Please, do not confuse the bonding/antibonding orbital excitation energy, as plotted in the UV spectrum, with the bond dissociation energy (though, strongly related). UV spectrometry measures the π → π*, n → σ* and n → π* excitation energy in combination with the auxochromic/bathochromic effect of the adjacent and/or conjugated group, at ultra-short time exposure; but not the pure bond dissociation energy (neither the σ → σ* excitation). Therefore, UV spectrum is not the correct tool, in order to conclude whether the said concept is right or wrong. Contrary, appropriate methodologies and instrumentations that exist, accurately prove the said concept, together with the principles of photochemistry.
Photoiniciators that are activated around 400 nm (black light), are already proposed and they are suitable for the photopolymerization of alkenes. However, these photoiniciators might not be necessary for the photopolymerization of oxiranes (epoxies) that dissociate around 350 nm.
Fluorescent lamps also emit bellow 300 nm. But fortunately, their UVB energy content is very low and in practice, the corresponding power is negligible above a few cm of distance.
Sunlight also contains a significant amount of UVB and UVC radiation that has escaped from the ozone layer and the clouds scattering. Unfortunately, the sunlight content of UVB and UVC radiation is important and dangerous; especially, at low geographical longitudes and/or high sea level altitudes, during summertime.
Thus, using a dozen of fluorescent tubes, in touch or exposure under sunlight might probably work, but it cannot be considered as a scientific and reproducible methodology.
In case of doubt, Sir, do not hesitate to ask for further details and comments, before being so severe, in your criticism.
Question: Does UV spectrometry alter the sample?
Or, is UV spectrometry a destructive analytical method or not?