2005-2021 Unimax Supply Co Inc. NY, NY  Updated 02/01/2023

There is NO WAY to Justify the
Surprise-appearance of two new
 Initial Piercing Restrictions?

"Ridiculous" Rule (f )
Only Hollow Needles to be used.
(Never mind that Medical stitching of skin
uses solid round piercing needles.)

"Ridiculous" Rule (h)
Only Internally Threaded jewelry
for initial piercing to be used.

"Corruption? Stupidity?"
To Prohibit Using "Guns" & Studs?
(Proven Safe by Use)
To Capture market share for the makers
of Internally threaded jewelry?
To Knock out suppliers of external 316L?
To Prohibit Solid Piercing Needles
Only Made by Unimax?
These rules Prohibit different new ideas,
 technologies not yet thought of.
The presumption of these rules is staggering.
Goes against everything this country
stands for. Against our way of life.

"Corruption? Stupidity?"

Kentucky KDPH wrote these two new rules:
Kentucky Department of Public Health
Section 902 KAR 45:070
, Body piercing and ear piercing 
Section 10,
.rules (f) and (h)

How is  the word "Rule" to be interpreted?

Is it voluntary as in the colloquial
Rules are meant to be broken?
Will piercers be allowed to choose alternatives
 or is it compulsory with penalties and
violence (when necessary) against dissenters?

Looking at them, first the
"Threading Rule" is wrong, and here is why.

Look at the results

Maybe designed to eliminate external threading.
The overall better value is External-316L
With rule (h) piercers become captive customers of the Internal-F138 specialty suppliers who are unable to increase market share on their own as long as piercers are free to
choose the Industry Standard better value.   
The Industry Standard is what is
most often chosen.
Standards are voluntary.

Consumers and Piercers
overwhelmingly choose External-316L.

What is to happen to dissenters who refuse?
Shops be closed? Lives unraveled?


From Wes Wood,
A look at the two new rules.

Kentucky KDPH wrote two new rules:
Kentucky Department of Public Health
Section 902 KAR 45:070
, Body piercing and ear piercing 
Section 10,
.rules (f) and (h)

Rule (h) - (quoted)
"only internally threaded jewelry
can be used for new piercings"

Freedom means very many choices.
External threaded 316L jewelry is the
de facto "Industry Standard"
it has been, and is used safely and effectively in
hundreds of millions of initial piercings by
hundreds of thousands of piercers
for more than 30 years.

The standard of safe and effective "USE"
is accepted around the world
by medical/health organizations
as proof, justifying usage.
To displace and prohibit External (316L)
threaded jewelry would require proof of

significant harm being done"
"incontrovertible evidence"

that External Threading use
significantly requires medical intervention
and that such damage can be avoided by using Internal.

The Rule is wrong and here is why.

The kicker:  External (ET) actually beats out Internal (IT).  Why?

First. Cleaning inserted jewelry.

The External-ball's threaded-hole is twice as large as the hole in the Internal bar.
The hole in Internal is so small the water surface tension prevents cleaning unless by strong force of water or ultrasonic which means taking the piercing out.
With no evidence of infection from microbes inside the bar of Internal this is not a worry.
The Western idea of Freedom requires
 very many choices.

2nd. Keeping the Connection during Jewelry Insertion
ET overall is safer but...  the Choice should be yours.
Metal-Screw-Threading of EXT has a starter-type-tapered-threading that works to the advantage of EXT because the tip catches a little into the back end of the needle so it will not drift when pushing the needle. Internal ( IT) has a rounded end but not enough to catch the back of a hollow needle. Internal is essentially two flat surfaces.


Internal (IT) requires an accomplished "feel" during the insertion to keep both surfaces aligned during pushing. For piercers there is a sense of pride in keeping the connection (a good thing) the same feeling of pride  when piercing "Free-Hand" (without a cork). It's a skill that saves time and decreases costs and not the safest though should not be prohibited.

3rd. Shortcoming: Threaded Stud loosening.

