x-rays, light, electrical rays
January 25, 2010 10:29 AM Subscribe
Is a hair removal system (used in salons) that utilizes intense pulsed light equivalent to utilizing x-rays or electrical rays?
We need to know if we have grounds to go to war with a big bad insurance company.
A friend operates a beauty salon/spa. She utilizes a system for hair removal that uses intense pulsed light to burn the hair root.
A client has claimed that she suffered burns from the process, and a claim has been submitted to my friend's insurance carrier.
The insurance company has denied the claim. The reason for the denial is an exclusion: "this policy does not apply to the removal of hair by x-ray or electrical rays".
Hence, our question: is the insurance carrier standing on solid ground here? Are they correct that intensive pulsed light is the same as x-ray or electrical rays?
A friend operates a beauty salon/spa. She utilizes a system for hair removal that uses intense pulsed light to burn the hair root.
A client has claimed that she suffered burns from the process, and a claim has been submitted to my friend's insurance carrier.
The insurance company has denied the claim. The reason for the denial is an exclusion: "this policy does not apply to the removal of hair by x-ray or electrical rays".
Hence, our question: is the insurance carrier standing on solid ground here? Are they correct that intensive pulsed light is the same as x-ray or electrical rays?
I'm not entirely sure, but I think "electrical rays" might refer to discredited technology invented by R. Raymond Rife. Either that, or they MEANT "electromagnetic spectrum" but instead wrote something else.
Your friend probably is using "laser" hair removal, which I believe uses a reddish wavelength. X-rays are much higher-energy than the wavelength of light that is being used, and specifically mentioning X-rays sort of implies that lower-energy wavelengths might be OK.
IANAL, but I would say that it might be at the very least entertaining to be a smart-ass about it. That language is so terrible and ignorant-sounding that it deserves to be challenged in court.
posted by kataclysm at 10:40 AM on January 25, 2010
Your friend probably is using "laser" hair removal, which I believe uses a reddish wavelength. X-rays are much higher-energy than the wavelength of light that is being used, and specifically mentioning X-rays sort of implies that lower-energy wavelengths might be OK.
IANAL, but I would say that it might be at the very least entertaining to be a smart-ass about it. That language is so terrible and ignorant-sounding that it deserves to be challenged in court.
posted by kataclysm at 10:40 AM on January 25, 2010
What kind of insurance are we talking about? Liability insurance? Health insurance? It seems like the insurance company thinks that your friend is trying to make a health insurance claim for hair removal service, while your friend is really trying to make a liability claim as a consequence of injuring a client in the course of treatment. This needs to be clarified to the insurance agent.
From a physics point of view, the term "electrical ray" is pretty much nonsensical. I don't know what (if anything) it means as a term of art in medicine.
This is an electric ray. I don't think they're used for hair removal.
Pulsed light is definitely a collection of "electromagnetic rays"...
posted by mr_roboto at 10:43 AM on January 25, 2010
From a physics point of view, the term "electrical ray" is pretty much nonsensical. I don't know what (if anything) it means as a term of art in medicine.
This is an electric ray. I don't think they're used for hair removal.
Pulsed light is definitely a collection of "electromagnetic rays"...
posted by mr_roboto at 10:43 AM on January 25, 2010
Response by poster: I'm certain that "electrical rays" refers to electrolysis. And correct, my friend is definitely not doing that.
Ultimately, I guess it will boil down to science... is intense pulsed light in the same category as x-rays or electrical rays?
posted by elf27 at 10:45 AM on January 25, 2010
Ultimately, I guess it will boil down to science... is intense pulsed light in the same category as x-rays or electrical rays?
posted by elf27 at 10:45 AM on January 25, 2010
No. But again, you're not looking for coverage of "removal of hair", right? Your looking for liability coverage for burns.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:46 AM on January 25, 2010
posted by mr_roboto at 10:46 AM on January 25, 2010
Response by poster: Mr_Roboto:
Are "electromagnetic rays" the same as "x-rays"?
posted by elf27 at 10:46 AM on January 25, 2010
Are "electromagnetic rays" the same as "x-rays"?
posted by elf27 at 10:46 AM on January 25, 2010
An x-ray is an electromagnetic ray but an electromagnetic ray is not necessarily an x-ray. X-rays represent a subcategory of all electromagnetic rays.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:48 AM on January 25, 2010
posted by mr_roboto at 10:48 AM on January 25, 2010
The electromagnetic spectrum includes x-rays, visible light, microwaves, etc. Only the higher frequencies are ionizing, and therefore dangerous.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:50 AM on January 25, 2010
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:50 AM on January 25, 2010
What do you mean by "category"? Low intensity cosmetic surgery lasers, what I presume your friend uses, are very different from x-rays (like what a dentist or an ER would use), and both are different again from an electrolysis technique. In terms of power applied, the "heat" used, if you will, electrolysis and the laser would be comparable, I would think. X-rays are a different thing entirely.
