You are welcome to join in, the more the merrier!
I have a mental rating system I employ when I hear content/studies about "X", in this case X is UV
The highest possible rating is given to people / places that are doing peer reviewed science and are not getting paid to study X. think government grants, Universities, etc.
In the middle range are studies that are funded by an industry - there may be good data but conclusions are almost always skewed in benefit of the company.
At the complete other end of the spectrum is a company who sells the item or process for "X". their statements can form the basis of a test to verify if they are true, but should not be taken at face value. They may very well be credible. Often they are not. Cherry picking data and only showing the positives from a test that will help them sell their product, steal market share from a competitor, or disrupt a market is common for obvious reasons.
At the bottom of the list is bro-science (for me at least), especially when it is just a statement of fact on a website with nothing to back it up.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
I believe the corollary of that statement is true as well. It's difficult to be objective when dollars are tied to the result.
I'm sure this sounds like I am real fun at a party - I just take this a little more seriously than most I guess. But I can wear a mean lampshade :)
Nobody pays me anything for this, and everything I have I purchased full price with my own wallet. I also sell nothing. I post my mistakes, not just successes. I do this for the love of the puzzle and this plant. Hopefully someone else gets something useful out of this, but I'd do it even if it was just me.
Ultimately I want to be viewed by others as in the group of the highest credibility rating while doing so on the small scale and tiny budget - no university or government grants here unfortunately, and I depend on this group to be my peer review.
