Cleaning contaminated items

From Wes Wood I'm not blaming Kentucky but they let their guard down creating two preposterous rules: (f) only hollow needles are allowed for piercing (no rationale is offered), and (h) only internally threaded jewelry can be used for new piercings (no one ever made such a rule). Section 902 KAR 45:070, Body piercing and ear piercing Section 10, p(2).rules (f) and (h) (h) I respect Piercers joining together to create an elitist image: of professionalism, but not when they lobby Health Departments to make rules to eliminate competitor products to seize market share. It is sad to see the deceptive "threading argument" an informal fallacy of logic copied word for word by the new Kentucky threading rule (h). As you read this "argument" quoted below, keep in mind (1) This is the whole argument (does not explain what is bad about Ext but only Implying that External does. This claim is contradicted by using the word "possibly" - ) This is a classic propaganda technique used to deceive the casual reader as half true, conclusion desired is false. (2) It is a fallacy of logic because the assertion that Internal does not scratch, does not mean that ExT does scratch. The conclusion does not follow from a description of Internal. Propaganda, written to deceive your mind without you knowing it. The argument does not mention "external threading" at all, but tricks you to think that external scratches the skin without saying it. (3) uses the word "sharp" as in a sharp knife edge falsely describing the threads. They are tiny smooth threads. (4) If which is not true, External threads did scratch they would be superficial anyway and would not require medical intervention. The Medical Dictionary definition for to scratch is "To make a thin, shallow cut with a sharp instrument." which does not even apply to the imaginary damage inside, which no one has ever seen, which is made the subject of a health department rule. Here's the argument. Read it and weep. KDPH was hoodwinked. Copied word-for-word plus pictures. "Internally threaded jewelry avoids any possibility of scraping tissue with sharp threads which is especially important with fresh piercings." The source: Propaganda is carefully crafted to fool.
A Solution to this problem.
A solution to end controversy might be at hand by clarifying the meaning of the word "Only" as NYC did in a similar situation that the word "Only" was not meant to imply that other safe and effective options were prohibited.
Both are proven safe and effective over time. The kicker: External (ET) actually beats out Internal (IT). Why?
*First. Cleaning inserted jewelry.*
	The External-bar's threaded-hole is twice as large as the hole in the Internal bar.. The hole in IT is so small the water surface tension prevents cleaning unless by strong force of water or ultrasonic which means taking the piercing out. Choose ET or IT since there is no evidence of infection from microbes inside the bar. Freedom means very many choices.

2nd. Keeping the Connection during Jewelry Insertion

ET overall is safer but... the Choice should be yours.
Metal-Screw-Threading has a starter-type-tapered-threading that works to the advantage of ET because the tip catches a little into the back end of the needle. Internal ( IT) has a rounded end but not enough to catch the back of a hollow needle. Internal is like two flat surfaces.

Internal (IT) requires an accomplished "feel" during the insertion to keep both surfaces aligned during pushing. There are no additional client benefits using Internal rather than External, which would have to be proven substantial to prohibit External. Where's the evidence?

But there is a sense of pride in keeping the connection (a good thing) the same effect as "Free-Hand" piercing (without a cork). It's a skill that savers time and decreases costs and should not be prohibited even though it has dangers.

3rd. Threaded Stud loosening.

External threaded bar hits the bottom of the ball when tightened. It is solid and cannot be over tightened. Not so Internal because the threaded stud on the ball is usually a separate piece - the stud is the weak point.
The IT screw post on the ball does not hit bottom. Pressure is on the rim of the bar which clients occasionally over tighten loosening the threaded screw-stud-post damaging the ball - so it can fall off. Especially true on 16 gauge and more so on 18 gauge from the very beginning.

This is a problem prevented by machining the ball and screw-part from one piece, but that seriously inflates the costs, again with no advantage over ET and no added value for client.

Ext Threading definitely could not be called "sharp."

4th. The "External-ness" of the threading objection

The "threading" objection demonstrates the
Daniel Elsberg (of the Pentagon Papers) Paradox,
a theory that people adverse to risk are prone to make decisions based on a hazard that does not exist. (p49 Most Dangerous Man)

The no-evidence-claim appeared in the 2000s that External threading
"tears up the inside of a new piercing" .
In the 2010s it was walked back to "micro-tears".to reduce its absurdity..
In the 2020s it is walked back to "possibly scratching". In other words, the rule prevents an event that there is no reason to think happens.
The threads can be felt in your hand without cutting. Not "sharp" as if it were a wood screw tearing a pathway through the skin.

5th. This rule could be the basis to ban piercing,

The needle is what causes the pain and damage not that miniscule amount of thread which no one even feels.

Because damage is the issue for the ban, it would be logical to ban commercial piercing itself because needle damage takes months to heal creating risk, the "possibility" of infection whether it's external or internal.

6th. Be careful what you wish for.

