Convoy S2+ UV flashlight safe for skin?

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
tryTM
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/31/2021 - 11:08
Posts: 12
Location: India and NJ
Convoy S2+ UV flashlight safe for skin?

Perhaps this is a medical question but it could help to know the flashlight mechanics side as well.
So my question is: we’re taking care of my 99 yr old father who has incontinence, especially during sleep. I would like to check his body, as well as sheets, etc, to know if there are any affected areas and if we’ve fully cleaned them. Would it be safe to shine the Convoy UV flashlight on his skin?
Thx and regards,

zoulas
zoulas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 23 min ago
Joined: 06/01/2020 - 08:35
Posts: 967

I really think this is a question for a medical professional and not a flashlight enthusiast.

Aussiemandias
Aussiemandias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 01/30/2021 - 21:36
Posts: 100
Location: QLD Australia

No. Do not shine UV lights directly on the skin. UVA, UVB, and UVC are all destructive to skin tissue. The exception is far-UVC in the range of 207-222nm and even that requires further study to fully understand its potential risks.

The skin of elderly people is already very fragile. It’s not worth further damaging and weakening it. It’ll run the risk of burns and infection.

tryTM
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/31/2021 - 11:08
Posts: 12
Location: India and NJ

Aussiemandias wrote:
No. Do not shine UV lights directly on the skin. UVA, UVB, and UVC are all destructive to skin tissue. The exception is far-UVC in the range of 207-222nm and even that requires further study to fully understand its potential risks.

The skin of elderly people is already very fragile. It’s not worth further damaging and weakening it. It’ll run the risk of burns and infection.

Thank you!

Aussiemandias
Aussiemandias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 01/30/2021 - 21:36
Posts: 100
Location: QLD Australia

You’re welcome. I work in infection control in a hospital and use a UV light in my job. Great tools but treat them like they’re a blowtorch.

Caleb
Caleb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 56 sec ago
Joined: 03/13/2016 - 01:28
Posts: 729
Aussiemandias wrote:
You’re welcome. I work in infection control in a hospital and use a UV light in my job. Great tools but treat them like they’re a blowtorch.

What UV light/frequency do you use at work to control infection?

alpg88
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 hours ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 12:35
Posts: 1078
Location: usa

convoy uv at it’s lowest is 365nm, that is just as safe as black lights in night clubs. disinfecting uv aka germicidal uv is 254 or lower, that is dangerous, but not 365nm.
you will absolutely not harm your father with occasional use of 365nm uv led.

btw any fluorescent white light is really a uv light with coating that convers uv to white, even thou we see a white light, uv is there too, until recently it was used every where, it did not pose any danger.

Quote:
typical CFLs emit a small amount of UVB (280-315 nm), UVA (315-400 nm) and infrared (> 700 nm) radiation.
Aussiemandias
Aussiemandias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 01/30/2021 - 21:36
Posts: 100
Location: QLD Australia
Caleb wrote:
Aussiemandias wrote:
You’re welcome. I work in infection control in a hospital and use a UV light in my job. Great tools but treat them like they’re a blowtorch.

What UV light/frequency do you use at work to control infection?

Not to control, to look for problems with the cleaning and potential growth zones. 365nm

My hospital only uses UV disinfection in a limited number of lab situations such as pathology to sterilise some instruments. For disinfection you need UVC and reasonable time exposure.

Aussiemandias
Aussiemandias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 01/30/2021 - 21:36
Posts: 100
Location: QLD Australia
alpg88 wrote:
convoy uv at it’s lowest is 365nm, that is just as safe as black lights in night clubs. disinfecting uv aka germicidal uv is 254 or lower, that is dangerous, but not 365nm. you will absolutely not harm your father with occasional use of 365nm uv led.

No. This is unsound advice. Please do not tell people it’s safe.

watermark.silverchair.com/181013.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789494/
https://ehs.lbl.gov/resource/documents/radiation-protection/non-ionizing...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9163689/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235052

alpg88
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 hours ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 12:35
Posts: 1078
Location: usa
Aussiemandias wrote:
alpg88 wrote:
convoy uv at it’s lowest is 365nm, that is just as safe as black lights in night clubs. disinfecting uv aka germicidal uv is 254 or lower, that is dangerous, but not 365nm. you will absolutely not harm your father with occasional use of 365nm uv led.