External threaded bar hits the bottom of the ball when tightened. It is solid and cannot be over tightened because it cannot go further. Not so with Internal because the threaded stud on the ball is usually a separate piece and does not hit bottom - the stud is the weak point.
Tightening of the ball is by pressure on the ball from the rim of the bar. Clients tighten, over tighten, which loosens the threaded screw-stud-post from the ball - so the ball can fall off. Especially true on 16 gauge and more so on 18 gauge.

This is a problem prevented by machining the ball and screw-part from one piece, but seriously inflates the costs, with no advantage over EXT.

External Threads could not rationally be considered "sharp."

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

The claim that EXT cut up the piecing was a "made-up" story-line continuing the story-telling tradition of Roman capes and nipple rings in early piercing days.  "Molloy's flair for telling a story." Tearing was unbelievable. Few could believe it

In 2000s it wasn't taken seriously, no one noticed.
In 2010s  Feeling the heat it was walked back to "micro-tears"
In 2020s it is walked back to a negativity, denying itself, changing it  to "possibly scratching".

There is no evidence of scratching
but a rule appears, unexpectedly, to make sure that
what there is no evidence for happening,
does not "possibly" happen

and declares that what does not happen is caused by
things that don't exist: i.e. sharp (cutting) threads.
and it is so significantly important that
taxpayer money must be used to prevent a
 never-happening "possibility" of happening.
Follow the money.
This has nothing to do with the health of the community.
It isn't that difficult to unmask the source: who profits.

This is a propaganda type technique designed
to ban 316L since the majority of internal is F138
which some have been advocating for decades.
This rule could destroy the lives of thousands
and needs clarification.


Test for yourself, the threads can be felt in your hand yes, but no damage, no cutting, no flesh or blood on the bars. Customers don't feel the insertion, they are still feeling the effects of the needle.

5th. Illogical Argument - Informal Fallacy

 As  you re-read the one sentence justification to ban External (it's purpose) it is plain to see how illogical it is, an informal fallacy of logic because what Internal does not do (does not scratch) does not prove that External scratches. The reasoning is not rational. The conclusion is wrong. Even if External threads did scratch, they would be superficial. They would not require medical intervention

"Internally threaded jewelry avoids any possibility of scraping tissue with sharp threads which is especially important with fresh piercings."

"Especially important?" Sharp threads? If anything it feels like a smooth file for jewelry work. It proves itself false by using the word "sharp" because anyone can test it.

The false statement uses the word "sharp" as in a sharp knife edge to the threads but they are tiny smooth threads.
The Medical Dictionary definition for "to scratch" is "To make a thin, shallow cut with a sharp instrument."

Third point, the insertion goes fast, about 9 miles per hour, too fast for such a small distance to "scrape" anything. The threads do not protruded beyond the gauge diameter. There is no evidence the skin gets caught. If it did there would be debris on the threads. The whole idea is ridiculous. Nor does the skin snap in.

6th. Warning: This rule could be the basis to ban piercing.

The needle causes the pain and damage not the minuscule amount of thread which no one feels separately during insertion. A bit of lubricant insures smooth insertion. The wound continues to hurt because of the needle piercing.
Damage to tissue is the reason justifying the ban. If the "Threading" rule stands then it is logical to ban commercial piercing totally because Needle damage (not insertion damage) takes months to heal creating risk, the "possibility" of infection, disfigurement and accidents that rip piercings out.

 7th. Another Warning: Be careful what you wish for.

The entire industry should be alarmed that a minority of piercers are lobbying health departments to enact industry-wide rules.
It's good that piercers can get together to improve safety, but bad to want to impose their preferences on all piercers through government enforcement to compel compliance because many might not comply voluntarily.  And who is to say that closing your business is not it's purpose.

8th. 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 de facto 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 threaded 316L is the
de facto "Industry Standard"

Used around the world in
hundreds of millions of piercings

by hundreds of thousands of piercers
Safely and Effectively for more than 30 years.

The Gold Standard that determines 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 jewelry is biocompatible implant grade jewelry. False

Only F138 stainless steel should be used. False.

Creative Commons cite Unimax

Comments Email