is the
only implausible item in the list.

It was "science" in the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I suppose panic is a sort of herd survival mechanism,

Dubious. Panic is an adrenaline response, stimulating an
individual to a burst of activity. In any case, panic is NOT what's happening
here and now, that's a straw-man.

Yoy weren't at Safeway yesterday.

Most people are afraid. Fear is an energy gradient that, as it builds,
any random concept can exploit.

Most people can feel the full range of human emotions. Why would you think
otherwise? What makes you think fear has random precursors? In any case,
some effective controls are being applied against the current pandemic, for good
and sufficient reasons (Italy is seeing a death every five minutes), and
the real problem here isn't fear, it isn't panic, it's a new disease: COVID-19.

Or it's flu and the internet.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 6:00:32 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:53:06 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

Most people can feel the full range of human emotions. Why would you think
otherwise? What makes you think fear has random precursors? In any case,
some effective controls are being applied against the current pandemic, for good
and sufficient reasons (Italy is seeing a death every five minutes), and
the real problem here isn't fear, it isn't panic, it's a new disease: COVID-19.


Or it's flu and the internet.

I think we may well be seeing a Darwinian moment in the making. I am planning to hunker down for some time. I don't have an irresistible urge to be in the public. I don't feel like I have to socialize in person. Given the way Trump initially denied there was a need to worry about this pandemic and the way many of his followers accept his word as gospel, I expect to see a change in the makeup of the electorate between now and November.

Yes, a Darwinian exercise indeed.

--

Rick C.

----- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in news:c2d2bcb8-2106-44f9-bcbf-
72f7e3084f3f@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 11:15:28 AM UTC-4, John S wrote:
On 3/14/2020 6:31 PM, mpm wrote:
Something to consider:

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."


You mean like polio?

TouchĂŠ.
How about this one, then:

"When the going gets tough, the weak get screwed."

"These are the times that try mens' holes!"

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 12:47:57 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:22:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 11:56:53 PM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 9:58:18 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 8:30:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:


Hopefully here in the US, they will treat ALL infirmed by it.

the issue is whether there is the capacity to do that if it spread too fast

My guess is that capacity is not going to be a problem. There is a lot of excess capacity right now and the percentage of cases that require hospitalization is small. There may be problems with matching patients and beds

There is zero reason to think there is much excess hospital capacity in the US any more than there was in China. They actually built entirely new medical centers just for this outbreak. It is amazing they could move so quickly. I doubt the US can do anything like that and I'm pretty sure we will need to do that in a few months.

In the US this infection has not quite taken off like a rocket, but while China has reduced the number of new cases per day to low double digits, in the rest of the world infections are growing exponentially. The US seems to be no small part of that.

There is literally no reason to think the US will be able too provide any sort of care for the majority of victims of this disease.


We shall see. There are a number of reasons why the number of people infected is going to decrease.

None of which Dan can be bothered to list.

You are not in kindergarten. You ought to be able to think of some of the reasons by yourself. If you need to be lead to the answers, tough. You are right, - I can not be bothered.

I'm not in kindergarten, but it does look as if you never left it.

I can think of any amount of fallacious reasoning which you could have used to come to your fatuous conclusion.

The fact that haven't taken the risk of exposing your silly ideas in detail is probably due to laziness rather than rational calculation, but most pretentious twits have learned that they get jeered at less often if they don't expose their reasoning to critical comment.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:53:06 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

The key phrase here is "plausible."

Key to what? The 'global cooling', unless it refers to nuclear winter, is the
only implausible item in the list.

It was "science" in the 1970s.

Misleading. It was reasonable to question whether an ice age might be starting up, and
the answer quickly came back 'no'. It wasn't a viable theory, it was an hypothesis.
You could also call phlogiston "science", but that hypothesis, too, tested out false.

For most of our lifetimes, it has been POST-1970s, and the cooling hypothesis has
been far short of "plausible". So is ice-9, in case you were worried about that, too.
There's an ice-IX, but it's much more benign than the Vonnegut creation.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 12:52:21 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 12:37:15 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 10:09:58 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:29:32 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:53:07 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-13 10:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On 12 Mar 2020 19:16:05 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

<snip>

> > https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/09/coronavirus-scientists-play-legos-with-proteins-to-build-next-gen-vaccine/

<snip>

> > https://www.csl.com/news/2020/20200212-csl-media-statement-on-coronavirus

<snip>

> There's nothing in the write-up to indicate they will be able to fast track the usual 5-year test and approval process. The article reads like a business prospectus and is therefore very misleading.