No. This is unsound advice. Please do not tell people it’s safe.

watermark.silverchair.com/181013.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789494/
https://ehs.lbl.gov/resource/documents/radiation-protection/non-ionizing...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9163689/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235052

your own links support my statement, maybe it is you who needs to stop advising, not to mention OP does not have to take either.

Quote:
300–400 nm: Solid-state lighting 350–370 nm: Bug zappers (flies are most attracted to light at 365 nm)

are you saying those are dangerous??? you’ve been exposed to cfl, and fluorescent lighting, so how is your skin doing?

Aussiemandias
Aussiemandias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 01/30/2021 - 21:36
Posts: 100
Location: QLD Australia

alpg88 wrote:
your own links support my statement, maybe it is you who needs to stop advising, not to mention OP does not have to take either.

are you saying those are dangerous??? you’ve been exposed to cfl, and fluorescent lighting, so how is your skin doing?

Learn to read the science and stop giving dangerous advice. My skin is aging due to exposure to UV from sunlight. That’s how it works. Skin cancer is a large problem in Australia. And then, do you have any idea how fragile the skin of elderly people is? How it can be torn off with a grasp or turning a patient in bed?

Just stop it.

alpg88
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 hours ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 12:35
Posts: 1078
Location: usa

Aussiemandias wrote:
alpg88 wrote:
your own links support my statement, maybe it is you who needs to stop advising, not to mention OP does not have to take either.

are you saying those are dangerous??? you’ve been exposed to cfl, and fluorescent lighting, so how is your skin doing?

Learn to read the science and stop giving dangerous advice. My skin is aging due to exposure to UV from sunlight. That’s how it works. Skin cancer is a large problem in Australia. And then, do you have any idea how fragile the skin of elderly people is? How it can be torn off with a grasp or turning a patient in bed?

Just stop it.

no buddy, you just stop it, there is nothing dangerous in my advice. you are completely blowing things out of proportions,

none of your links show any danger from occasional 365nm exposure, but they do show how we are constantly exposed to such wavelength.
you seriously comparing a danger of old person skin being damaged by physical force, to a lighting that they exposed to in every hospital and nursing homes?? and you want to be taken seriously?
so again just stop it.

Aussiemandias
Aussiemandias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 01/30/2021 - 21:36
Posts: 100
Location: QLD Australia

tryTM, please keep your father safe from the ‘advice’ of people who fail to grasp what they’re talking about yet believe themselves expert.

alpg88
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 hours ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 12:35
Posts: 1078
Location: usa

yea like the guy who works as a nurse and thinks he knows everything, even his own links do not support his “expert opinion” can’t even grasp that wavelengths matter.

tryTM if your father’s room has fluorescent lights he is already exposed to uv of that wavelength, of much greater power than convoy uv flashlight can emit, , this is a fact.

Aussiemandias
Aussiemandias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 01/30/2021 - 21:36
Posts: 100
Location: QLD Australia
alpg88 wrote:
yea like the guy who works as a nurse and thinks he knows everything, even his own links do not support his “expert opinion” can’t even grasp that wavelengths matter

Again demonstrating you can’t read. I work in infection control, I’m not a nurse. I’m done with responding to you.

alpg88
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 hours ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 12:35
Posts: 1078
Location: usa
Aussiemandias wrote:
alpg88 wrote:
yea like the guy who works as a nurse and thinks he knows everything, even his own links do not support his “expert opinion” can’t even grasp that wavelengths matter

Again demonstrating you can’t read. I work in infection control, I’m not a nurse. I’m done with responding to you.

LMAO, please do that, in all thread

Rayoui
Rayoui's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 08/06/2019 - 00:38
Posts: 371
Location: Portland, OR

The light from a UV flashlight is much more concentrated and intense than that from a fluorescent tube. As with any kind of radiation exposure, damage is cumulative and occurs faster as dose increases. While it would probably be fine to use a UV-A flashlight as you describe, it’s best to err on the side of caution and avoid repeated exposure to high-intensity UV.

alpg88
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 hours ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 12:35
Posts: 1078
Location: usa
Rayoui wrote:
The light from a UV flashlight is much more concentrated and intense than that from a fluorescent tube. As with any kind of radiation exposure, damage is cumulative and occurs faster as dose increases. While it would probably be fine to use a UV-A flashlight as you describe, it’s best to err on the side of caution and avoid repeated exposure to high-intensity UV.

