UV-Emitting Nail Polish Dryers Damage DNA and Cause Mutations In Cells, Study Finds (phys.org) 77
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: The ultraviolet nail polish drying devices used to cure gel manicures may pose more of a public health concern than previously thought. Researchers at the University of California San Diego have studied these ultraviolet (UV) light emitting devices, and found that their use leads to cell death and cancer-causing mutations in human cells. The devices are a common fixture in nail salons, and generally use a particular spectrum of UV light (340-395nm) to cure the chemicals used in gel manicures. While tanning beds use a different spectrum of UV light (280-400nm) that studies have conclusively proven to be carcinogenic, the spectrum used in the nail dryers has not been well studied.
Using three different cell lines -- adult human skin keratinocytes, human foreskin fibroblasts, and mouse embryonic fibroblasts -- the researchers found that the use of these UV emitting devices for just one 20-minute session led to between 20 and 30 percent cell death, while three consecutive 20-minute exposures caused between 65 and 70 percent of the exposed cells to die. Exposure to the UV light also caused mitochondrial and DNA damage in the remaining cells and resulted in mutations with patterns that can be observed in skin cancer in humans. [...] The researchers caution that while the results show the harmful effects of the repeated use of these devices on human cells, a long-term epidemiological study would be required before stating conclusively that using these machines leads to an increased risk of skin cancers. However, the results of the study were clear: The chronic use of these nail polish drying machines is damaging to human cells. "We saw multiple things: first, we saw that DNA gets damaged," said Ludmil Alexandrov, a professor of bioengineering as well as cellular and molecular medicine at UC San Diego, and corresponding author of the study published in Nature Communications. "We also saw that some of the DNA damage does not get repaired over time, and it does lead to mutations after every exposure with a UV-nail polish dryer. Lastly, we saw that exposure may cause mitochondrial dysfunction, which may also result in additional mutations. We looked at patients with skin cancers, and we see the exact same patterns of mutations in these patients that were seen in the irradiated cells."
"Our experimental results and the prior evidence strongly suggest that radiation emitted by UV-nail polish dryers may cause cancers of the hand and that UV-nail polish dryers, similar to tanning beds, may increase the risk of early-onset skin cancer," add the researchers. "Nevertheless, future large-scale epidemiological studies are warranted to accurately quantify the risk for skin cancer of the hand in people regularly using UV-nail polish dryers. It is likely that such studies will take at least a decade to complete and to subsequently inform the general public."
Using three different cell lines -- adult human skin keratinocytes, human foreskin fibroblasts, and mouse embryonic fibroblasts -- the researchers found that the use of these UV emitting devices for just one 20-minute session led to between 20 and 30 percent cell death, while three consecutive 20-minute exposures caused between 65 and 70 percent of the exposed cells to die. Exposure to the UV light also caused mitochondrial and DNA damage in the remaining cells and resulted in mutations with patterns that can be observed in skin cancer in humans. [...] The researchers caution that while the results show the harmful effects of the repeated use of these devices on human cells, a long-term epidemiological study would be required before stating conclusively that using these machines leads to an increased risk of skin cancers. However, the results of the study were clear: The chronic use of these nail polish drying machines is damaging to human cells. "We saw multiple things: first, we saw that DNA gets damaged," said Ludmil Alexandrov, a professor of bioengineering as well as cellular and molecular medicine at UC San Diego, and corresponding author of the study published in Nature Communications. "We also saw that some of the DNA damage does not get repaired over time, and it does lead to mutations after every exposure with a UV-nail polish dryer. Lastly, we saw that exposure may cause mitochondrial dysfunction, which may also result in additional mutations. We looked at patients with skin cancers, and we see the exact same patterns of mutations in these patients that were seen in the irradiated cells."
"Our experimental results and the prior evidence strongly suggest that radiation emitted by UV-nail polish dryers may cause cancers of the hand and that UV-nail polish dryers, similar to tanning beds, may increase the risk of early-onset skin cancer," add the researchers. "Nevertheless, future large-scale epidemiological studies are warranted to accurately quantify the risk for skin cancer of the hand in people regularly using UV-nail polish dryers. It is likely that such studies will take at least a decade to complete and to subsequently inform the general public."
