Daisyl,
You ask valid questions, in this deceptive industry. Here are the answers:
"...I do not think the 'report' gives enough information to make accurate comparisons. Can you link the full study info. Control groups, nos etc etc... I think what would be far more useful and helpful in debating the flaws of any previous research would be to post the actual 'research' rather than a report which does not really offer any conclusive evidence"
We didn't send the data with this press release because the vast majority of the general public just would not understand it. (We've learned the hard way that if we make things too complicated, most people just tune out.) We do intend to publish it all in an official scientific forum at a later date.
These tests were done simply by measuring the lamp output with light meters, compared to natural sun. The results show conclusively that the exposure you'd get by having UV nails done once every 2 weeks, is equivalent to an extra 1.5 to 2.7 minutes in the sun each day of those 2 weeks. That's based on actual measurements of both the sun and the lamps, with the same instruments.
In truth some of our privately performed measurements showed even lower exposure levels, but we used the higher numbers the independent lab got. We also assumed the longest possible exposure for a UV nail set (~10 minutes for a full set), not everyone gets that much.
"...I am in no way disputing the info given, and some important points have been raised, but in all honesty I think what is worth looking into is the wider 'independent' research..."
We did several tests of our own, at various locations and with various lamps, however, we contracted an independent lab to do the final study precisely because nobody would believe it if we did it ourselves. Standard industry procedure. You may contact that lab if you wish; that's why we named them in the report.
"There are many many more scientists out there with equally valid differing opinions."
Equally valid differing opinions? Not in science, nor in any other human field of inquiry. As CS Lewis once put it: "There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." If other scientists can produce facts (not "opinions") that challenge our conclusions, we're change our story, otherwise, not.
"...who are in no way connected to the nail industry..."...
Again, that's why we hired an independent lab.
"....The arguments here seem very one sided and not independent"
What would you have us do, argue for both sides of the case when the data shows only one to be right?
"...The 'texas' dermatologists (if I am correct) and other dermatologists have simply called for further research citing the 'possibility' of uv lamps being a contributing factor ... I do not really think dermatologists and others have any hidden agenda to simply be negative regarding the nail industry!"
I don't think they had a hidden agenda either, but to make the claim for such an association based on a sample size of TWO -- one of which had only 8 exposures, and both of whom had presumably lived under the blazing Texas sun for many years -- is irresponsible.
How many times has an innocent food been accused of causing horrible health problems, only to have the story retracted months or years later? We'd have all been better off eating butter, but for decades we used margarine instead because of bad science...*sigh * It's the same principle.
".. I inject people with botox - some would say 'toxin' - some would argue this is a lethal toxin - and it is if used incorrectly"
Botox is short for "Botulinum Toxin", one of the deadliest poisons known. Once it was considered for use as a bioweapon. But this proves our very point: The dose makes the poison. Low doses of UV, or botulinum toxin, or a host of other substances or exposures, do no harm. Unless you take the position that only ZERO sun exposure is safe, which is contrary to reason, given that we spent most of our history as a species hunting or working outdoors. Indeed schoolkids are now getting osteoporosis -- formerly an old people's disease -- due to the paranoid avoidance of the sun, and consequent Vitamin D deficiency.
"I am all for fairness in terms of ongoing valid, independent research ie not funded or sponsored by pharmaceutical companies etc etc. "
Nobody but pharmaceutical or cosmetic companies cares enough to spend the money. So nobody else will fund it. It does pose a perceptual dilemma, though -- those funding it inescapably have a stake in the outcome. Once again, the answer is: that's why we contract with independent labs, rather than doing the work ourselves.
Independent labs have their own professional reputation (and pride) to uphold, and to be caught fudging data JUST ONCE would put them out of business forever. That's why the industry contracts with independent labs for testing -- not just on UV lamps either, but on sensitivity testing (on human skin, not animals), microbiological testing, and other things that are legally required of us to prove our products are safe. If a consumer were injured by a product (cosmetic, food, electrical appliance, whatever), independent lab testing would hold up in court; in-house testing, not so much.
Does this all make sense to you?
Please move if needed.
