[z_ack]

the answer is no, I was reading the linked documents and:

1. yes UVC of that frequency kill virus but they don't provide results about human safety, the say "potentially": "Germicidal ultraviolet light, typically at 254 nm, is effective in this context but, used directly, can be a health hazard to skin and eyes. By contrast, far-UVC light (207–222 nm) efficiently kills pathogens potentially without harm to exposed human tissues."

2. A study on rats is linked, but it doesn't prove the human safety;

3. The author of the study is economically interested to exploit commercially that sterilisation technique. further reason to wait for serious verifications: “The authors declare the following pending patent: Patent Title: “Apparatus, method and system for selectively affecting and/or killing a virus”. Applicant: The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. Inventors: Gerhard Randers-Pehrson, David Jonathan Brenner, Alan Bigelow. Application #: US20180169279A1. Aspect of manuscript covered in patent application: Use of filtered 222 nm UV light to kill viruses URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180169279A1/en?oq=2020... “D.J.B has a granted patent entitled ‘Apparatus, method and system for selectively affecting and/or killing a virus’ (US10780189B2), that relates to the use of filtered 222 nm UV light to inactivate viruses. In addition, D.J.B has an ongoing non-financial collaboration with Eden Park Illumination, and the authors’ institution, Columbia University, has licensed aspects of UV light technology to USHIO Inc.”

4. Invisible light is dangerous, you can injury your eyes, without realizing it and, devices from unreliable resellers could hide more serious risks.

[z_ack]

P.s. Reading patent details: "to prevent the at least one radiation from having any wavelength that is outside of the range can be provided or which can be substantially harmful to cells of the body". What means "substantially harmful" radiation ? That is harmful but not so much ? A little bit harmful, maybe? Tell me if I'm wrong, because, for me, if something can't damage anything is "harmless", not "probably harmless" or "not substantially harmful". That is the language of the lawyers or the sellers. They simply don't know yet.

P.S.2 What about photochemical effects ? You put this inside a home and UVC start to discolor everything around. Besides piss off customers, could create serious legal problems to the seller. You know, damage to expensive furniture, paintings, etc.