it is still 3-5watts max, fluorescent fixtures in an average room are hundred watts, but often more, and have much broader uv spectrum. and much much longer exposure times, there will be absolutely no harm to shine 365nm 5watts light for 10 -15 seconds to check for bodily fluids, it is not even erring on the side of the caution, it is outright overblown panic.
and comparing that exposure to skin damage due to physical force, and use it as an argument is as ridiculous as it gets, especially from a “professional”

Rayoui
Rayoui's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 08/06/2019 - 00:38
Posts: 371
Location: Portland, OR
alpg88 wrote:
it is still 3-5watts max, fluorescent fixtures in an average room are hundred watts, but often more, and have much broader uv spectrum. and much much longer exposure times, there will be absolutely no harm to shine 365nm 5watts light for 10 -15 seconds to check for bodily fluids, it is not even erring on the side of the caution, it is outright overblown panic. and comparing that exposure to skin damage due to physical force, and use it as an argument is as ridiculous as it gets, especially from a “professional”

A flashlight has far more intensity than a fluorescent tube. You can stare at a fluorescent tube without much ill effect but staring into a 5W UV flashlight is probably a bad idea.

I agree with you that the risk is minimal but to say it’s non-existent is just blatantly false. The rule of thumb for radiation exposure is ANY exposure is bad. Remember, damage is cumulative. Best to just avoid any unnecessary exposure.

sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 18 sec ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 163
Rayoui wrote:
alpg88 wrote:
it is still 3-5watts max, fluorescent fixtures in an average room are hundred watts, but often more, and have much broader uv spectrum. and much much longer exposure times, there will be absolutely no harm to shine 365nm 5watts light for 10 -15 seconds to check for bodily fluids, it is not even erring on the side of the caution, it is outright overblown panic. and comparing that exposure to skin damage due to physical force, and use it as an argument is as ridiculous as it gets, especially from a “professional”

A flashlight has far more intensity than a fluorescent tube. You can stare at a fluorescent tube without much ill effect but staring into a 5W UV flashlight is probably a bad idea.

I agree with you that the risk is minimal but to say it’s non-existent is just blatantly false. The rule of thumb for radiation exposure is ANY exposure is bad. Remember, damage is cumulative. Best to just avoid any unnecessary exposure.

I would think the risk of bed sores due to unseen urine and such might be greater than any risk from a UV flashlight on a 99 year olds skin. If I were his Father I would demand they use the light if it prevented discomfort. The man is 99, not 19, so I doubt he has long enough to live to be extremely concerned about the cumulative harm from very minimal exposure to the UV flashlight beam. I am no doctor, so that is just my common sense opinion. By the way, many nightclubs used to have blacklights throughout in my day, so the workers were exposed all night, every night to way more UV light than a UV flashlight. Blacklights and flourescent paints were standard fare back in the day, as were sunlamps used to tan, and nearly everyone layed in the sun in the summer. Was it bad for us…yes…skin cancer is real, and has killed people. That is a result of many hours of UV exposure though. At 99, I do not think there is time left for this minimal exposure to have any real cumulative effect. In my opinion, the risk of discomfort and bed sores would be more important. I am not denying that UV light can be harmful, but in this case, I think such concerns are overkill.

SammysHP
SammysHP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 36 min ago
Joined: 06/25/2019 - 14:35
Posts: 796
Location: Germany

Do you even go outside?

Rayoui
Rayoui's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 08/06/2019 - 00:38
Posts: 371
Location: Portland, OR
sarge12 wrote:
In my opinion, the risk of discomfort and bed sores would be more important. I am not denying that UV light can be harmful, but in this case, I think such concerns are overkill.

You can perform a check without shining a UV light on anybody’s skin.

SammysHP wrote:
Do you even go outside?

I work nights Big Smile

Edit:

OP, here’s some more info for you.

https://phc.amedd.army.mil/PHC%20Resource%20Library/HazardAlertforUltrav...

“The UV-A LED flashlights and “black lights” evaluated to date by APHC (Prov)’s Nonionizing Radiation Program (NRP) pose some risk, but would not cause injury during normal use. The safety limits would only be exceeded if prolonged or many repeated exposures occurred. “

sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 18 sec ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 163
Rayoui wrote:
sarge12 wrote:
In my opinion, the risk of discomfort and bed sores would be more important. I am not denying that UV light can be harmful, but in this case, I think such concerns are overkill.

You can perform a check without shining a UV light on anybody’s skin.

SammysHP wrote:
Do you even go outside?

I work nights Big Smile

Edit:

OP, here’s some more info for you.

https://phc.amedd.army.mil/PHC%20Resource%20Library/HazardAlertforUltrav...

