DD Support Board and Research Team

[nodummy]

OPTI iwand = cheap generic junk made in China

Not that it should surprise anybody, but the "iwand" being touted by OPTI to go on sale this weekend are manufactured in China by a company named Raycono.

Images of the product can be seen at the following 2 links:

https://twitter.com/AlexDelarge6553/status/1279234510786367493/photo/1

$OPTI MY IWAND 🙂 pic.twitter.com/O5FxrVKFER

— michael jordan (@Raemikey) July 3, 2020

More on Raycono, the maker of this ready-made product that OPTI is going to distribute:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1769304489/raycono-the-most-effective-portable-uvc-led-steril

https://www.facebook.com/Raycono-468846220210863

They are just cheap generic UV light wands, of which there are already dozens of identical products already on the market.


------------------------


So do UV wands work against COVID-19?

According to most experts, UV light does work to disinfect surfaces against COVID-19, but UV wands do not work nearly as effectively as traditional and much cheaper disinfecting methods.


A UV wand gives off such a low dosage of UV radiation that it would take more than an hour to disinfect certain things, for example masks:
https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/does-uv-light-kill-coronavirus/uv-light-covid/?j=1372846&sfmc_sub=18125799&l=529_HTML&u=18495832&mid=7276525&jb=1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=exacttarget&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_term=&utm_content=uv_non_member_de_send

Many UV products marketed as "killing 99.9% of germs" may be so weak that you would need to hold them for an hour at different angles just to disinfect a mask. Masks can be more easily disinfected other ways, such as in a washing machine (for cloth masks) or at low temperature in an oven (for N95 masks).

Another pitfall of a UV wand is that it takes an extensive, annoying amount of time waving the wand back and forth at different angles to cover large surfaces and clothing, leaving lots of room for error.
https://gearpatrol.com/2020/05/10/ultraviolet-sanitizing-wands-covid-19-uvc/

We’re all searching for new and effective ways to curb the spread of COVID-19, and to that end, there has been a lot of buzz around ultraviolet sanitizing wands. Essentially flashlights that produce sanitizing UV-C blue light instead of the traditional white light, these devices theoretically disinfect at a distance for as long as you can power them. Unfortunately, the practical application is not that simple, and you should think twice before plunking down the hard-earned cash on one of these gadgets instead of traditional cleaning supplies.

Wands are not very practical. One of the big problems with UV wands is that the ultraviolet light takes time to do its work. Phone sanitizers, for example, require you to put your smartphone into tanning-bed-like box and then leave it there for a number of minutes. But if you want to use a wand to disinfect a table or piece of clothing, on the other hand, you’ll have to ensure that maintained exposure manually by waving the wand around yourself. Not only does that leave room for error, it’s also just a pain.

Even the FDA warns that though UV disinfection devices can reduce the number of pathogens, it may not eliminate enough pathogens to prevent the spread of infection, so such devices give off a false sense of security.
Such devices are required by the FDA to have a caution on its label that says:
https://www.fda.gov/media/136533/download

UV disinfection will reduce the number of pathogens on the device, but it will not eliminate them completely

UVC wands are not recommended at all for disinfecting your own skin for the reasons mentioned above, but also because UVC lighting is not healthy for your skin or eyes.

The WHO says that using soap or alcohol-based hand rub is much better:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters

FACT: Ultra-violet (UV) lamps should NOT be used to disinfect hands or other areas of your skin
UV radiation can cause skin irritation and damage your eyes.

Cleaning your hands with alcohol-based hand rub or washing your hands with soap and water are the most effective ways to remove the virus

The overwhelming determination by the scientific community is that you are better off with traditional, cheaper, disinfecting methods than going with an UV wand.

You’re better off with traditional disinfectant.

Most of the popular UV sanitizing wands are going for between $70 and $150 online, money that will almost certainly be better spent on traditional cleaning supplies that are more reliable and less dangerous.

And that many of the devices being touted during the pandemic are not as good as advertised:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/uv-light-home-sanitizers-1.5531894

Many different models are being sold online, ranging in price from $25 to $200. An online search for those listed as top products on business and tech sites list 17 as sold out or "in high demand."

They look like a small flashlight or flat curling iron and often claim to kill 99 per cent of germs. In Canada such claims require scientific proof.

"If a company cannot provide scientific evidence [then] do not buy their product," said Taylor Mann, founder and CEO of CleanSlate UV in Toronto.

Mann said his UV supply business has exploded in popularity in the pandemic. He's moving manufacturing from China to Ontario, and pushing for tougher UV industry standards.

"There's a lot of devices out there that are very concerning," said Mann.

Canadian scientists researching the effectiveness of UV light as a disinfectant say the at-home technology is a poor defence against the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

Ottawa researcher Richard Webster said the key to destroying pathogens is the intensity of the light, and he doubts consumer-grade devices are, in many cases, strong enough to disinfect within seconds, as some claim to do.

"We think the amount of UV you need is about 20,000 joules per metre squared and you probably aren't going to get that in your hand-held little device," Webster said.

Webster is with a research team at Ottawa's CHEO Research Institute that reviewed 1,000 studies of UV light decontamination.

Claims that disinfection happens in seconds are questionable, Webster said, because it takes time to kill certain pathogens.

"I wouldn't use those as my first line of defence," said Webster.

It also takes shortwave UV-C light — with a wavelength of around 250 nanometres — to disinfect. Many of the consumer-grade models advertise that they do use that wavelength, but that in itself is a potential danger: UV light of that intensity can burn skin, damage eyes and cause skin cell mutations.

Ayman Yaghi, general manager of Arkalumen, the Ottawa company that built the prototype device designed to disinfect medical masks, says a hand-held consumer sanitizer using UV light is possible — but he would be reluctant to put one into service.

"The main concern is that the average consumer doesn't have the knowledge or skills to use the device effectively or safely," said Yaghi, who added that different viruses require different lengths of exposure to be neutralized.

He said he's wary of the specifications, claims and testimonials for the sanitizers sold online, some of which include images of the product being used to disinfect groceries and even masks.

Yaghi said he worries the devices will give a false sense of security to users.

"It's amazing that people in the comments on these products say that it works so well, but they don't really have a way to verify that it works on their groceries," said Yaghi.

Webster said grocery disinfection is best done with soap and water — or by just washing your own hands after touching packaging.

If a consumer does opt to wave an unproven UV light product over a cereal box for safety, Mann said the best-case scenario is it won't do anything..

"Worst-case scenario, you could be buying a product that is actively harming you. Realistically you should not be exposed to UV-C light that is powerful enough to make any kind of difference."

More about the risks associated with OPTI:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=156633954