UV-emitting nail polish dryers damage DNA and cause mutations in cells

30 points by zachruss92 2 years ago | 12 comments
  • aeadio 2 years ago
    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.

    • colechristensen 2 years ago
      Much of your protection from UV radiation comes from the outer layers of dead skin cells. These people put living cells in a Petri dish under a much larger than usual dosage of these lights, serious damage should have been expected, that’s what UV does.

      The question is, in vivo, do actual fingers in actual real world usage experience outsized DNA damage compared to moderate sun exposure.

      You’re not going to get that answer from cultured cells like that.

      If you wanted to do a study explicitly to create sensational headlines, this is how you’d do it. Take a similar situation but modify it so a bad outcome is certain then suggest the much different real world case is similar.

      Given case reports of strange cancer in fingers further study is interesting, but I wouldn’t go around trying to make fans of fancy nails panic quite yet. (Who knows, some of the solvents and miscellaneous substances may be the culprit more than UV)

      • artificialidiot 2 years ago
        They emit UVA which has less energy and body has better defenses for it, but it is not as readily blocked as UVB or UVC, although some would imagine the resin and pigments for this application are designed to absorb UVA more.

        I think most risk has to do with manufacturers' lax attitude for safety and consumer expectations and impatience.

        Not that it is a particularly healthy thing to radiate oneself with UV but what is life without some color.

      • LarryMullins 2 years ago
        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.
        • loa_in_ 2 years ago
          Even best tested chemicals are tested for their effects for what, 6-months? If something takes longer to damage, or damages only few, you're going to potential pay the real price.

          Not unlike fake UV protection fitted glasses, that not only don't filter out the radiation, they're dimming enough to make your eyes allow more of it in the result.

        • TiredGuy 2 years ago
          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 2 years ago
            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 2 years ago
              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.

            • Karawebnetwork 2 years ago
              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.

              • zachruss92 2 years ago
                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 2 years ago
                  Aren't they using UV blasts on fast-hardening resins in tooth repair as well?
                  • benj111 2 years ago
                    That's a one off thing though.

                    Akin to getting an x-ray v living to close to Chernobyl.