2

What is our stance on questions based on some phony/scammy websites/webpages? Are they on-topic or off-topic?

Example: Are closed plastic or wood blinds really not sufficient UVA protection? (mirror)

This doesn't make sense to me, but the reason I'm asking is because of this link:

http://www.tintworks.com.au/Blog/Tintworks-Blog/September-2015/Curtains-and-Blinds-are-Not-Enough-to-Block-Harmfu#.W98J4ZNKjD4

How do plastic blinds not block like 99% of the UVA in the closed position? I picture closed blinds (maybe to a lesser degree for curtains), to be like a wall. A wall blocks UVA/UVB.

I am somehow surprised that the question got closed as I assume that in some cases, the OP doesn't know quality of the website: this is why they asked the question here (to check a few statements from the website).

4

First, it's patently obvious that opaque materials block UV. I would expect anyone who's had a high school science class to know that.

Technically, it would be on topic on Physics, and perhaps Skeptics, but I would expect nothing but downvotes for triviality on those sites. So the question really amounts to asking us to evaluate an advertisement, and if you actually read the link you'll notice there's not a single word about the medical aspects of UV light. It's about energy savings, avoiding faded carpets, and above all, selling window tint.

Bottom line: there is no medical science in the question; therefore, off topic.

  • 2
    Most t-shirt would be classified as opaque even though many don't fully block UVs. – Franck Dernoncourt Nov 4 '18 at 21:53
  • 2
    @FranckDernoncourt Hold a t-shirt up to a light and it's clearly not opaque. But that's beside the point. He didn't ask a medical question. – Carey Gregory Nov 4 '18 at 22:03
  • 2
    ok I asked this question on meta as you wrote "I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's unintentional spam.". So I guess the actual closure reason is it's not in the medical scope from your standpoint? – Franck Dernoncourt Nov 4 '18 at 22:14
  • 4
    @FranckDernoncourt Well, it was unintentional spam (or at least I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was unintentional). He posted a link that has nothing to do with MedSci. That's spam. I could have chosen either reason. – Carey Gregory Nov 4 '18 at 23:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .