RT @canepa_joe: @ChrisGStreet The peer reviewed paper behind the New Scientist article https://t.co/E0knjDGlBv
@ChrisGStreet The peer reviewed paper behind the New Scientist article https://t.co/E0knjDGlBv
@NidalHabsa I have a PhD in air disinfection strategies. Ionizers are nice on paper but they have serious drawbacks (especially bipolar ones). Cf: - https://t.co/G1eUD1Gqw6 (->varied impact depending on microorganisms) - https://t.co/QIOdwQARyt. (->
this particular one *isn't* the study I was referring-to, which was UK, not US, but it too found significant results: https://t.co/s9MrHYeLHw down from 30 infections to 13. Use this: it saves lives ( :
@canepa_joe @kprather88 @BenBonnema Demonstrably incorrect @kprather88. Terminology "Ionizer" incurs judgement & supposition because of press conflation of overly generic term. May I suggest you review the numerous papers on the subject from 1979 onwar
@built_envi @apoorva_nyc @ErinBromage Agree. We don't have enough good evidence yet to understand the balance of benefits and harms. Even this study that shows a drop in Acinetobacter infections, also shows an increase in surface contamination and no chang