The entire industry should be alarmed that a minority of piercers are lobbying health departments to enact rules and preferences industry-wide, who must think this is a victory and they will be making the rules.
It's good that piercers can get together to improve their work and make up any rules they want to follow, but bad to want to impose those ideas on everyone through government enforcement.

7th. Gold is easily damaged by Internal

Softer metals like Gold use a steel threaded post inserted into the gold ball. It is easy to destroy the threading in the bar or loosen the post in the ball. That is an expensive problem. A gold thread post in the ball is also easy to loosen and ruin the jewelry.

The Defacto Industry Standard

There is no morbidity or mortality associated with External.
It would be difficult to ban external threading
without showing significant harm and
an array of incontrovertible evidence.

External threading is the defacto "Industry Standard"

Used in hundreds of millions of piercings world-wide
by hundreds of thousands of piercers
Safely and Effectively for more than 30 years.
The Gold Standard that proving acceptability.

The right to choose.

Every business has the right to choose based on:
- cost, a legitimate concern without jeopardizing safety;
- availability of product and source;
- performance for the application of piercing, not medical implants;
- personal preferences, fashion and cultural considerations;
- prestige factors, advertising and marketability;
- image of the piercer

False claims

What is needed for implants is required for piercing. False

Mirror Finish of Surface for implants required for piercing. False

It is claimed F138 has less nickel, False: F138 has more nickel.

F138 jewelry is Biocompatible Implant Grade. False

Only F138 stainless steel should be used. False

Answer to rule (f ) coming next

From Wes Wood This critique is directed at those who have unfaithfully lobbied Kentucky DPH to create two new rules that are preposterous in themselves and harmful to the industry of piercing as a whole. Harmful legislatively because it allows these piercers to use KDPH as the standard to lobby other DPHs around the country. Section 902 KAR 45:070, Body piercing and ear piercing Section 10, (2).rules (f) and (h) (h) only internally threaded jewelry can be used for new piercings, and (f) only hollow needles are allowed for piercing I respect Piercers joining together to improve the image of piercing as a real occupation (not just tolerated) but piercing can be openly promoted without fear of discrimination or condemnation in the marketplace, as art, performance; as personal business service; as an activity on equal footing with other personal services. Not what is thought of as one of the great Professions, like the Clergy, Medical, and Legal but in the generalized meaning of having the clients best interests at heart, performing with skill and experience, doing a very good job of piercing. Unfortunately some piercers equate stringent adherence to (their) rules as what makes them "professional" because the Great professions do that and if they emulate them then they will be Professionals with a capital "P" having status in the public mind, in a more exalted meaning to make themselves capital "P" and they have been trying for 30 years resorting to force of law, ultimately (at the point of a gun if need be) for those who don't agree such as being forced to pierce under two wrong rules (f) and (h). (h) The "threading argument" is wrong, justified by tricky wording: an informal fallacy of logic which is copied word for word from an outside source. KDPH acted appropriately thinking these rules were the way things were done and accepted, but they were not given all the facts. If they had the following information I am confident they never would have approved these rules. Here is the one-sentence "proof" the reason to prohibit External threading. "Internally threaded jewelry avoids any possibility of scraping tissue with sharp threads which is especially important with fresh piercings." (1) This is the whole false argument. Read it and weep. It is false because it argues that External scrapes by asserting that Internal does not scrape. That's not proof. There is no proof. (2) The claim is contradicted by using the word "possibly" which in this context means there is no direct or indirect evidence favoring a leaning toward noit possible. This is a classic propaganda technique used to deceive the casual reader. Propaganda. The first part may be true, the conclusion that Ext scratches because Int may not, doesn't follow. It's false (3) uses the word "sharp" as in a sharp knife edge falsely describing the threads. They are tiny smooth threads. (4) If External scratched (which is ridiculous) not true, they would be superficial anyway and would not require any medical intervention. The Medical Dictionary definition for scratching is "To make a thin, shallow cut with a sharp instrument." which no one has ever seen, which is made the subject of a health department rule. Here's the argument. KDPH was hoodwinked. Copied word-for-word plus pictures. "Internally threaded jewelry avoids any possibility of scraping tissue with sharp threads which is especially important with fresh piercings." The source: Propaganda is carefully crafted to fool.
A Solution to this problem.
A solution to end controversy might be at hand by clarifying the meaning of the word "Only" as NYC did in a similar situation that the word "Only" was not meant to imply that other safe and effective options were prohibited.
Both are proven safe and effective over time. The kicker: External (ET) actually beats out Internal (IT). Why?
*First. Cleaning inserted jewelry.*
	The External-bar's threaded-hole is twice as large as the hole in the Internal bar.. The hole in IT is so small the water surface tension prevents cleaning unless by strong force of water or ultrasonic which means taking the piercing out. Choose ET or IT since there is no evidence of infection from microbes inside the bar. Freedom means very many choices.