Logic Failure (Score:2)
The devices .... generally use a particular spectrum of UV light (340-395nm).....While tanning beds use a different spectrum of UV light (280-400nm) that studies have conclusively proven to be carcinogenic...
If the wavelength range of 280-400nm is known to be carcinogenic then the wavelength range 340-395nm is also known to be carcinogenic since it is a subset of the first range. The fact that UV radiation causes skin cancer is hardly a new discovery.
Re:Logic Failure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If a sample from 280-400nm causes cancer then maybe only the shorter wavelength is causing all the cancer
In that case, it would be wrong to state that we know that wavelengths of 280-400nm cause cancer since we would not know that.
Re: (Score:2)
> it would be wrong to state that we know that wavelengths of 280-400nm cause cancer since we would not know that
Except we do know that. The difference is specificity; we know that a device that emits UV light spanning the 280-400nm range can cause cancer, but that claim isn't specific if the risk is uniform over the entire spectrum or unique to narrower portions of it.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
We have always know 280nm is ionizing causes cell damage.
In that case, guess I'm slightly hung up on the "logic" that enabled any tanning bed manufacturer to utilize hardware capable of emitting anything close to 280nm, given what we have (allegedly) always known.
What's next, Rolex bringing back Radium powered illumination? I mean, c'mon, how dumb can we be as a species.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh just browse the internet a bit and you'll find out.... Or just watch the news.
Re: (Score:2)
The logical is "profit is good as long as we don't pay the external price." It's capitalism in a nutshell.
Capitalism doesn't give a shit about causing cancer unless there's a legal penalty for it. Even then, the legal penalty is usually just a fine. As long as the profits are greater than the fine, the fine is just the cost of doing business.
Until we do something drastic like putting company executives in prison for life when they make decisions that kill people, nothing will change and unsafe products w
Re: (Score:2)
What's next, Rolex bringing back Radium powered illumination? I mean, c'mon, how dumb can we be as a species.
Some high end watches use tritium tubes for illumination these days. I also have several gun sights that use it. It is a weak beta emitter with a half life of about 12 years, so while it is technically radioactive, it is considered safe and there really are not any suitable replacements for the functionality. Guns can sit in the dark safe for months, but you take them out and the sights are still glowing nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how logic works. If a sample from 280-400nm causes cancer then maybe only the shorter wavelength is causing all the cancer, maybe only the 280-340 is causing the damage and the 340-395 is safe
340-395 is safer, but it's not 100% safe.
This is a complete non issue though. Those exact same people who have their nails done probably go straight from the nail parlor to a fast-tanning salon to top up their tan.
Who has time to wait an hour or two for tanning when they can just turn up the brightness and do it in 10 minutes?
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to Venn Diagram this, I wouldn't be surprised if the circle for "uses tanning salon" mostly overlapped with the circle for "uses nail parlor", but the "uses mail parlor" circle is going to be waaaaaayyyyyyy larger.
Re: (Score:2)
340-395 is safer, but it's not 100% safe.
Want to know a fun fact? The shorter wavelength UV is _safer_ because it doesn't penetrate the layer of dead cells. The safest UV is 220-280nm range. It's even safe for eyesight.
Even shorter UV would probably be better, but it is strongly absorbed by oxygen.
Re: Logic Failure (Score:4, Insightful)
No inconsistency. The UV of a standing bed is broader spectrum and the damage was thought to be more likely due to the existence of shorter wavelengths in its emissions. It's like saying a dangerous gang exists and they consists of males age 2 to 30. Another gang, comprised of males age 3 to 5, was assumed to be less dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
The UV of a standing bed is broader spectrum and the damage was thought to be more likely due to the existence of shorter wavelengths
In which case it is wrong to say that we know wavelengths of 280-400nm cause cancer because we do not know that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We know that drinking household bleach will kill you. Household bleach is a mixture of water and sodium hypochlorite. Water is a subset of household bleach, therefore drinking water will kill you.
Re: (Score:2)
Breathing kills you -- 100% of dead people were habitual breathers. :-)
Re: Logic Failure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? No.
Bleach is a bunch of water molecules and a bunch of hypochlorite molecules floating around. There isn't any multiplication. The set is {water, hypochlorite}. {water} is a subset. It's very analogous to the set {photons with wavelengths between 280 - 400 nm} and the subset {photons with wavelengths between 340 - 395 nm}.
