the article (titled Two-Twenty-Two presumably because it is about this specific wavelength vs the whole UV-C range) does say "222 nm light does not induce DNA d

the article (titled Two-Twenty-Two presumably because it is about this specific wavelength vs the whole UV-C range) does say "222 nm light does not induce DNA damage in mice, even at much higher flux than would be used for disinfection. That's very much as opposed to (say) 254 nm light, which starts doing damage immediately due to greater penetration into animal tissue."