[HN Gopher] DNA damage and mutations in cells after irradiation ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       DNA damage and mutations in cells after irradiation with a nail
       polish dryer
        
       Author : fairytalemtg
       Score  : 39 points
       Date   : 2024-02-04 17:43 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
        
       | pinetroey wrote:
       | What about the dentist's uv gun?
        
         | zihotki wrote:
         | You usually don't visit dentist each week or two so the damage
         | you'll receive there can be ignored.
        
           | neals wrote:
           | Any damage can be ignored.
        
           | data_maan wrote:
           | Isn't DNA damage lifetime accumulated?
           | 
           | (Unrelated to the first) Even if the probability is low, say
           | 0.0001, of DNA damage happening after a single dentist visit,
           | that still will result in hundreds or thousands of cases of
           | DNA if the population is large enough, i.e. in every larger
           | city.
        
             | 4death4 wrote:
             | > DNA damage happening after a single dentist visit
             | 
             | Your dentist uses UV after every visit?
        
             | dekhn wrote:
             | Depends where the damage is. Skin is made mostly of
             | epithelial cells with a limited lifespan. Genetic damage to
             | individual cells isn't lifetime- it goes away when the cell
             | dies. The damage a damaged cell can do is significant,
             | though.
             | 
             | But those cells are grown from stem cells, and if they
             | remain undamaged, their descendants (the brand-new
             | epithelial cells making up skin) will begin their life
             | already damaged.
             | 
             | With all that said, the underlying biology of cancer is
             | extremely complicated and it's hard to evaluate the impact
             | of things like this. Some amount of DNA damage happens
             | constantly that bodies can clear up without any real long-
             | term impact.
             | 
             | For a dentist visit, we assume that the increased benefits
             | from infrequent x-rays exceed the low probability of
             | cancer. I don't know about UV used in dental applications,
             | though.
        
         | m3kw9 wrote:
         | Old lights use UV, newer lights which is even 10-15 years uses
         | visible light 400nm plus
        
       | thomasreggi wrote:
       | I've gotten a couple gel manicures recently, it's addicting once
       | you start because it lasts a long time. I'm taking a break from
       | it because it makes your nails brittle. They make special gloves
       | you can wear that just expose your nails, ideally I was thinking
       | the same technology in 3d projection mapping could be used to
       | only expose the nailbed to uv ligt with hand tracking. It would
       | increase the the cost of one of these uv curing devices by
       | smartifying it but would prevent cancer...
        
       | p1mrx wrote:
       | Flipping through
       | https://www.google.com/search?q=photoinitiator+absorption+sp...
       | suggests that some photoinitiators work with 222nm UVC light.
       | 
       | That wavelength is currently undergoing safety testing for
       | killing germs. Maybe that's a possible alternative? Penetration
       | depth might be an issue, since that's what (supposedly) makes it
       | safe for skin.
        
       | yieldcrv wrote:
       | time to hit all the nail salons in California to see if they have
       | that disclaimer up
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-02-04 23:01 UTC)