For me the main concern is that the Daily Mail is the most popular newspaper site in the world (overtook New York Times in 2012). No offense to Doug but he is probably not so much of a household name. I am just glad I don't use the brands named, although perhaps brand equity will mean it doesn't stick. I am also glad I use LED which many people online articles put forward (with or without evidence) as safer than straight UV.
Just been listening to DOug on Nail Talk Radio talking about LED UV where he mentions that LED bulb UV uses different wavelengths to UV lamp bulbs. Also then found this explanation (from someone else) online:
"The most common misconception regarding UV LED lights is that they produce ultraviolet radiation that can be harmful to the skin, eyes, or other bodily organs. The truth is the radiation emitted is called "near UV," and it occurs below the threshold of harm posed by the true UV wavelength. UV LED lights actually give off less radiation than other types of bulbs."
This led me to do some more digging.
UV is classified according to wavelength.
UV A is considered to be safer for humans than UV B.
If you look at this from NSI:
LED and UV | Nail Product Chemistry Information from NSI
LED's operate at 400 -410 nm
UV lamps from 315 - 400 nm
UV A is found at 315 - 400 nm and UV B between 280 and 315 so both LED and traditional UV lamps are operating within UV A area. Sunbeds us around 97% UV A and 3% UV B (hence why they are worse)
However: reading this from the World Health Organisation they mention that UVA is better BUT that recent research has linked it to cancer and that it causes ageing and wrinkling (which we know):
WHO | UV radiation
Now, exhaused from my research, I reckon a splash of broad spectrum sun cream on a client's hands (and my own) would not go amiss.
Typical Daily Mail scare article. Lots of us should add comments. If I worked for CND, OPI or Young Nails I would demand the right to publish an article with the facts.
