High-efficiency two-in-one sanitizer and wireless charger, UV Led Sanitizer destroy over 99.9% of germs in just Three Minutes.
Proprietary design with six Mercury-Free UV lamps inside without any Toxic Fumes.
Can be used to sanitise the following items:
-Nail clipper or other tools
-Phones
-Keys
-Tooth brush
-Earrings
-alot more
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
It's more the other way around - the company's making a big claim (super cheap device that kills virus). Most of the evidence I quickly googled suggests
* Large, expensive, medical-grade sterilizers do work
* Cheap, easy to find, consumer grade stuff has almost never been formally tested (there are exceptions). The consensus I've read suggests it's doubtful.
This stuff is likely best used as landfill - but no one knows for sure.
There's different bands of UV light and it's wavelength is what determines whether or not these sterilizers do actually perform as advertised.
The UV region covers the wavelength range 100-400 nm and is divided into three bands:
UVA (315-400 nm)
UVB (280-315 nm)
UVC (100-280 nm).
The relatively long-wavelength UVA accounts for approximately 95 per cent of the UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface — it's what's mostly responsible for giving you a tan / sunburn when you don't put on sunscreen when outdoors.
On the other hand, UVC is very short wavelength light that is both damaging and dangerous, but that's exactly the kind of stuff you want if you want Ultraviolet light that can de-activate viruses and destroy bacteria. The downside however is that UV-C light would also not be biologically harmful but it can also damage and degrade plastics over time.
If you gadgets are made of plastic, exposing it to UV light would also cause the plastic to degrade and discolour. You can sometimes observe this if you put plastic clothing pegs out in the clothesline and years later they become brittle and useless.
This also holds true to the lens that protects whatever bulb is emitting the light — proper UV-C LED lenses are not made out of soft plastic but instead out of UV tolerant materials like quartz glass.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-and…
https://hackaday.com/2020/04/15/buyer-beware-this-led-bulb-s…
The cheaper the product is, the less likely it is to be short wavelength UV light. It's most likely UV-B or UV-A.
But.. why?
Landfill. Just use alcohol wipes if you are concerned someone has coughed or shat on your phone.
you've got to rethink your choices in life if you ever have concerns someone shat on your phone
https://www.kmart.com.au/product/phone-uv-steriliser/3417301
$15 (was $20) @ Kmart
and it's also $15 at your own store? https://raden.com/products/led-uvc-phone-sanitiser
I am not fussed if people wish to use Germicidal UV to protect themselves against creepy crawlies.
However, I am fussed when products are pushed with no real data backing them up.
For example;
If this product truly is Germicidal UV, there is no evidence or documentation stating that it truly emits UVC light.
This is an issue because no average person has the ability to test this.
So, without any evidence it would most likely not be Germicidal UV and thus a complete waste of money and also very misleading.
If it IS a Germicidal UV emitting device, then there is no safety documentation on the sale page outlining the potential hazards when working with UVC light and also the harm it can cause to devices placed inside. (like @skrimshaw mentioned, it can damage plastics etc.)
It can cause skin irritation and blindness, UV burn (like sunburn) etc etc.
I wont waffle on. But I have negged because this doesn't feel like a fair business practice.
whats the wireless specs?
These are a scam.