The logical fallacy is the assertion that if the superset has a property the subset must also have that property.
Re: (Score:2)
The logical fallacy is the assertion that if the superset has a property the subset must also have that property.
It is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is basically *always false"
In this case it is just not always true.
However your fault is claiming that water is a subset of bleach, which it is not. It is an ingredient.
A subset of bleach would be a smaller amount of bleach - and that's it.
It's very analogous to the set {photons with wavelengths between 280 - 400 nm} and the subset {photons with wave
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently it's make shit up time. A logical fallacy is neither true nor false. It's a deductive error that can produce either a true or false result:
All knights tell the truth. The knight said bunnies are cute. I like bunnies, therefore bunnies are cute.
All knights tell the truth. The knight said bunnies are cute. I hate bunnies, therefore bunnies are not cute.
A
A different failure - ever seen someone with gel? (Score:1, Troll)
I see a different failure.
> the researchers found that the use of these UV emitting devices for just one 20-minute session led to between 20 and 30 percent cell death, while three consecutive 20-minute exposures caused between 65 and 70 percent of the exposed cells to die.
Their lab methodology says 20%-30% of your cells will die in one session, 70% if you decide to get a different color.
Don't you think customers would have noticed that their hands are dead?
Killing 20%-70% of your skin in a few minutes w
Re: (Score:2)
>"When your lab result is so blatantly opposite real world experience, your research is - wrong."
Yep. What they are modeling is not at all the same as an actual finger with layers of already dead skin on top (that is how our skin works), then subsequent layers of different skin tissue, complete with melanin and other things our skin have have evolved to deal with UV. We also don't know which dryer they were testing- they are not necessarily all the same wavelength(s) or intensity.
It seems only useful a
uv light (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You aren't being exposed to the dentists UV light for 10-15 mins every couple of weeks. If you are you have other more serious problems and risks.
Perhaps a more serious problem, is looking at the addictive nature of roasting your skin various shades of brown every couple of weeks using hardware that is actually trying to out-cancer the Sun, for fashion and fucks sake.
I would say there's an easy fix for this, but it's like talking to a smoker about the benefits of fresh air.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: uv light (Score:2)
That was my first thought too. Apparently dental curing tools use a longer wavelength of light [ada.org] which should be even less likely to cause cancer. But someone should probably check now just in case.
Re: oh boy (Score:2)
Sadly we already do chop off the most sensitive portion of babies dicks so that the hospital and medical suppliers can make a large profit. The industry claims it is benificial to harm them so.
About using some kind of blow dryer? (Score:2)
What about using some kind of smooth blow dryer? Would it blow the nail polish away if the blower was mild enough?
Re:About using some kind of blow dryer? (Score:4, Informative)
You are confusing drying with curing.
Yes, I know TFS (wrongly) says "The ultraviolet nail polish drying devices" - but it's not drying (as in "through evaporation"), but curing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But not in this case.
I work with UV resin.
#FirstWorldProblems (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Today I learned that there are people in this world who not only have a need to polish their nails, but they need cancer-causing high-tech dryers afterwards. Oh, the humanity!
And then they use acetone to remove the finish.
The article I was reading was better. (Score:2)
My quick scanning brain went, "The polish are making dryers? Since when? And what are they being nailed for?"
Qualification of risk (Score:3)
The overall reasoning I gather is
cure lamps emit UVA -> UVA is more penetrating and may reach tested cells -> exposed cell lines show signs of mutagenicity -> mutagenicity often correlates to carcinogenicity -> therefore, cure lamps may cause cancer
The caveat is these cell lines do not represent normal human skin, which has quite fantastic UV protection from melanocytes (which can convert UV to heat with ~100% efficiency), can deal with mutant cells (and even receive help from commensal bacteria), and in general is a complex system with a bag of tricks that is not fully understood. And you would certain notice if your skin cells were being killed off as effectively as they are in vitro case - you'd have sunburn with every session.
So you really do need the followup studies to get an actual qualification of risk. This just indicates some - potentially quite small - amount of risk probably exists. It's also probably greater if you have lighter skin (white people have ~70x the skin cancer risk of black people).
