Faulty floodlight sends dozens to hospital - UV

Possible as there was a concern in the 1990s about domestic halogen lights emitting too much UV, which was considered a risk to the eyes when used in desklights. AFAIK, they have had UV filters since then

I would think it would have to be a bloody powerful bulb(s), & one that is very inefficient in as much as it gives off a lot of UV compared to visible light to give burns bad enough for people to be going to hospital.

I guess that if you had the symptoms of sunburn, and hadn't been in the sun, you would start to worry a lot about what "horrible disease" you might have contracted.

Possible as there was a concern in the 1990s about domestic halogen lights emitting too much UV, which was considered a risk to the eyes when used in desklights. AFAIK, they have had UV filters since then

I would think it would have to be a bloody powerful bulb(s), & one that is very inefficient in as much as it gives off a lot of UV compared to visible light to give burns bad enough for people to be going to hospital.

I guess that if you had the symptoms of sunburn, and hadn't been in the sun, you would start to worry a lot about what "horrible disease" you might have contracted.

===========================================================

Yeah, seems a bit extreme. I've had welding flash burns in my eyes - very painfull, but the source is tens of centimeters from your eyes, not many meters as in this case.

These were multi-head portable floodlights on an extendable arm, to facilitate playing basketball in the street. The cover glass (on those still retaining it) clearly stated not to operate without the glass in place. Obviously there is a known hazard which the glass (filter) mitigates..

Its a really good idea to print a warning ON THE GLASS not to operate without the glass in place :)