Emanuele09

1 minute ago, swansont said:

note: I have added to my post

I don't know what you mean by "false" and you have given no examples of the devices you are referring to, so one cannot evaluate their claims.

They are probably UVC lights if they say they are, but they also may emit over a large wavelength range, and would therefore be dangerous

The device is this: amzn.to/3cJY6xp

and is sold as 260-280 nm. I see a discrepancy between this affirmation: "To use UVC safely, you need specialist equipment and training" and the fact that UVC are sold to everyone on internet.  

But you said me 

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

"specialist equipment" suggests the answer is "no"

So if it is as you say, it means that for example the device that I linked is fake, namely it has other wavelengths instead of the declared?

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

"specialist equipment" suggests the answer is "no"

So the devices that are sold on internet are false?

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200327-can-you-kill-coronavirus-with-uv-light

So, yes it might. But it is very dangerous and it is hard to imagine where it would be useful. What is wrong with soap and water?

Yes, I also read that article. But if the say "To use UVC safely, you need specialist equipment and training" 

is really possible that this technology is really easily accessible to everyone?

I have a device that emits UV-C rays (in particular with a wavelength between 260-280 nn) through 8 LEDs.  I researched on Internet and found that in theory these wavelengths should be enough to kill bacteria but also viruses.  I am not an expert and would like to have your opinions.

 1) What I said about wavelength generally apply to viruses?

 2) If this should be right, considering that I don't have anyone to make sure that the device actually has those technical characteristics, would it still be plausible or would you be skeptical?  That is, the technology of UV-C LEDs is widespread and reliable enough?

 Thank you