• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Paper from a Bad Science Journal: Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface


14 replies to this topic

#1 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,423 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 19 March 2021 - 07:16

Editor's Note: After a bit of online research and input from members, we have all learned that the Journal in which this paper was published is not considered a good one. There are serious flaws in this linked paper.


Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface: Human and Environmental Health Implications

Link to this research paper of 2018.

CFA in this paper means, Coal Fly Ash.


https://www.research...th_Implications

#2 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,614 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 19 March 2021 - 10:10

The title is really scary, but there might be other reasons for the measurement results presented.
The instrument used seams to be based on an array spectrometer if I interpret the specifications correctly.
https://www.intl-lig...ctroradiometer.
Even if the dynamic range is stated to be 3300, that is for the detector.
Many other things makes the real measurement results less favourable, including grating efficiency, internal crosstalk and effects from the power calibration.

The graphs in UV-C and UV-B presented in the paper looks very much like effects I am used to see with my spectrometric measurement caused by crosstalk.
As the graphs are logarithmic for intensity you often can see the low level limitations of the system's ability.

I would not be too alarmed by this paper.
I strongly believe the results are due to instrument limitations.

If the same measurements were performed with a more capable monochromator based instrument It is very likely that there will not be any UV-B and UV-C levels like the ones presented in the paper.
There bold statement is likely very wrong:
"Our higher resolution is particularly important when one notices the major difference in those curves: All of our UV-B and all of our UV-C measurements are non-zero, quite unlike the widespread and incorrect assumption"
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#3 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,423 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 19 March 2021 - 10:14

Thanks Ulf
What sort of inducement would airlines need to be spreading CFA (coal fly ash) into the atmosphere ?

#4 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,271 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 19 March 2021 - 10:51

I don't even know where to begin with that paper. Alarmist and sensationalist comes to mind. As Ulf mentioned limitations of instrument are likely to be an issue here. One of the reviewers comments was interesting - "Dear Editor, I have finished the review of the submitted paper. My opinion remains the same: "The UV-C measurements are not credible because they were obtained with an inappropriate instrument and they do not agree with theoretical predictions." Feel free to make a decision about publishing the paper. I will accept your decision." The other 'reviews' were not reviews at all. Obviously not all peer review is the same.

It falls into the 'flat earth' category for me, right next to the National Enquirer. Put it this way, I'm not going to go out an worry about finding UVC sunblock. But on the plus point if it is correct then all the Covid viruses will soon be killed off by all that UVC.
Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#5 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,098 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 19 March 2021 - 14:25

Figure 1 is hilarious. They show a photo of ordinary airplane contrails (which are mostly water) and label it “Geoengineering aerosol particulate trails across the February 4, 2017 sky in Soddy-Daisy, TN (USA). With permission of David Tulis.” This is one of many well-known conspiracy theories about airplane contrails that have been ongoing in the US for many years now. If there is any geoengineering experiment happening here, it is accidental — there has been actual work on whether contrails are affecting global warming.

#6 JCDowdy

    JCDowdy

  • Members
  • 1,186 posts
  • Location: Arlington, TN

Posted 19 March 2021 - 14:36

Ignorance

#7 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,423 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 19 March 2021 - 15:00

Thanks guys, sorry I posted this rubbish.... :sad:

#8 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,271 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 19 March 2021 - 16:28

No need to apologise Colin. I always like to examples like this for talks and papers.
Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#9 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,779 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 19 March 2021 - 20:55

Its good for the laughs. We need more tree photos in papers randomly.
Also good you clear the air so people don't believe everything.

Jonathan, you previously said that cosmetics absorb in UVC. So would our current sunscreen be good?
You should sell that idea to the companies to cash in that they have a UVC product as well.
Although, with all the UVC light craziness for COVID. We may actually need UVC sunscreen for the grocery store.

Edited by dabateman, 19 March 2021 - 21:00.


#10 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,787 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 19 March 2021 - 20:58

https://www.theguard...climate-deniers

That is a link to an article warning about "scientific journals" which are NOT.
It is just a money-making scam.
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#11 JMC

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 1,271 posts
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 19 March 2021 - 21:44

David,
Some of my preliminary work suggests that UVC can be absorbed by cosmetics with or without sunscreens (just because it forms a layer of material when it is applied, and UVC is quickly absorbed by that), however more UVC can be absorbed by some sunscreens. Depends on the absorption spectrum of the specific sunscreens in the product.

Some of my initial work here - https://jmcscientifi...30-moisturiser/

Edited by JMC, 20 March 2021 - 16:37.

Jonathan M. Crowther

http://jmcscientificconsulting.com

#12 JCDowdy

    JCDowdy

  • Members
  • 1,186 posts
  • Location: Arlington, TN

Posted 20 March 2021 - 16:25

Colin, please be assured that my comment was not in regard to you, but rather the authors, reviewers, editors and publisher.

#13 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,787 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 20 March 2021 - 18:59

I think I'm going to edit the title and preface it with From a Bad Journal or something like that.
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#14 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,423 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 20 March 2021 - 23:22

View PostJCDowdy, on 20 March 2021 - 16:25, said:

Colin, please be assured that my comment was not in regard to you, but rather the authors, reviewers, editors and publisher.

Thanks John, that is how I took it, all is OK

#15 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,423 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 20 March 2021 - 23:22

View PostAndrea B., on 20 March 2021 - 18:59, said:

I think I'm going to edit the title and preface it with From a Bad Journal or something like that.

Thanks Andrea