the Connection during Jewelry Insertion
overall is safer but...
the Choice should be yours.
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
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. Shortcomning: Threaded Stud loosening.
|External threaded bar hits the bottom
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
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
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
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
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)
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.
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 -
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
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
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
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
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
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
The de facto Industry Standard
There is no morbidity or mortality associated with
It would be difficult to ban external threading
showing significant harm and
an array of incontrovertible
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
personal preferences, fashion and cultural considerations;
factors, advertising and marketability;
- image of the piercer
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