|
Massachusetts General Hospital 麻省总医院的研究 The finding contradicts the feeling of many dermatologists that the devices are as harmful as tanning beds. That feeling is largely based on a 2009 report of skin cancer on the hands of two women with no other obvious skin-cancer risks. But the new study actually measured radiation from typical nail lamps. The measurements then were used to calculate nail lamps' 'carcinogenic effectiveness' by the same method used to establish the safety of medical devices. 'Nail lamps are safe for over 250 years of weekly manicures, and even then there would be a low risk of skin cancer,' says study researcher Alina Markova, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital. 'Not 'no risk,' but 'low risk.'' Emory University dermatologist Jamie MacKelfresh, MD, praises the Markova study for its scientific approach. 'This makes me rethink the issue of nail lamp safety,' MacKelfresh says. 'I'm not ready to say these devices are safe -- we dermatologists want people to avoid UV radiation as much as possible -- but this seems to be low risk, especially if used infrequently.' What Your Nails Say About Your Health The study looked at three models of UV nail lamps similar to about 90% of the hundreds of such products available for salon and home use: Device A, with four 9-watt UV fluorescent bulbs. They compared the cancer-causing potential of each device to a course of treatment with the FDA-approved UV phototherapy devices commonly used by dermatologists. These treatments carry a low cancer risk. 'Over 13,000 Device A or B and more than 40,000 Device C sessions lasting for 10 minutes would be required to be received at the nail salon to equal the UV dose received during one [phototherapy] course,' Markova and Weinstock calculate. Gel nails, which usually must be set under a UV nail lamp, require three 3-minute exposures per salon visit. That's much longer than the typical time normal nail polish takes to dry under the lamps. In the 2009 report linking two women's skin cancers to nail lamps, researchers calculated that nail lamps expose people to as much radiation as tanning beds. But Markova says that study used the wrong method to calculate actual radiation exposure from the lamps. She also notes that a 2010 industry study defending nail lamps used 'incorrect' methods. MacKelfresh says she's 'impressed by the science' behind the Markova study. 'This at least opens the door to talking about the level of risk these units give to a person,' she says. 'It seems to put some science behind the claim that the dose of UV radiation you are receiving is quite low. But I'd like to see more research down the line.' The Markova study appears in an advance online publication by the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 许多皮肤科医师认为，美甲紫外线灯与晒黑床一样有害。这种观点与2009年的一项病例报道有很大关系：两名妇女手部患皮肤癌，但并没有其他的明显的皮肤癌诱因。 但是麻省总医院的这项新研究测量了美甲灯辐射出的UV剂量。测量结果随即被用于计算美甲灯的“致癌性”，方法与评估医疗设备安全性的方法一致。 “每周一次，使用250年是安全的，虽然可能有一点皮肤癌风险”，麻省总医院的 Alina Markova, MD说。“不是‘无风险’，是‘低风险’。” Emory大学的皮肤科医生 Jamie MacKelfresh, MD称赞了Markova这项研究的科学性。 麻省总医院的这项研究使用了三种紫外美甲灯的模型，它们与市面上百种美甲沙龙或是家中使用的紫外灯中的90%类似。A有4个9W荧光灯。B有1个9W荧光灯，C有6个1W LED灯。Markova和同事Weinstock（MD，Brown大学皮肤科教授）测量了这些灯下10min中内的紫外线辐射量。这个量比美甲沙龙中大多数人接收到的剂量要大。 与FDA批准、皮肤科常用的一些列紫外线治疗方法相比后，他们认为三种设备引起癌症的可能性很低。“对于市面上那超过13,000种A或者B，或者超过40,000种C的设备来说，一次性照10分钟的UV剂量与（光疗中）一course（抱歉，此处我不知道是指“一疗程”还是单次治疗）的剂量相同”，Markova和Weinstock说。 凝胶的光疗甲每次需要在UV灯下照3分钟，这比普通甲油在灯下干燥的时间要长。 在2009年的报道中，两位女性的皮肤癌与美甲UV灯联系到一起了。研究者的计算结果是，美甲灯让使用者接受的UV剂量与晒黑床一样多。但是Markova这次说，2009年的实验在计算灯辐射量时，使用的方法是错误的。 她还提到，2010年的工业调查抵制美甲UV灯是“错误的”做法。（俺不知道那个industry study是什么） MacKelfresh说，她被Markova研究背后的科学“打动了”。 |
|
|
来自： 昵称32868592 > 《文件夹1》