Topical burns seem entirely possible with either lasers or electolysis. That's what both of them do, burn the skin with intense, pulsed light or an electric arc, respectively. It's not hard to imagine either of them producing skin burns if used with over-enthusiasm.
posted by bonehead at 10:52 AM on January 25, 2010
Topical burns seem entirely possible with either lasers or electolysis. That's what both of them do, burn the skin with intense, pulsed light or an electric arc, respectively. It's not hard to imagine either of them producing skin burns if used with over-enthusiasm.
posted by bonehead at 10:52 AM on January 25, 2010
We need to know if we have grounds to go to war with a big bad insurance company.
Someone who works for your insurance company is dangerously stupid or lazy, and it wouldn't take much of a lawyer to win against that laughably ignorant exclusionary denial.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:25 AM on January 25, 2010
Someone who works for your insurance company is dangerously stupid or lazy, and it wouldn't take much of a lawyer to win against that laughably ignorant exclusionary denial.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:25 AM on January 25, 2010
Please ignore the spectrum definition of x-ray. An electromagnetic wave is called an x-ray by how it is produced and not by any of its characteristics such as wavelength. With that said most of the x-rays that are produced fall within a certain range of wavelength (but not all of them).
Your insurance doesn't stand on solid ground when it comes to denying you on the grounds that x-rays are produced. Your machine probably doesn't produce any.
Personally I would lawyer up but stop short of going to trial unless your lawyer is sure he can win it. The problem is that since the definition of an x-ray isn't a spectrum one there is probably some paper out there that found that an exotic atom produced an x-rays in the visible light spectrum and they will argue that since your machine produces electromagnetic waves in that range, they are right in denying the claim.
posted by metex at 11:47 AM on January 25, 2010
Your insurance doesn't stand on solid ground when it comes to denying you on the grounds that x-rays are produced. Your machine probably doesn't produce any.
Personally I would lawyer up but stop short of going to trial unless your lawyer is sure he can win it. The problem is that since the definition of an x-ray isn't a spectrum one there is probably some paper out there that found that an exotic atom produced an x-rays in the visible light spectrum and they will argue that since your machine produces electromagnetic waves in that range, they are right in denying the claim.
posted by metex at 11:47 AM on January 25, 2010
An electromagnetic wave is called an x-ray by how it is produced and not by any of its characteristics such as wavelength.
Come again?
posted by _dario at 11:51 AM on January 25, 2010
Come again?
posted by _dario at 11:51 AM on January 25, 2010
"X-radiation (composed of X-rays) is a form of electromagnetic radiation. X-rays have a wavelength in the range of 10 to 0.01 nanometers, corresponding to frequencies in the range 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz (3 × 1016 Hz to 3 × 1019 Hz) and energies in the range 120 eV to 120 keV." — From Wikipedia.
posted by krilli at 11:58 AM on January 25, 2010
posted by krilli at 11:58 AM on January 25, 2010
An electromagnetic wave is called an x-ray by how it is produced and not by any of its characteristics such as wavelength.
That arises from a poorly understood "definition" of x-rays, as being generated by atomic line emissions, aka x-ray fluorescence. It used to be the case, many decades ago, that this was the predominant way to generate x-rays. Today, however, as that's only one of several methods and not even the most convenient*, it's much more common now to group them by frequency/energy/wavelength as krilli points out above.
*That would be Bremsstrahlung, one of my favourite physics terms ever.
posted by bonehead at 12:27 PM on January 25, 2010
That arises from a poorly understood "definition" of x-rays, as being generated by atomic line emissions, aka x-ray fluorescence. It used to be the case, many decades ago, that this was the predominant way to generate x-rays. Today, however, as that's only one of several methods and not even the most convenient*, it's much more common now to group them by frequency/energy/wavelength as krilli points out above.
*That would be Bremsstrahlung, one of my favourite physics terms ever.
posted by bonehead at 12:27 PM on January 25, 2010
While I agree that the more common definition is based on wavelength/frequency, most definitions given in nuclear physics books are that it depends on how they are produced and not by the wavelength.
