New Nano UV Disinfectant Light Scanner

Has anyone else on this forum been spammed with this?

It looks too good to be true?

hey, i have not received that particular piece of junk, but have been spammed by the same company before. i almost fell for it and they wanted to charge me more money than i am likely to make before i turn 109 years old.

in my experience, if things look too good to be true, it is likely that they are too good to be true.

UV light is indeed used in hospitals and some water purification methods include passing the water past an intense UV light. It is devastatingly good at killing bacteria, etc…

Here’s the problem. The UV light kills ANY cell, not just BAD cells. The water purification guys and hospital staff are very aware that at NO TIME should one of these lights EVER be lit near any human. It can blind people, causes very bad skin problems… I’ve talked to someone who was exposed to one of these lights, for just a moment, he showed me the scars that resulted…

Would I put this into a open hand-held device that is, as claimed, even more potent than the above lights? No thank you. And if you switch such a thing on near me, I’m bound to assault you.

My point: This thing probably emits exactly zero harmful UV light.

Edit: Wiki Linky with info on UV exposure:

Speaking for myself, you so-called “sceptics” don’t know your proverbial gases from your collective ketones. You guys think I’m a turncoat? Hah! And well you might, but here’s the bit that did it for me:

If you honestly think your GP isn’t in league with your government’s agents to keep The Truth from you, you’re probably a Mensa candidate. And we all know that nobody can understand a word of that super clever lot. :stuck_out_tongue:


On the other hand … neo-natal babies suffering metabolic jaundice are routinely treated with UV. And in disco’s, UV strobes were (or are - haven’t been for a while) popular ornaments.
And don’t they use UV to check if you are trying to vote twice on election day?

I suppose its all about the dose.


Even if it does work, I’ll still laugh at anyone waving one around in public. :smiley:

Isn’t it healthier to be continuously exposed to a small amount of bacteria anyway?

It’s all about the type. UVC and UVB are the dangerous ones, with UVC being the chief doer of evil, ie, the best killer of cells. See link I supplied. :stuck_out_tongue:

The Sun emits ultraviolet radiation in the UVA, UVB, and UVC bands. Why dont we fry like vampires when we take our shirts off?


The sun radiate all sort of harmful rays but the earth has got a magnetic field. This “channel” it around and away from us. Our atmosphere also have ozone in it.

The sun radiate all sort of harmful rays but the earth has got a magnetic field. This "channel" it around and away from us.

But doesn’t the magnetic field only affect the particlulate emmisions from the sun (solar wind)?


Actually, they need to be electrically charged particles that are moving relative to the magnetic field in order to experience an external unbalanced force.


Indeed. Go out in the sun too long and you’ll get skin cancer.

That’s also why the ozone layer is so important.

Edit: Grammar

[citation needed]

Deep breath I’ve already cited it 11 posts ago. If you click that link you’ll no doubt read:

“Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation present in sunlight is an environmental human carcinogen.”

This is a sceptics forum. Citing a wikipedia page may be sufficiently rigorous for you, but it isn’t for me, especially when used in support of a statement that is plainly nonsensical:

Go out in the sun too long and you'll get skin cancer.

In any case, the wikipedia page does not support your statement. Neither does the CDC or the American Cancer Society or the National Cancer Institute
They all claim that UV exposure from the sun is a risk factor in the development of skin cancers; none claim, as you do, that overexposure to UV will result in skin cancer.

I must say, I didn’t realize that the carcinogenic nature of UV exposure was this controversial. After all, reading things in your links like (WHO link): “While UVB has well known carcinogenic properties and whose excessive exposure is known to lead to the development of skin cancers, recent scientific studies suggest that high exposures to the longer wavelength UVA could also have an impact on skin cancer occurrence.”. That is phrased a little stronger than “risk factor”, and sounds like a double whammy to me. They’re not even mentioning UVC. Which is what gets emitted by those sterilization lamps (the point of the thread), did I mention I actually met a guy whose skin was actually damaged by an actual sterilization lamp? However I digress… I’m sorry for not thinking that particular viewpoint would be argued as militantly, and thus slacking in my wording. I have one of these lamps, by the way. If any skeptics are willing to put their eyesight and skin on the line to prove me wrong, I’m happy to oblige (after necessary waiver signing of course). (Okay actually I would refuse to do that because I’m pretty durn sure you’d be blinded but hey…)

Yes I phrased my previous sentence incorrectly. However I was typing it tongue in cheek. I’m a skeptic too, but I guess I take it a bit more lightheartedly.

Like, what if you spent a THOUSAND years sun-tanning? Actually never mind, I’m just digging now…

It was a bit of a light hearted attempt at humour. The internet is bad at relaying intent. Maybe I should start using even more smileys (I note I’ve already interjected them into this thread but fuckit, it sounds like we can use some more) ;D ;D ;D

Found a reliable link to read up on UV medical technology as well as UV-C safety if anyone is still interested in this post.