If they can come up with a vaccine that works, the regulatory authorities can weight the risks and benefits. With a global pandemic, the benefit is dramatic, and the risk worth taking.

This isn't "business as usual".

> Most of the science expounded by the RNS/DNA people is speculation.

Of course it is - very well-informed speculation, but until they've come up with a vaccine to test, it has to be speculation.

> They don't have any kind of real test data on this technique, meaning it's a long shot.

There's a whole lot of scientific evidence that suggests otherwise. You can't get real test data until you have something to test, you are makinga fatuous objection.

> It's good they're getting the funding to conduct basic research into the technique, but it's bad they're misleading people into thinking it's even close to being a cure for the current pandemic.

The basic research has been going on for a very long time now. What's proposed is a very specific application of a recently established technique.

It may not work, but it is certainly worth a well-funded attempt to make it work. Nobody is being mislead - you seem to have a decidedly imperfect grasp of what is being proposed, and what it offers if it can be made to work.

If it works, it will be a cure for the current pandemic, and it can be targeted a whole lot more precisely than any vaccine we've had before.

You don't seem to have taken that on board at all.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:17:28 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:53:06 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

The key phrase here is "plausible."

Key to what? The 'global cooling', unless it refers to nuclear winter, is the
only implausible item in the list.

It was "science" in the 1970s.

Misleading. It was reasonable to question whether an ice age might be starting up, and
the answer quickly came back 'no'. It wasn't a viable theory, it was an hypothesis.
You could also call phlogiston "science", but that hypothesis, too, tested out false.

For most of our lifetimes, it has been POST-1970s, and the cooling hypothesis has
been far short of "plausible". So is ice-9, in case you were worried about that, too.
There's an ice-IX, but it's much more benign than the Vonnegut creation.

Darn. I was hoping there might someday be an xkcd about the real ice-9... or even better, ice-09.

--

Rick C.

----+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
----+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain items (mail,
for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be quite
paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used for sterilising
medical equipment. Don't try it on your hands, however - you'll kill
your skin cells before you destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and UVB.


Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiat kion) which is
energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RNA, and is therefore useful
for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the cells in your body. UVC
is higher frequency and lower wavelength than UVA and UVB - it has more
energy, and is more dangerous.

I must admit I am no expert on UVC. But Wiki has a section on the safety of uvi which quotes a safety standard for uvc exposure and gives an 8 hour max exposure intensity. And if I understand correctly from various other internet sites , UVC does not have to be strong enough to be ionizing to kill viruses.
Again I am no expert and don't have any uvc sources.

Dan

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 4:06:01 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 08:30:56 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com
wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 11:01:12 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

I wonder, if a random group of people were exposed to this virus, how
many would actually get infected? I suspect it would be a minority of
the population. If it is very infectious, but not everyone is
susceptible, the dynamics could be very different from predictions.

It is very infectious, and most people do seem to be susceptible.

Any population has to maintain enough genetic diversity that no single
pathogen can wipe it entirely out.

And that constraint is enforced by the population failing to die out.

Some people are immune to HIV - not many - and the genetic variation seems to be one that made their ancestor immune to the bubonic plague, which reduced the population of Europe by somewhere between 30% and 60% around 1350 AD.

John Larkin seems to be in full Pollyanna mode.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 12:35:44 PM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain items (mail,
for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be quite
paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used for sterilising
medical equipment. Don't try it on your hands, however - you'll kill
your skin cells before you destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and UVB.


Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiation) which is
energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RNA, and is therefore useful
for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the cells in your body. UVC
is higher frequency and lower wavelength than UVA and UVB - it has more
energy, and is more dangerous.

I must admit I am no expert on UVC. But Wiki has a section on the safety of uvi which quotes a safety standard for uvc exposure and gives an 8 hour max exposure intensity. And if I understand correctly from various other internet sites , UVC does not have to be strong enough to be ionizing to kill viruses.
Again I am no expert and don't have any uvc sources.

UVC is short wavelength UV - 200 to 280 nanometers (nm). Every individual UVC photon is "strong" enough to damage a virus or one of your skin cells.

If the light source is sufficiently intense, that damage can built up to lethal levels - both for skin cells and virus particles.

