In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

No. Alan said "ultraviolet inhibiting".
Do I really have to point out to you that that second word does not
have the same meaning as "inhibited" ?

Not really Franz. The point you are still missing is that when a UVI
cover is in place, it will be inhibiting the passage of ultra-violet
rays, which is why the manufacturers call it Ultra-Violet Inhibiting
polythene. They also recognise the property you are confused about by
using the term ultra-violet stabilised polythene, i.e. it is self
protected from damage by ultra-violet rays. I see no problem with that.

Now in a more positive vein, do you know; (1) what EVA stands for and
(2) whether there is any known causal relationship between over exposure
to ultra-violet rays and paranoia?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
notfranz.
writes

No. Alan said "ultraviolet inhibiting".
Do I really have to point out to you that that second word does not
have the same meaning as "inhibited" ?

Not really Franz. The point you are still missing is that when a UVI
cover is in place, it will be inhibiting the passage of ultra-violet
rays, which is why the manufacturers call it Ultra-Violet Inhibiting
polythene.

It seems that you are still not getting to grips with what is what. I
will state the position yet again: -
Even if you did not use a UVI cover, but a simple polythene sheet, the
UV would not get through. All polythenes are essentially opaque to
UV. The point about UVI polythene is that it has an additive which
prevents the polythene itself from deteriorating due to the UV
absorbed by it.

They also recognise the property you are confused about

I am not at all confused about the properties of ordinary and UVI
polythenes vis a vis incident UV radiation.

by
using the term ultra-violet stabilised polythene, i.e. it is self
protected from damage by ultra-violet rays. I see no problem with
that.

Your last sentence is quite correct.

Now in a more positive vein, do you know; (1) what EVA stands for

Yes.
Do you?
I will give you a hint: It is a copolymer sometimes used as an
additive to polythene in order to provide a variety of modifications
to its physical properties.

and
(2) whether there is any known causal relationship between over
exposure
to ultra-violet rays and paranoia?

No. Sorry, I can't help here.

Franz

In article , Martin
writes

(2) whether there is any known causal relationship between over exposure
to ultra-violet rays and paranoia?

You tell us :-)

What I can tell you is that a relation of ours is receiving regular
whole body doses of ultraviolet rays [UVB] for a skin condition. The
hospital takes care to see that no burning of the skin results by
restricting (inhibiting?) the dosage, but the patient has developed a
deep all over tan. The staff who administer the treatment avoid
receiving any rays in a similar way to x-ray applications.

I stand to be corrected (as usual) but I thought that infra-red rays
caused tanning and ultraviolet caused burning to human skin. This is not
as OT as may appear, because plants are also dependent on suitable light
patterns as we have seen in this thread. Comments?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:38:15 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Snip 10th iteration

(2) whether there is any known causal relationship between over
exposure
to ultra-violet rays and paranoia?

No. Sorry, I can't help here.

because you have been wearing a DIY aluminium kitchen foil helmet to
protect your sanity? :-)

No. A total wrap-round encasement was needed in this case.

Franz
--
Martin

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin
writes

(2) whether there is any known causal relationship between over
exposure
to ultra-violet rays and paranoia?

You tell us :-)

What I can tell you is that a relation of ours is receiving regular
whole body doses of ultraviolet rays [UVB] for a skin condition. The
hospital takes care to see that no burning of the skin results by
restricting (inhibiting?) the dosage,

I think the word you are looking for is "controlling".

but the patient has developed a
deep all over tan. The staff who administer the treatment avoid
receiving any rays in a similar way to x-ray applications.

One does not need lead as a shield against UV radiation.

I stand to be corrected (as usual) but I thought that infra-red rays
caused tanning and ultraviolet caused burning to human skin.

Yes. You do need correcting. Infra red radiation, being simply
radiant heat, cause burning. But folk usually feel the pain while the
burning occurs and automatically retract with a start from the
electric heater emittng the radiation . UV radiation causes tanning.

This is not
as OT as may appear, because plants are also dependent on suitable
light
patterns as we have seen in this thread. Comments?

Plants require blue and red light for photosynthesis to proceed.

Franz

Has someone been coating all your cornflakes with some special argument inducing chemical

In article , Franz Heymann
writes
One does not need lead as a shield against UV radiation.

