1/ Proven and unproven technologies. We have proven technologies for removing virus-laden aerosol particles from air: Increased ventilation, portable HEPA filtration systems (properly sized for space), and advanced MERV-rated filters (12 or 13) if mechanical system can handle.
2/ We have a proven technology that will inactivate viruses in aerosol particles - upper-room UVGI.
3/ These technologies have been proven for many decades, studied by many independent researchers for their effectiveness and published in peer-reviewed journals (which means even more analysis by independent researchers).
4/ If done properly we KNOW (without any degree of uncertainty) that these technologies are EFFECTIVE and produce no unwanted/harmful by-products. Period.
5/ So, why would anyone risk spending precious resources on unproven technologies. Many of these technologies have simply not been independently scrutinized and proven to be effective.
6/ Some have been independently studied and shown to be FAR less effective at removing aerosol particles or inactivating viruses in actual building settings. And more research is being done that I am confident will reinforce the work already done.
7/ And some unproven devices also make claims that can only be true if they also produce primary pollutants and reaction products that, at the very least, have potential for causing respiratory irritation and maybe worse.
8/ So, again, why roll the dice and spend precious resources on an unproven (or increasingly proven ineffective) control device when proven technologies and approaches exist?
9/ School districts across America are about to get a lot of money to try to make their schools safer. I hope that parents, teachers, and staff DEMAND that schools do the right thing, spending those funds on proven technologies. Much more to come .......
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