You lack of understanding is of elementary physics, as opposed to UVC.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 1:44:09 PM UTC-4, John S wrote:

I have not looked at your link, but my closest Walmart has changed its
hours short of the 24 hours they usually remain open. They say they are
disinfecting the store over night. That is plausible.

Sam's Club has also reduced heir hours to allow more time to clean and sanitize their stores.

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 4:12:14 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

Actually, I'm more annoyed at how everyone these days is an "expert" on practically any topic, with a few keystrokes.

I'm old enough, and wise enough, to know otherwise.

SED is crawling with so-called "experts".

But back to the point:
Doing "something" (especially if it has no benefit) can also just be a false sense of security. Which, if it prevents or negates actual actions that have benefit, can be a net negative.

Maybe closing the grocery store early reinforces a messages that "something is wrong"? If there's societal benefit in that, so be it. But if the reality is x-number of customers are now forced to herd together in the store for the new limited hours of operation, then that's higher concentration of customers in the store together, at a time when there's already a rush for supplies. Why not stay open EXTRA hours and ENCOURAGE social distancing by limiting the number of customers in the store at any given time? (That would be an ACTUAL benefit, not just something "for-appearances-sake".) There would still be plenty of time to "stock the shelves", and "disinfect the store" - at least to the extent that I witnessed - which was essentially three cars in the parking lot, probably totally unrelated to the operation of the store.

In short: A veneer of "action" is not really action.
You may disagree. (Maybe you're an expert too.)?

To the Walmart (dead) battery-operated hand sanitizer dispenser:
The hand cleaner doesn't work any better because an SED "expert" claims it doesn't work very well to begin with. Which of course, makes my exact point. the mere presence of the dispenser (working or not), is that veneer I just mentioned.

If it was that critical, it would be working.
BUT - If you get points for having it (working on not), then the store's calculus is (or at least arguably could be), that the veneer is enough.

Or, maybe it's just a simple case of "haven't really thought it through".
THAT is probably more likely to be the case. Put the machine, highly visible, by the front door. But don't have a plan to check it.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain items (mail,
for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be quite
paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used for sterilising
medical equipment. Don't try it on your hquestionands, however - you'll kill
your skin cells before you destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and UVB.question
question

Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiation) which is
energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RquestionNA, and is therefore useful
for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the cells in your body. UVC
is higher frequency and lower wavelength than UVA and UVB - it has more
energy, and is more dangerous.

I must admit I am no expert on UVC. But Wiki has a section on the safety of uvi which quotes a safety standard for uvc exposure and gives an 8 hour max exposure intensity. And if I understand correctly from various internet sites , UVC does not have to be strong enough to be ionizing to kill viruses.

Dan

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:35:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain items (mail,
for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be quite
paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used for sterilising
medical equipment. Don't try it on your hands, however - you'll kill
your skin cells before you destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and UVB.


Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiat kion) which is
energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RNA, and is therefore useful
for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the cells in your body. UVC
is higher frequency and lower wavelength than UVA and UVB - it has more
energy, and is more dangerous.

I must admit I am no expert on UVC. But Wiki has a section on the safety of uvi which quotes a safety standard for uvc exposure and gives an 8 hour max exposure intensity. And if I understand correctly from various other internet sites , UVC does not have to be strong enough to be ionizing to kill viruses.
Again I am no expert and don't have any uvc sources.

Not trying to be insulting, but your statement about ionizing shows that you don't understand the issue. The ability of light to ionize isn't about the strength, it's about the wavelength. That's the photoelectric effect. Light is in quanta that have a finite amount of energy which is determined by the wavelength. Too long a wavelength and there isn't enough energy in the quantum to dislodge an electron from it's bond with the atom, so no ionization. An adequately short wavelength gives the quanta enough energy to knock loose the electrons independent of intensity.

UVC is the shortest wavelength of the UV range and so has the highest ionizing potential regardless of intensity. That's why they use it in germicidal applications. It does the job, at least on bacteria. I don't know how well it works on viruses.

--

Rick C.

---+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 11:16:46 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Walmart has a broken hand cleaner dispenser???!!! Really? That's the basis of your current manifesto?

No, but you thought it was, having totally missed the thrust of my entire post.
And then, immediately thereafter, you started in with your ad-hominem, (go back and look), and are now doubling down on.

Back at you.