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,

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

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!

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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”

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.