[HN Gopher] UV-emitting nail polish dryers damage DNA and cause ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       UV-emitting nail polish dryers damage DNA and cause mutations in
       cells
        
       Author : zachruss92
       Score  : 23 points
       Date   : 2023-01-19 19:50 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (phys.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
        
       | LarryMullins wrote:
       | The beauty industry is one of the most reckless and and
       | capriciously hazardous consumer-facing industries there is.
       | Online retailers are filled with insanely dangerous beauty
       | products, like high power lasers that don't even come with safety
       | googles. Many of their chemical products are unproven at best,
       | often outright hazardous to use at all without a fume hood.
       | Parasites and synthetic stimulants sold as weight loss products,
       | the list goes on and on.
        
       | TiredGuy wrote:
       | How much damage does it do compared to, say, sitting in the
       | summer sun for 20 minutes?
       | 
       | Also makes me curious about those UV teeth-whitening devices and
       | whether there is any similar research for them. I don't know how
       | valid such a concern would be, but it seems reasonable to assume
       | that the skin inside the mouth wasn't designed to be exposed to
       | UV as much as skin on the outside of the body, so I wonder if
       | it's more susceptible to damage from that type of thing.
        
         | blacksmith_tb wrote:
         | It doesn't seem like a surprising result, I agree, though it
         | also wouldn't be too hard for people to wear opaque gloves that
         | covered most of their hands in the machine (unlike the tooth
         | whiteners). My instinct is that if it was extremely bad for us
         | there would be a surprising spike in skin cancers of the hands,
         | but I suppose since hands are exposed to sunlight almost as
         | much as faces, it might be hard to make the connection to nail
         | salons.
        
           | zachruss92 wrote:
           | Yea the face and hands are typically the first bodyparts to
           | show skin "aging" which is now more commonly thought to be
           | preventable (mostly) with moisturizing, Retonol, and
           | sunscreen.
           | 
           | There are UV protecting gloves put there. I wonder how
           | effective they are though? I know UPF fabric shirts
           | definitely stop me from getting burned when fishing.
        
         | zachruss92 wrote:
         | Not a scientist but I'd imagine more because it's a lot of
         | radiation focused on a very small area.
         | 
         | With DNA damage being cumulative I'd imagine the DNA repair
         | systems can't keep up with that many molecular lesions at once.
        
         | pengaru wrote:
         | Aren't they using UV blasts on fast-hardening resins in tooth
         | repair as well?
        
           | benj111 wrote:
           | That's a one off thing though.
           | 
           | Akin to getting an x-ray v living to close to Chernobyl.
        
         | Karawebnetwork wrote:
         | This is a good question indeed. Using a LED lamp, it takes 30
         | seconds to dry one hand.
         | 
         | The one I own has 4 settings: 10, 30, 60 and 100 seconds.
         | 
         | They last for 2 to 3 weeks.
         | 
         | I wonder how much damage happens from exposing your fingers for
         | 30 seconds every 2-3 weeks.
         | 
         | I'm thinking there could be some risks for technicians who
         | spend their days next to the devices, but devices usually don't
         | leak any light.
        
       | aeadio wrote:
       | I'm no expert here at all, but I wonder how much this translates
       | to real world risk. It seems like they're irradiating unprotected
       | cells with a direct blast of UV. How much of that UV actually
       | penetrates the top layers of skin? They're also subjecting cells
       | to 20+ minutes of continuous exposure, while during a gel
       | manicure typically involves 60-120 seconds of exposure. Obviously
       | we're not seeing individuals walk out of manicure sessions with
       | necrosis of the fingertips. Their values of 20-70% cell death
       | don't seem meaningfully representative.
       | 
       | I'd love somebody with an informed opinion to weigh in here. Is
       | this bad science? Bad reporting? Or is there genuine danger here
       | that's been flying under the radar?
       | 
       | My concern is, we see a lot of sensational science reporting that
       | plays up the risks and dangers of potentially routine things,
       | lowering public trust in science.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-01-19 23:02 UTC)