Thanks for posting.

It's only 20 to 60 nanometers shorter wavelength than purple light.
It won't, except in very specific conditions, cause free radical formation, except for ozone.
It doesn't absorb into the skin much differently than visible light.
And, it's not hard on the eyes like uVa or uVb.
I hope this study pans out.

I don't think they know. They are already using UV-C robots to clean hospital rooms, but humans have to leave first.

Far uV is more than 10x lower photon intensity than uVb, nearly 1.25th of uVa.
Exposure goes up on a quadratic curve as photon intensity goes down.
I think they know more about the safety of far uV than you suggest.

Use to display a Vaseline glass collection. Would it work?

Black light, by definition, is visible light. We can see it, right?
The uV present is very far uV. Just the non visible wavelengths down from purple.
It's basically ranging from blue to slightly ultraviolet.
I don't know that it's true uVc. Not only the photon energy state, but percentage of very far uV might be very low.
Overall intensity may not be enough.

The physicist's definition of "light" includes everything from extremely low frequency radio waves to high energy gamma rays.

Do you see it?
Yes.
Then there's visible light. Leakage or not, it's still visible light.
I don't need anybody to tell there are different frequencies of light.
Ridiculous of you to presume so.
We were talking about two different phenomena.
If I misinterpreted the original information, that's on me.
But, we are talking about different things

I would love to see a picture of that. I really would!

Had that wow look. Google images of it.

I misinterpreted the device. Because they mentioned "no I'll effects" I incorrectly assumed very far uV.
Not sure I agree 222nm can be said to have no I'll effects.

Maybe I missed it. It mentions distant ultraviolet. I don't think they're the same thing.
Very far uV is in the 300s nanometers. Violet light is 400-410nm.
It's used in various multiband chemical analyses because water is more transparent to very far uV than for midband uV which is VERY common in chromatography. That's 254nm. Industry standard for organic analysts.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
On Edit:
Visible light is about 1.25 EV. Near ultraviolet is 12.4eV. How is that 1.8x?

Near UV, adjacent to the visible spectrum, is from 300 nm to 400 nm.

http://www.spacewx.com/pdf/SET_21348_2004.pdf

On edit:

The researchers in the OP link must be using a slghtly different definition than the ISO 21348 d.efinitions. According to the latter, 222 is not far UV, although it's close.

Neither is close to the visible spectrum, that would be near UV.

"Nearly visible" and "far from visible" are the way I think of it.

I calculate 3.1eV for 400nm violet light and 6.2eV for 200nm UVc

One of the companies even specifically ruled them out:

I am hoping that the 222nm LED's are possible to make cheaply..

...hide these articles from Big Pharma!!!!

what the long term effects of UV-C are? Its usually 100% blocked by the earth's atmosphere so we aren't exposed to it normally.

Studies used to suggest that UVB rays -- the rays responsible for burning -- were most dangerous to people with lupus. But more recent research shows that UVA rays -- those responsible for wrinkling the skin -- can also aggravate lupus. With that in mind, you should look for broad-spectrum protection sunscreen that blocks both UVA and UVB rays.

skin layer of the body or even the layer of tears in the eye. Seems pretty safe. Here is a link to the latest in plain English.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213651055

"But there's one huge caveat: "UV light damages human skin, so it should only be used on objects or surfaces," the NASEM continues."
https://www.cnet.com/health/can-uv-light-sanitizers-kill-coronavirus-the-science/

Long wave uV has been used as a lab sanitizer for a while because it's safe.
The free radical formation piece is a big deal.

You're certainly not as likely to find helpful scientific information from a bunch of science-denying right-wingers, that's for sure!

Thanks again, LiberalArkie!

Sunlight would include these far UV rays in its spectrum, but would they be of sufficient intensity to match the artificial UV lights in these tests? Maybe someone smart here on DU will know.

and this artificial uv doesn't, then it seems to me that sunlight would be able to kill this virus.

protesters have gotten it outside. Maybe in the jail though.

Death Count Donnie needs protection!

I'm a huge medical nerd that reads medical nerd things all day long and I gotta say . . . . . . Blood?

It's a kinda creepy (or at the very least, unimaginative) title.