"The term gamma-ray is normally reserved for radiation emitted by nuclei and x-ray refers to radiation originating in transitions of atomic electrons... There is of course, no fundamental difference between the two radiations, per se, as they are both electromagnetic radiation"[J. Lamarsh, Introduction to Nuclear Engineering 3rd Edition, p90]
The above is repeated in the other texts I have looked at on the topic of nuclear physics, medical physics and nuclear engineering. However us arguing about definitions really doesn't do us any good since it might not match up to how the law defines x-rays.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the people who make the laws dealing with any and all radiation in the US) definition of an x-ray: "X-rays are similar to gamma rays in penetration and damage potential. X-rays, however, are produced by changes in electron orbit position rather than by nuclear decay or fission." [Taken from their Radiation Terminology "Nuclear Reactor Concepts" Manual]
posted by metex at 4:22 PM on January 25, 2010
"The term gamma-ray is normally reserved for radiation emitted by nuclei and x-ray refers to radiation originating in transitions of atomic electrons... There is of course, no fundamental difference between the two radiations, per se, as they are both electromagnetic radiation"[J. Lamarsh, Introduction to Nuclear Engineering 3rd Edition, p90]
The above is repeated in the other texts I have looked at on the topic of nuclear physics, medical physics and nuclear engineering. However us arguing about definitions really doesn't do us any good since it might not match up to how the law defines x-rays.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the people who make the laws dealing with any and all radiation in the US) definition of an x-ray: "X-rays are similar to gamma rays in penetration and damage potential. X-rays, however, are produced by changes in electron orbit position rather than by nuclear decay or fission." [Taken from their Radiation Terminology "Nuclear Reactor Concepts" Manual]
posted by metex at 4:22 PM on January 25, 2010
I'd say no. Light/Lasers are different from x-rays/electrical rays using a basic definition.
But this doesn't matter -- the client needs to get a lawyer. Why is your friend intent on admitting liability here? or advocating for the person she might've hurt?
If it's not too late, your friend should try to make the customer happy. Or prepare to get sued, at which point the insurance company will likely have to defend her, regardless of their initial denial.
Hope it works out!
posted by herrtodd at 1:22 AM on January 26, 2010
But this doesn't matter -- the client needs to get a lawyer. Why is your friend intent on admitting liability here? or advocating for the person she might've hurt?
If it's not too late, your friend should try to make the customer happy. Or prepare to get sued, at which point the insurance company will likely have to defend her, regardless of their initial denial.
Hope it works out!
posted by herrtodd at 1:22 AM on January 26, 2010
I think the way around it too is did the client sign a waver before use? Burn risk from these machines are a risk and do happen. But the client can also argue that your friend is inept at using one of these machines, thus causing the burn.
And supposedly it's a xenon flash lamp technology, not xray. Why the hell would they ever think that was from an xray? You're zapping hair, not looking at people's bones.
posted by stormpooper at 6:27 AM on January 26, 2010
And supposedly it's a xenon flash lamp technology, not xray. Why the hell would they ever think that was from an xray? You're zapping hair, not looking at people's bones.
posted by stormpooper at 6:27 AM on January 26, 2010
"most definitions given in nuclear physics books are that it depends on how they are produced and not by the wavelength."
That's probably because it's a nuclear physics book. I'd never define x-rays based on their origin - only on their energy (or equivalently wavelength).
The difference is not fundamental perhaps, but it is absolutely clear, just as the difference between a lion and a pussycat is not fundamental but is absolutely clear. It's not an x-ray, and visible light cannot be confused with x-rays. Even though they lie on the same continuum, there is the extensive area covered by ultraviolet that separates the two.
If you need a physicist to sign off on this I'll do it happily, and I expect other people here would be qualified to do the same.
As for 'electrical rays' that's a very peculiar term, but it could not, in my opinion, reasonably be read to mean 'light'.
posted by edd at 7:55 AM on January 26, 2010
That's probably because it's a nuclear physics book. I'd never define x-rays based on their origin - only on their energy (or equivalently wavelength).
The difference is not fundamental perhaps, but it is absolutely clear, just as the difference between a lion and a pussycat is not fundamental but is absolutely clear. It's not an x-ray, and visible light cannot be confused with x-rays. Even though they lie on the same continuum, there is the extensive area covered by ultraviolet that separates the two.
If you need a physicist to sign off on this I'll do it happily, and I expect other people here would be qualified to do the same.
As for 'electrical rays' that's a very peculiar term, but it could not, in my opinion, reasonably be read to mean 'light'.
posted by edd at 7:55 AM on January 26, 2010
"X-rays are similar to gamma rays in penetration and damage potential. X-rays, however, are produced by changes in electron orbit position rather than by nuclear decay or fission."
Let me make this analogy, if this argument were to be used that X-rays were an appropriate description of what was used here:
"F-15 Eagles have two engines, but the the F-16 Fighting Falcon has one engine. Your friend was involved in an accident on a twin-engined aircraft, but we didn't insure her for being aboard military jets."
posted by edd at 8:05 AM on January 26, 2010
Let me make this analogy, if this argument were to be used that X-rays were an appropriate description of what was used here:
"F-15 Eagles have two engines, but the the F-16 Fighting Falcon has one engine. Your friend was involved in an accident on a twin-engined aircraft, but we didn't insure her for being aboard military jets."
posted by edd at 8:05 AM on January 26, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
Electrical ray isn't a physics concept that I'm aware of. They probably mean electrolysis, which isn't what your friend is doing.
posted by rbs at 10:37 AM on January 25, 2010 [1 favorite]