Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

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


colinbm

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment

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-lighttech.com/products/ilt950-spectroradiometer.

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"

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
Andy Perrin
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.
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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/

Link to comment
Colin, please be assured that my comment was not in regard to you, but rather the authors, reviewers, editors and publisher.
Link to comment
I think I'm going to edit the title and preface it with From a Bad Journal or something like that.
Link to comment

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

Link to comment

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

 

Thanks Andrea

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...