Have you heard rumours that UV lamps are unsafe — that they may even cause cancer?

Check them out –

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/not-safe-skin-cancer-surgeon-wants-gel-and-uv-lamp-manicures-banned

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/health/2018/05/gel-manicures-pose-a-risk-of-skin-cancer.html

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/beauty/93518222/UV-lamps-for-gel-manicures-linked-to-skin-cancer

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/beauty/103584501/cancer-warning-over-uvset-gel-manicures-as-finger-skin-cancer-numbers-rise

But before you panic, know that a reputable scientific study conducted by a completely independent scientific testing laboratory says no — UV lamps do not cause skin cancer.

In the study, done by independent lab Lighting Science and published by Doug Schoon (CND), Paul Bryson (OPI), and Jim McConnell (Light Elegance), the results showed that –

The amount of UVB to which a client is exposed is equal to what they could expect from spending an extra 17-26 seconds in the sun each day for the two weeks in between nail appointments.

A lot of these rumours started when two Texas-based dermatologists released a report that claimed lamps are a source of ‘high-dose UVA’, inaccurately comparing UV tanning beds with UV nail lamps.

To verify the facts, Lighting Science tested the UV nail lamps of many leading brands to determine how much UVA and UVB they emitted. They then compared that to natural sunlight. They concluded that the dermatologists’ report (‘Occurrence of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers on the Hands After UV Nail Light Exposure’) overestimated the exposure of client skin to UV light from nail lamps and improperly characterised the effect of these lamps on the hand. In fact, they noted –

Clients’ hands are likely to be exposed to more UV light while driving their cars than they will receive from UV gel nail services.

The UV nail lamps selected for testing were representative of more than 90% of the nail lamps used in salons. Highly sensitive UV detectors were placed where client hands would normally reside while inside a lamp. These detectors measured the amount of UVA and UVB light emitted from each lamp. To ensure a proper comparison, Lighting Science also used the same test equipment to measure the UVA and UVB light found in sunlight.

(Testing by Lighting Sciences produced the following information:

1. UVB output for all nail lamps was less than what was found in natural sunlight.

The bulbs used in nail lamps contain internal filters that remove almost all UVB so this result is not surprising. As stated above, the test results show that the amount of UVB to which client skin is exposed is equal to what they could expect from spending an extra 17-26 seconds in the sun each day of the two weeks between appointments.

2. UVA exposure is much lower than suggested in the dermatologists’ report.

Test results show that –

UVA exposure for a client is equivalent to spending an extra 1.5 to 2.7 minutes in the sun each day between appointments, depending on the type of UV lamp used. 

(A lamp with two UV bulbs corresponds to 1.5 minutes and a lamp with four UV bulbs corresponds to about 2.7 minutes each day between appointments)

“Our testing shows that UV nail lamps emit relatively low levels of UV light and these exposure levels are considered well within safe levels when they are used to perform UV artificial nail services in nail salons,” write Schoon, Bryson, and McConnell. The report by the Texas dermatologists, they say, has a faulty conclusion because it is based on incorrect assumptions.

In a completely separate study, “Photobiological Safety Evaluation of UV Nail Lamps” (published in the Spring 2013 issue of Photochemistry and Photobiology, and co-authored by Robert Sayre, co-inventor of the SPF rating system for sunscreens) it was found that –

A person could put her hands under a nail lamp for 25 minutes a day without exceeding the internationally accepted safe limits for daily workplace UV exposure.

The paper cited important research demonstrating that the natural nail plate is a very efficient blocker of UV, protecting the nail bed – “The UV exposure risks to the nail bed is comparable to that of skin protected by high SPF topical sunscreen.”

Research studies indicate the nail plate’s natural UV resistance is comparable to the UV resistance provided by an SPF 40 sunscreen.

Also cited was additional research to demonstrate that –

The backside of the hand is 4 times more resistant to UV than the forehead or cheek. 

It is 3.5 times more resistant than a person’s back, making the backside of the hand the most UV resistant part of the body – “The dorsum [backside] of the hand is the most UV acclimatized, photo adapted, and UV-resistant body site.”

The researchers also concluded that –

The risk of developing non-melanoma skin cancer was 11 to 46 times lower than the risks of being exposed to natural sunlight. 

The data showed that UV nail lamps were safer than both natural sunlight and sunlamps. In a direct quote from the paper, “All of the various UV nail lamps submitted for evaluation were found to be significantly less hazardous than might have been anticipated based on the initial concerns raised”

This was the first study to adhere to the official internationally accepted standard for UV source testing (ANSI RP-27) which is determined to be the superior method for evaluating UV nail units.

A third study reinforces what we have already learnt. Authors Alina Markova of Massachusetts General Hospital, the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Martin Weinstock of the Alpert Medical School of Brown University and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center published a study in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

They determined that the narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) used for phototherapy, which is a common dermatological treatment, is “viewed as low risk, although not as zero risk, for the development of keratinocyte carcinoma,”.

The authors concluded that nail lamps primarily emitted UVA with no detectable UVB or UVC, and that “such exposure is a tiny fraction of a single NB-UVB course, and hence does not produce a clinically significant increased risk of developing skin cancer.” Markova and Weinstock further say that “dermatologists and primary-care physicians may reassure patients regarding the safety of these devices.”

Doctors often use UV medical lamps as a therapeutic skin treatment, and such treatments are considered safe. When this study compared these medical devices to UV nail lamp output the authors stated –

“…one would need over 250 years of weekly UV nail sessions to experience the same risk exposure [as a therapeutic skin treatment by a doctor].”

We should always remember that our bodies are designed to be exposed to varying wavelengths of light, including UVA and some low levels of UVB light. Our body is also designed to repair itself upon overexposure conditions.

It is equally important to understand that as in every other aspect of our lives, we should always use the equipment we have at work and at home in the manner it was designed to be used.

Ultimately – 

• Both light sources (CFL/UV and LED Lamps) as they are used in the industry are not damaging to the skin.
• Each light source is considered safe to use as directed by the lamp and gel manufacturers.
• Each light source has been found via independent testing to not be a source of skin cancer when the lamps are used as instructed by the manufacturers.

Real Risks Associated with UV Lamps

Just because our lamps don’t cause cancer doesn’t mean there aren’t risks –

• Clients who are taking medication that requires them to avoid natural sunlight without proper protection should be cautious when using UV lamps. This can include clients going through chemotherapy.
• The most significant risk identified by scientists in the studies above was that if you have to change a bulb, you use the wrong one, for example, one that emits UVB or UVC – these could be harmful to the skin if accidentally used.
• Another risk if you use the wrong bulb is that the incorrect bulb could lead to improper curing of the gel. For several reasons, it is VERY important that UV bulbs are replaced with exactly the same UV bulb that was supplied with the lamp when it was purchased.

Have a look at this thread in our Facebook Group about techs real-life experiences with concerned clients.