Re: (Score:3)
“Research has been shown to cause cancer in rats.”
It would have been helpful to know how intense this UV is compared to sunlight. Are these lamps 1x, 100x as intense in these same wavelengths in sunlight? Context for goodness sake, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It would also be useful to know if the cells were protected by a layer of epidermis (or equivalent) or just cultured cells sitting open in a petri dish.
OH WAIT
Also, oblig; https://xkcd.com/1217/ [xkcd.com]
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the same UV as sunlight. UV is actually quite a large chunk of spectrum, and different frequencies have different effects. For example, 222nm is safe for humans but kills viruses.
Chances are these are mostly just crap products, using whatever low cost UV LEDs they can find, cranked up to the max so that they dry faster. Properly designed ones should be safe.
Re: Can we ban the vaccnines? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, Covid was killing boomers at that rate and you didnt think it was worth it to mask and social distance, did you? So no.
Re: (Score:3)
The mRNA jabs are killing 2%~4% of people who've gotten them. The fibrous blood-clots are horrific. Why are they still on the market. Can we ban them yet?
As soon as you ban covid which causes blood clots [hopkinsmedicine.org] in multiple parts of the body.
But since what you said is absolute bullshit, and you know it, we'll keep celebrating when folks like you [imgur.com] die from covid [fox3now.com].
Failure of use cases (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just sensationalist academic publishing trying to drum up publicity so they can keep their grant money. Saying 20 minutes under a nail cure lamp causes cancer is like saying baseball bats cause broken kneecaps it's TRUE but you have to deliberately misuse it for that to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Also as anyone with a resin based 3D printer will attest to it is quite possible to over cure UV resin to the point where is becomes brittle, so people avoid doing that...
Nitpicking here: some cheap/badly mixed resins do that, but no decent ones do. I have cured under UV for 2-60 minutes just to test, and while shit resin becomes brittle and develops cracks when overexposed, decent ones don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather think they want to be done with curing it as quickly as possible because you can cram more customers within the same time frame that way.
And I agree, it doesn't take long, my wife says between one and three minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
No you're wrong. It's bad for you, but I'm late for my 1 hour appointment at the tanning salon so I'll have to tell you why after I get back.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, 20 minutes under a UV light is a tanning session, not a manicure.
Re: (Score:3)
And nobody ever gets their nails done more than once.
There gotta be a good joke in this story (Score:2)
WTF has science been doing for 100 years? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"There are new UV lights with an even shorter wavelength than UVC being used now for killing airborne viruses in hospitals and restaurants. Add that wavelength to the range that science should be immediately studying in depth. "
I have experience with this.... such systems are KNOWN to be very dangerous and have many safety devices. They won't work if they detect human presence (through IR/motion sensors), there are warning lamps, there are timers, they include glasses, covers for windows, etc. These a
Re: (Score:2)
If we had more of these in public, always-fan-on HVAC systems, it could greatly reduce airborne viruses, bacteria, and mold we transmit and breathe
But of course that would cost money, so...
I stopped worrying about my wife's UV nail curer (Score:2)
I noticed the polish cured faster under actual sunlight, and the UV light is timed to 60 seconds. Less than a minute equivalent of sun seems nothing to worry about.
OK but quantify the risk (Score:2)
UV light causes cancer? (Score:2)
Who would have thought.
irradiating skin irradiates skin? What a country! (Score:2)
who could have possibly foreseen this discovery?
What a revelation! (Score:2)
We could have come up with all sorts of creams, devices, and lenses for glasses that blocked it! We could even put a coating on vehicle windows by default which blocked the harmful parts of this spectrum! What ever will we do?
Sarcasm aside, I think most people already knew this was an issue and just accepted the very limited risk of exposing the tips of their fingers to this spectrum occasionally.
Curious about tooth filling curing lights... (Score:2)
Now put those cells under skin and nails (Score:2)
UV cured nail gels have been in use for 50 years and the lamps they used in the 80s were probably a lot harsher, is there any epidemiological evidence at all? Because this experiment convinces me of very little.
I'm a bit worried (Score:2)
Also, I fail to notice the corresponding epidemic in skin cancers on the hands - I mean, it's also true that it's brief and infrequent exposure since you don't cure plastic nails daily, and UV curing doesn't take long.