Thats a great side effect when dealing with being exposed to the virus, but I think health professionals would not recommend this instead of a vaccine.
>The three types of UV radiation are classified according to their wavelength. They differ in their biological activity and the extent to which they can penetrate the skin. The shorter the wavelength, the more harmful the UV radiation. However, shorter wavelength UV radiation is less able to penetrate the skin.
>Short-wavelength UVC is the most damaging type of UV radiation. However, it is completely filtered by the atmosphere and does not reach the earth's surface.
>Medium-wavelength UVB is very biologically active but cannot penetrate beyond the superficial skin layers. It is responsible for delayed tanning and burning; in addition to these short-term effects it enhances skin ageing and significantly promotes the development of skin cancer. Most solar UVB is filtered by the atmosphere.
I think this is a misunderstanding.
It won't penetrate deep into the skin, it will continuously cook the top layers.
Frequent exposure WILL cause damage to skin and eyes.
Creating and selling personal protective equipment should be taken very seriously.
Putting UVC light sources on a headband without controlling airflow is simply too risky, no one could safely guarantee that a stray air current and or virus from an unexpected angle would be exposed to enough light for enough time to be safe. Air flow must be controlled.
But more than a few of them would be disruptive and ruin the land and ruin it for everyone else.
There are plenty of articles and videos about what ends up happening to these encampments- they turn into dumps with piles of used needles and lots of human waste. The last thing you'd want is something catching fire and spreading.
Generally, most habitable 'live off the land' type of places are spoken for already, no nearby property owners are going to approve of such a 'zone'.
i think they're in some odd holding pattern on their downward spiral, where there isn't enough capital for changing the business or even purchasing new product, but there isn't enough business potential for new investment either.
perhaps they are keeping everything open as shells to try and shop some deal to potential investors as revitalizing a once great brand.
someone up high has some really good and specific reasons for keeping most of the stores barely open and operational.
if there were responsible people at the helm they would shutter nearly all the locations immediately.
they probably have a few dozen months of funding left at this pace, no idea what they're holding out for, they seem to be just delaying the inevitable.
Increasing throughput on the highways often only lets more people get to the same bottleneck in the same time. To actually alleviate that problem, the throughput of any bottlenecks would need to increase as well. Usually, that's in a highly desirable and expensive area.
Destroying much of the highly desirable and expensive area and covering it with highways and parking lots is one way to solve the problem, but is obviously a terrible idea.
i am not surprised its hardly mentioned, as it is only useful to a tiny percentage of the population of 1 region.
as a case study, it boils down to being a nice benefit of working at one of a select few large, highly successful companies.
can this service be replicated effectively anywhere else? by anyone else? even by the same company in a different region?
my initial answer to all of the above questions is no.
i think as part of an audit there would be a lot of questions regarding the gray area of auditing illegal AirBnb listings- ones where you have to pretend to be just 'visiting your friend'.
verifying that a place is abiding by certain standards and has passed AirBnb's audit but still breaking local laws would probably anger lots of neighbors.
lots of illegal listings exist, and auditing would bring that to light even more.
paying a small team of auditors would probably do a ton more damage to the business in terms of losing listings than turning a blind eye or making other attempts for users to indirectly police the issue of misleading or fraudulent listings.
People can import clothes from just about anywhere, and there is plenty of clothing for everyone (maybe not distributed evenly but enough exists)
Space and time are the constraints that drive housing prices. Building denser housing is expensive and hard, much more difficult than sourcing and importing clothing in today's world.
Localized markets can require localized policies, because applying the same rules evenly to all markets wouldn't make sense, abstaining from creating local rules can make things worse, but creating them can also create new problems.
I think rent control can be healthy as a small buffer. I think fundamentally these are 'microscopic' policy bandaids to larger macrosopic problems. Unfortunately, it takes a very powerful organization with the right incentives to solve the macroscopic problems.
Thank you for the link.