[nancyminusone]

He did not tell anyone to do these things nor do I claim he did. He did ask his staff to "look into" whether either of these sanitation methods "could be used inside the human body", which is a bit like if I asked my doctor if I could eat laundry soap and shampoo instead of showering and doing laundry.

The very fact that these ideas exist inside a US president's skull is VERY SAD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.

[lostmsu]

Again, no quotes. But even as-is the idea of using ultraviolet to disinfect internal surfaces is not bonkers to any degree. Like I could see it working for nasal disinfection.

In fact that's so obvious, that given you get very sad that someone else could even consider that tells me that you don't really know what you are talking about. Ironically, unlike Trump.

Won't comment on the bleach one without a quote though.

[nancyminusone]

have a read for yourself:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/re...

As for me, I don't think you need a phd to read the warning stickers on bleach and isoproponal which say "do not injest" [2] [3] or warnings on germicidal lamps that say "do not expose to eyes or skin" [4]. If you do or have otherwise hidden knowledge why these should be ignored, say so.

[2] https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/cloroxre...

[3] https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AC423830040&...

[4] https://www.mscdirect.com/knowledge-center/articles/safety-t...

Next you will tell me that he isnt talking about UVC lamps, and I'll have to admit he speaks so vaguely that you can interpert his own words as almost anything.

[lostmsu]

Why do I have to present evidence for something I'm not claiming? Your response fits the picture drawn by the comment on out of context.

> As for me, I don't think you need a phd to read the warning stickers on bleach and isoproponal which say "do not injest"

Yes, but you need more brainpower to understand that these warnings are for specific products and can't be generalized without research. The concept that dangerous substances are widely used in medicine in right quantities with right delivery methods is rather well known, and since you don't appear to grasp the connection after multiple comments alluding to it... well, that doesn't paint your opinion about Trump in a good light.

[nancyminusone]

You are welcome to paint my opinion of trump in any color of light you like as long as it isn't UV-C.

[lostmsu]

Humor is not a replacement for an argument. Your joke is equivalent to "as long as it isn't a autism-inducing vaccine", but from the left.

[alphager]

It is absolutely bonkers to think about using UV to disinfect human skin, let alone the inside of the human body.

Any UV radiation strong enough to destroy the cells of bacteria is strong enough to destroy human cells. We know that UV-radiaton that's not strong enough to kill bacteria is already harmful to human skin (we call the phenomenon sunburn).

[lostmsu]

What do you know, certain forms of UV are used to disinfect skin. Too bad the developers of the concept didn't care at the moment they are "bonkers".

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/201...

> UV-C has demonstrated the ability to effectively and safely inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus up to 99.9%

> There are four methods to disinfect the air with UVGI technologies: 1) ..., 2) irradiating the full room, whole-room far UV-C when rooms are occupied 3) ...

Truly, the lack of critical thinking in the left meme reposters was the main cause of dems losing the last election. You guys are pretty successful in demonstrating that.

[nancyminusone]

Your source talks about the disinfection of air, contains no references to disinfection of skin, and only mentions skin three times, twice to specifically warn against skin damage from UVC exposure, and once to clairify which types of UV light penetrate the skin.

[lostmsu]

Do you suppose people in occupied full room that's being irradiated must cover their faces? Read better.