“The UV-A LED flashlights and “black lights” evaluated to date by APHC (Prov)’s Nonionizing Radiation Program (NRP) pose some risk, but would not cause injury during normal use. The safety limits would only be exceeded if prolonged or many repeated exposures occurred. “

Often what happens is Science finds out long term exposure to UV light is the cause of skin cancer. Before then, everybody wanted the darkest tan possible. Nobody can say UV rays are not harmful, but harmful items are used all the time in medical treatments. Dangerous levels of morphine for terminal cancer patients for example. In this and other cases a risk/benefit analysis is the way to get the answer. Is the minimal risk involved worth it for the benefit of having a more comfortable patient. If the paitient is 22, maybe not, but at 99, there is just not enough time left for cumulative damage. My Mother is 93, and if she were bedridden I would focus more on her comfort that avoiding things I know can cause harm with long term use. I worry we as a society worry to much about trying to extend life by haveing the paitients final days be spent in misery. Some have even refused to issue more morphine to terminal cancer patients from concern over addiction, which is ridiculous. If my Loved one is in agony with final stage cancer, I could care less if the die an addict, but not in unbearable pain. Compassionate care of those with terminal illness or extreme age should overide the fear of long term harm an device or drug might otherwise involve. I am sure the OP wishes the Father to live forever, but he wont on this earth. At 99, I think the comfort, and quality of life in his remaining days are more important than possibly harmful UV rays or medications. I am 62, but in very poor health due to a damaged spinal cord. My Family(sister) knows that near the end, to risk exrtra life in favor of decreased pain and greater comfort. With my current quality of life, I do not even want to live to be very old, because my quality of life already sucks.

sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 18 sec ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 163
SammysHP wrote:
Do you even go outside?

If you are asking me that, I usually only go outside to go to the mailbox. I go a month at times, never even seeing another human being. I do communicate with them by phone or on forums.

Dalamar
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 04/25/2019 - 21:13
Posts: 166
Aussiemandias wrote:
alpg88 wrote:
convoy uv at it’s lowest is 365nm, that is just as safe as black lights in night clubs. disinfecting uv aka germicidal uv is 254 or lower, that is dangerous, but not 365nm. you will absolutely not harm your father with occasional use of 365nm uv led.

No. This is unsound advice. Please do not tell people it’s safe.

watermark.silverchair.com/181013.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789494/
https://ehs.lbl.gov/resource/documents/radiation-protection/non-ionizing...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9163689/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235052

He is technically right, it should not cause harm if the exposure is brief, but you can expect the intensity is around 10-20x of bright sunlight, which could theoretically be problematic

It will probably be fine if the exposure is brief. I would want to use a less intense, diffused UV light if it’s being pointed at skin tbh.
UVB and UVC are much more likely to cause cancer, though technically we as well as birds require UVB to make vitamin D

I only like high CRI. Collection:

Fireflies NOV-MU 21 4500k E21A

Fireflies ROT66 219B SW45 D220

Fireflies E07 Copper 219B SW45k? (odd/higher lumen bin with lower r9 and higher cct?)

Fireflies E07 219B SW45k

Fireflies E07x Pro sst20 FA4 4000k (mail)

 

Varmint removal:

Convoy M21A C8 ver SST20 4000k (5a)

Convoy S2+ SST20 4000k  FB4 (3200ma)

Memes:

BLF GT94

Emisar D18 660nm SST20 (mail)

 

 

CRI test dump https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kcl_uOhgfpR4RSsa8F4b-UUVP9mkL6Cr...

wle
wle's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 01/07/2015 - 13:49
Posts: 2187
Location: atlanta ga

probably the light is safe, the power levels are low, time is short, it seems to not be UV-C

what i doubt though, is if it will show you anything

you will definitely not explicitly see ‘germs’ or ‘dirt’
things will glow or not

  • and you will not really know what they are**

pee for instance has a faint glow
but so does the bluing from laundry detergent and some soaps
underwear lint

if the UV has too much blue or purple, then all kinds of things glow, obscuring anything that you might really care about

i just would not expect to learn anything, though the risk is in my opinion, low

you just do not know what you are seeing, usually
or missing

"You never have the wind with you - it's either against you, or you're having a good day."
    Daniel Behrman, "The Man Who Loved Bicycles".
It never gets easy, you just go faster.   
-Greg Lemond.
       ,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¸