The patient is shut into a heavily sealed box and staff leave the
treatment room while the UV rays are emitting.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"esthomizzy" wrote in
message ...

Has someone been coating all your cornflakes with some special
argument
inducing chemical

No.

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes
One does not need lead as a shield against UV radiation.

The patient is shut into a heavily sealed box and staff leave the
treatment room while the UV rays are emitting.

That sounds as if they are overdoing it. A 1/4 inch plate glass
enclosure contaning the patient and the UV lamps will probably be an
adequate shield. Plate glass is pretty opaque to UV radiation. At
just beyond the blue end of the spectrum, the transmission coefficient
of typical "normal" glasses falls quite rapidly to below 0.1 per
millimetre. In such a case, a 6 mm thick pane would reduce the
incident intensity by something in the region of 1,000,000 in a 6 mm
sheet

Franz

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

That sounds as if they are overdoing it. A 1/4 inch plate glass
enclosure contaning the patient and the UV lamps will probably be an
adequate shield. Plate glass is pretty opaque to UV radiation. At
just beyond the blue end of the spectrum, the transmission coefficient
of typical "normal" glasses falls quite rapidly to below 0.1 per
millimetre. In such a case, a 6 mm thick pane would reduce the
incident intensity by something in the region of 1,000,000 in a 6 mm
sheet

The staff concerned appeared to be quite competent, but perhaps you
should advise the NHS that they are doing the job all wrong. As with the
manufacturers of Ultra Violet Inhibiting polythene their technical
information does not seem to comply with yours.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes
One does not need lead as a shield against UV radiation.

The patient is shut into a heavily sealed box and staff leave the
treatment room while the UV rays are emitting.

That sounds as if they are overdoing it. A 1/4 inch plate glass
enclosure contaning the patient and the UV lamps will probably be an
adequate shield. Plate glass is pretty opaque to UV radiation. At
just beyond the blue end of the spectrum, the transmission
coefficient
of typical "normal" glasses falls quite rapidly to below 0.1 per
millimetre. In such a case, a 6 mm thick pane would reduce the
incident intensity by something in the region of 1,000,000 in a 6 mm
sheet

Ap0logies for the bad final sentence. I trust its meaing is clear.

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

That sounds as if they are overdoing it. A 1/4 inch plate glass
enclosure contaning the patient and the UV lamps will probably be
an
adequate shield. Plate glass is pretty opaque to UV radiation. At
just beyond the blue end of the spectrum, the transmission
coefficient
of typical "normal" glasses falls quite rapidly to below 0.1 per
millimetre. In such a case, a 6 mm thick pane would reduce the
incident intensity by something in the region of 1,000,000 in a 6
mm
sheet

The staff concerned appeared to be quite competent,

I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that.. They almost certaonly did
not design the UV shielding themselves.

but perhaps you
should advise the NHS that they are doing the job all wrong.

Frankly, it does not worry me enough to do so, particularly since such
design error as there may be appears to be very much on the safe side.

As with the
manufacturers of Ultra Violet Inhibiting polythene their technical
information does not seem to comply with yours.

I am quite certain that the manufacturers of UVI polythene know quite
correctly what their products are doing. It is, I am afraid, you who
appear to be quite unwilling to yield on your incorrect understanding
of the situation.

I will spell it out just once mo-

Plants by and large do not need protection from solar UV radiation.
After all, the plants in my garden do flourish when exposed directly
to sunlight
without a polythene shield.

Polythene, with or without the UVI treatment, will prevent most of the
UV from getting into the interior of the tunnel.

The UVI treatment is performed in order to protect the *polythene*
itself, not the *plants*.

After you have indicated that you understand what I have said here, I
propose that we let the matter drop.

Franz

Alan Gould wrote or quoted:

Now in a more positive vein, do you know; (1) what EVA stands for and
(2) whether there is any known causal relationship between over exposure
to ultra-violet rays and paranoia?

FWIW, EVA stands for "Ethylene Vinyl Acetate".
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

In article , Tim Tyler writes
Alan Gould wrote or quoted:

Now in a more positive vein, do you know; (1) what EVA stands for and
(2) whether there is any known causal relationship between over exposure
to ultra-violet rays and paranoia?

FWIW, EVA stands for "Ethylene Vinyl Acetate".

Thank you.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.