Daily Mail article: UV nails/skin cancer

[jacqueline]

The Mail online is lazy, careless and the worst kind of journalism going. This article or something very similar was published months ago by them. They cut and paste, complete with mistakes from all over the place on most of their articles.

The other problem with articles like this, is when you get people talking about gel nails when the subject is gel polish and then lamping Shellac in there too as a gel polish. This is something I fight on a daily battle with people not understanding the difference in it all so I painfully explain it time and time again to try to educate some of the folks out there.

One woman was arguing with me that Shellac was made from Beetles, yeah that old chestnut again

 

[JuicyLucy]

The Mail online is lazy, careless and the worst kind of journalism going. This article or something very similar was published months ago by them. They cut and paste, complete with mistakes from all over the place on most of their articles.

The other problem with articles like this, is when you get people talking about gel nails when the subject is gel polish and then lamping Shellac in there too as a gel polish. This is something I fight on a daily battle with people not understanding the difference in it all so I painfully explain it time and time again to try to educate some of the folks out there.

One woman was arguing with me that Shellac was made from Beetles, yeah that old chestnut again

I agree with most of what you have said. However, the difference between Shellac, Gel Polish and gel nails is not really relevant to this article or debate. It is about UV exposure with a UV nail lamp for which Shellac is in the same category as all UV coloured coats and UV nails.

 

[ChicaHolly]

A girl on my fb page has just tagged me in this link and asked for my opinion on it. So now its showing up on my feed. I'm annoyed she has done this as I hate that some people will believe the 'daily fail' over my reply to her. Grrrr, but hopefully most people will have sense not to believe it!!!

 

[ChelseaNails]

Experts say reading the Daily Mail will cause stress, anxiety, heart conditions and eventually cancer!

 

[Empress Debbie]

I don't read the daily mail either, but it's been one of the big discussions on colourful radio this morning...

 

[ChicaHolly]

Here's what I replied to her regarding the article......


A few things spring to mind when reading this; 1 - It's an article in the daily fail, who's journalists never do their research properly and sensationalise their stories. 2 - Shellac is not a gel, it's a power polish, it does not contain gel, so again they haven't done their research properly. 3 - It says that people who have long lasting manicures could hide nail problems, but if you are going regularly (every 2 weeks) any nail tech worth their salts would tell a client to go to a Dr if there was a tumour or infection. A good nail tech would not work on the client as it is a contra-indication. (we are not qualified to diagnose but we can tell them they would need to see their dr). 4 - Any nail users who complain about their nails peeling, breaking from using CND Shellac is not because of the product, but because they are not looking after their nails. They aren't using their cuticle oil every day or they are picking the product off which will damage their nail plate. They could also be going to an untrained nail tech who is not doing it properly. 5 - This Dr Adigun says that there was noticeable thinning of the nail plate, this will be caused by the nail tech buffing the nail plate before applying the gel, but with CND Shellac we do not need to buff the nail plate so there is no thinning and again using their cuticle oil every day will help keep the nail plate and surrounding area hydrated too. 6 - With the little research I did on Dr Adigun, I found that this person is not a he but a SHE, the journalist throughout the article refers to he. So again, not doing their research!! And finally, and most importantly, 7 - to address the UV lamp aspect of the article, there have been at least 3 separate independent studies in the past few years from medical researchers that have confirmed the safety of UV lamps. They do not appear to significantly increase lifetime risk. Drs often use medical lamps as a therapeutic skin treatment and when compared to such medical devices which have been in long use, you would need over 250 years of WEEKLY UV nail sessions to experience the same risk as from the medical lamps. I think I would be a better journalist than the daily fail lot!

 

[salj]

Did they just run this stupid story online or in the actual paper too?

It's in the actual paper too. My dad had it out for me when I got up this morning (my mum reads the daily fail). I am not happy in the mornings as it is, so this just got right on my nerves.

 

[umvemve]

My posts don't ever seem to appear. I wear it like a badge of honour. Here was my last post:

Um... 4 months ago an actual study published by the Journal of Investigative Dermatology demonstrated that it would take 250 YEARS of WEEKLY treatments to equate to the same levels of safe UV exposure people with psoriasis are treated with.

250 YEARS OF WEEKLY TREATMENTS.

Is there ANYONE that actually does ANY fact checking at your place or do you guys just get paid to make stuff up?

But of course it would because psoriasis treatment with UV = UVB and LED/UV nail lamps are UVA. UVA as we all know is considered less harmful but does place stress on cells and is associated with premature ageing.

