As Boyd writes, UVC light at 254 nm "is an established 80-year-old technology that has been widely used in water disinfection, food decontamination, and the control of TB in hospitals and homeless shelters." It was starting to gain traction in the mid-20th century, but "fell out of fashion" as western societies adopted vaccines and antibiotics, opting to treat rather than prevent disease.

Or maybe, before the creation of UV LEDs in the last decade, it took huge mercury vapor lamps that took a fuckton of power and put out dangerous UV radiation as well as a bunch of heat?

Nah, obviously it's a conspiracy.

This article reads like it has an agenda.

Far-UVC has a lot of potential once it's scaled up. Right now, we're still learning about best practices.

Institutions should be adopting this tech at scale.

If we're still learning about best practices why are we talking about deploying this at scale? Self contradictory article.....

It should be the other way around. Figure out if it works academically, then test small scale, then scale up with proven and reproducible results. That's how science works. Best practices can be formulated and adjusted at each stage as more knowledge is gained. That's how we don't make a massive health mistake and give an entire convention center indoor sunburns. Especially for people who might be more sensitive to sunburns.

Thx for this post, but can you change the title to a more explicit one?