Debunked: Dane Wigington's Claims That UV is "Off The Charts"

[Steve Funk]

There is a calculation involved....depending on where on earth a reading is taken, and what time of year. I'll begin working on that....
.

Yeah, that calculation looks pretty complex. I see that your maximum sun height today is only 44.2 degrees. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_altazw.pl That could make a big difference. The sine of 44.2 is .697, but I doubt the relationship with total UV is linear. I would like to see what you get throughout the day. I assume it would zero out just after sunset

 

[Leifer]

I've made the videos private for now....while I re-do the entire set, condensing them as just one "more well organized" and more "direct to the point" video, into a single video.

 

[Leifer]

I am waiting until summer.....when the sun is most overhead in this hemisphere, to take new readings.

I'll post a good video of those readings and post the honest results......whatever they may be.

 

[skephu]

Has the reason why Dane Wigington measures absurd UV-B levels ever been revealed?
I checked the two instruments he said he was using:
General Tools UVAB-513 for the UV AB measurement
Omega HHUV254SD for the UVA measurement.

Now the first device measures in the range 280 to 400 nm.
The second one measures in the range 240 to 390 nm with UVA+UVC sensors, the range for the UVA sensor alone is not specified.
However, it is clear that the upper limit of the Omega instrument is 390 nm.

That means that if you measure UVAB with the first instrument and subtract the UVA measured by the second instrument, the difference will not only include the UVB region but also the 390-400 nm region.

Which means that it is not possible to measure UVB by measuring UVAB and UVA with different instruments and just take the difference.

 

[skephu]

It's even worse if they used the UVAB-513 for both measurements:
UVA range as measured by its UVA sensor is 320 to 380 nm.
UVAB range measured by its UVAB sensor is 280 to 400 nm.
So if you take the difference you will not get the 280 to 320 region, but also the 380 to 400 nm region.
So the power difference will include UVB plus the power in the 380-400 nm region (which is pretty large).
That's why this measurement method is plainly wrong.

 

[David Fraser]

It's even worse if they used the UVAB-513 for both measurements:
UVA range as measured by its UVA sensor is 320 to 380 nm.
UVAB range measured by its UVAB sensor is 280 to 400 nm.
So if you take the difference you will not get the 280 to 320 region, but also the 380 to 400 nm region.
So the power difference will include UVB plus the power in the 380-400 nm region (which is pretty large).
That's why this measurement method is plainly wrong.

I briefly mentioned this earlier, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-claims-that-uv-is-off-the-charts.2097/page-2 but to be frank I am not converse on light.

 

[Mick West]

It's even worse if they used the UVAB-513 for both measurements:
UVA range as measured by its UVA sensor is 320 to 380 nm.
UVAB range measured by its UVAB sensor is 280 to 400 nm.
So if you take the difference you will not get the 280 to 320 region, but also the 380 to 400 nm region.
So the power difference will include UVB plus the power in the 380-400 nm region (which is pretty large).
That's why this measurement method is plainly wrong.

This makes perfect sense. Even though it does not sound like a lot, the actual amount of extra radiation (reaching the surface)in those UVA bands is much higher than all the UVB radiation.

 

[Mick West]

See update here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...irmation-of-record-shattering-uv-levels.3923/

Discussion can continue in the new thread.