The WHO (who probably do have some access to research) say that research studies 'strongly suggest that it (UVA) may enhance the development of skin cancers'. Given the amount that is still unknown about the exact effect UVA has on cells, I will still opt for a bit of UVA protection slapped about a bit.

 

[umvemve]

A girl on my fb page has just tagged me in this link and asked for my opinion on it. So now its showing up on my feed. I'm annoyed she has done this as I hate that some people will believe the 'daily fail' over my reply to her. Grrrr, but hopefully most people will have sense not to believe it!!!

You could just tell her that if she is worried that she can use a broad spectrum sun cream - after all we get UVA as well as UVB in sunlight.

 

[salj]

OMG don't read the comments don't read the comments don't read th....

too late I read them. FACEPALM.

 

[Divaa]

There is an article in the daily mail page 3 on the title above. How is every ones opinions.

 

[shedunlop]

Unfortunately the Daily Mail is famous for printing totally exaggerated comments on all things health and beauty. They take snippets from reports and alter them to make news. There have been many articles recently that are just silly

 

[sarah_louise92]

Honestly anything that is a craze they seem to always have a 'negative' about them and scare people off.

I'm sorry but there talking a load of cobs

 

[Planky1]

My mum and 2 clients have drawn my attention to this today. This is now the 3rd report they have done regarding Shellac and the "damage" it can cause in one way or another. Very frustrating

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...increase-risk-SKIN-CANCER-wrecking-nails.html

Sent from my GT-I9300 using SalonGeek

 

[carlytaylor1986]

a 2009 study found TWO women developed hand tumours! just TWO?! think how many people have these nails!!!

 

[Purple]

Here's what I replied to her regarding the article......


A few things spring to mind when reading this; 1 - It's an article in the daily fail, who's journalists never do their research properly and sensationalise their stories. 2 - Shellac is not a gel, it's a power polish, it does not contain gel, so again they haven't done their research properly. 3 - It says that people who have long lasting manicures could hide nail problems, but if you are going regularly (every 2 weeks) any nail tech worth their salts would tell a client to go to a Dr if there was a tumour or infection. A good nail tech would not work on the client as it is a contra-indication. (we are not qualified to diagnose but we can tell them they would need to see their dr). 4 - Any nail users who complain about their nails peeling, breaking from using CND Shellac is not because of the product, but because they are not looking after their nails. They aren't using their cuticle oil every day or they are picking the product off which will damage their nail plate. They could also be going to an untrained nail tech who is not doing it properly. 5 - This Dr Adigun says that there was noticeable thinning of the nail plate, this will be caused by the nail tech buffing the nail plate before applying the gel, but with CND Shellac we do not need to buff the nail plate so there is no thinning and again using their cuticle oil every day will help keep the nail plate and surrounding area hydrated too. 6 - With the little research I did on Dr Adigun, I found that this person is not a he but a SHE, the journalist throughout the article refers to he. So again, not doing their research!! And finally, and most importantly, 7 - to address the UV lamp aspect of the article, there have been at least 3 separate independent studies in the past few years from medical researchers that have confirmed the safety of UV lamps. They do not appear to significantly increase lifetime risk. Drs often use medical lamps as a therapeutic skin treatment and when compared to such medical devices which have been in long use, you would need over 250 years of WEEKLY UV nail sessions to experience the same risk as from the medical lamps. I think I would be a better journalist than the daily fail lot!

Love this!! Very nice response

 

[Tiger Jay]

https://twitter.com/ScratchMagazine/status/309316548932292608/photo/1

Am hoping this link works. :biggrin:

 

[JuicyLucy]

I notice that they have now totally changed the picture and they have added comments from CND to the on-line version. Not sure what was published in today's paper though.

I hope our insurance companies don't start reading and believing all this nonsense otherwise it could put all our insurance premiums up. I also hope it doesn't affect business for all of us.

It really annoys me that some stupid journalist who couldn't be bothered to do basic research got paid for an article that could affect the livelihoods of thousands of people in the world.

Tiger Jay, that it an excellent article for us to be able to print and show to concerned clients.

 

[Tiger Jay]

It's all over my FB page at the moment, so my clients can see it. Perhaps we can all do with sharing the TRUE article a little more?

 

[geeg]

My posts don't ever seem to appear. I wear it like a badge of honour. Here was my last post:

Um... 4 months ago an actual study published by the Journal of Investigative Dermatology demonstrated that it would take 250 YEARS of WEEKLY treatments to equate to the same levels of safe UV exposure people with psoriasis are treated with.

250 YEARS OF WEEKLY TREATMENTS.

Is there ANYONE that actually does ANY fact checking at your place or do you guys just get paid to make stuff up?

For those who have concerned clients.