Talk:Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation

message: 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)
thread_title:  EEPROM times 

message: There are two articles with substantially overlapping content. I propose they be merged with this one. zazpot (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For information, since the merge proposal templates will be deleted once the merge is complete, the two articles referred to above are the ones currently present on Wikipedia as Ultraviolet disinfection and UV water disinfection. zazpot (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title: Advantages

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Bandwith" of the 254nm line 

message: 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)
thread_title: Please Add

message: I agree with PeterH, this is propaganda. The author just used scientific words. 24.225.121.218 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: reply

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.espo.nasa.gov/solveII/implement.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *
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)
thread_title: Potential source

message: 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.Zhang Z, Feng Y, Liu Y, Sun Q, Gao P, Ren N, Kinetic degradation model and estrogenicity changes of EE2 (17alpha-ethinylestradiol) in aqueous solution by UV and UV/H202 technology. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389410007302>
:This paragraph was initially removed because the source is primary and not relevant to water supplies. Those concerns have not been addressed.
:Given the publisher, I'd like some evidence that the source is reliable as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph Ronz quoted above was actually changed on 21:41, 11 May 2017‎, by way of response to a comment from another editor who raised similar concerns to yourself. Apparently, Ronz has chosen to ignore the newer version and restate the older version. For what reason I do not know. The newer, edited version was stated in the 'Advantages' section and read:  
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>
**Still, that isn't practical for a "water supply".  I'm not sure it needs to be in there at all, and in fact, would say it is misleading.  No water supply irradiates for 40 minutes.  That was and still is my point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not applying the statement to a water supply. Do you mean that the 'Strengths' and 'Weaknesses' sections are only for water supplies and not for other uses (boiling is also discussed there)? If that is the case, then perhaps a solution may be putting it in a different section.RickyBennison (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was right under a paragraph discussing water supplies so it was implied that removal is an option for water supplies.  It is not.  I think before you put it in at all, I think you first need to explain why it is helpful in an article that covers "Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation" (and is in fact named that), then we can talk where it would go.  Estrogen is not a germ, or any other kind of living organism.  I'm not convinced it belongs anywhere in this article, although I'm open to hearing why it does belong.  I think that is why you keep getting reverted.  Again, I really am open to hearing, but at first glance, it appears to be well out of scope for this article, no matter where you put it.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree. The new source would have to establish the link between the topic of this article and the topic of the research. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, sorry for late reply. I acknowledge the scope issues. An argument for including it in this article may be that the removal of EE2 constitutes the removal of an environmental contaminant- and that this removal and disinfection may both be achieved as part of the same overall process which utilises UV irradiation i.e. one process involving UV irradiation both cleans environmental contaminants and disinfects. I am by no means an expert but I think some AOP processes are an example of this. So to add the previous to this article, in more general terms which are non-specific to EE2 (because I have not seen any direct references to AOP and EE2 yet), perhaps a short section along the lines of 'UV germicidal irradiation is sometimes achieved via AOPs, some of which are also used to clean environmental contaminants.' Perhaps the section could be called 'Usage of UV irradiation technology in other processes to both disinfect and clean environmental contaminants/perform other functions.' I am by no means insisting on this, but I thought it was worth putting forward as an idea.RickyBennison (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: UV irradiation can remove estrogenicity from a water supply?

message: I'm thinking of putting stuff like this in the article. DMBFFF (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019/Archive_3#some stuff about UV rays to disinfect]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UVGI hand sanitizer. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Germination is not germicide.