Recommendation on the risk of wearing rings and wedding bands
Download the PDF version
THE CONSUMER SAFETY COMMISSION
I. The Referral
II. Risk Analysis
II.1. Accidentology
II.2. Accident Circumstances and Victim Profiles
II.3. The Clinical Consequences
| Type of injury |
Class I
|
Classes IIA & IIB
|
Class III
|
Class IV
|
| Number |
2
|
5
|
10
|
16
|
| Percentage |
6%
|
15%
|
30%
|
49%
|
| Microsurgery operations |
None
|
Unreleased
|
9 vascular repair operations
|
11 replantations
|
| Success rate |
NA
|
Unreleased
|
100%
|
45.5%
|
| After-effects |
85% hypersensitivity to cold – 49% mobility – PPD for 50% of the patients
|
100% hypersensitivity to cold – 50% of movement pain –81% recovered strength – 26% mobility – PPD for 100% of the patients
|
||
III. The Ring and Wedding Band Market
In the jewellery industry, production and distribution conditions have radically changed over the past years, especially with the use of digital technologies, the growth of imports and retailing through franchise networks or super-stores. However, two markets can still be distinguished.
III.1. Precious Jewellery & Haute Joaillerie
III.2. Fashion Jewellery
– Because of economic profitability, most fashion rings are manufactured on a small scale, in a one-size-fits-all open ring that widens under violent traction and so do not present any great risk to wearer.
III.3. Regulations and Standards
III.3.1. The Manufacture of Rings and Wedding Bands
III.3.2. Wearing Rings and Wedding Bands
IV. Making Rings and Wedding Bands Safe
IV.1. Fashion Jewellery & Haute Joaillerie
In view of the tests, it appears that open rings and bands provide the highest level of safety whether traction speed is fast or slow. Setting stones or choosing low-strength materials limit the risk of serious injuries. Aside from very few exceptions, closed bands, and especially those in high resistance alloys, aluminium or steel, are as dangerous as rings made in so-called precious alloys.
IV.2. Hand Surgeons’ Proposals
IV.3. CETEHOR Recommendation
V. High Risk Behaviour Prevention
ON THE BASIS OF THIS DATA,
The Commission makes the following recommendations
To the public authorities
To sports federations and all the public and private stakeholders offering sports activities and organising sporting events
To the professionals in the precious jewellery and fashion jewellery industry
To the manufacturers, retailers and renters of DIY, gardening and sports equipment
To the public and private organisations dedicated to accident prevention
To Consumers
ADOPTED AT THE SESSION HELD ON 15 DECEMBER 2005
ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT BY MRS. LYDIA LE GALLO
|
Name of the alloy
|
Components
|
Hardness scale (from softest to hardest metal)
|
| Gold | Or (75%) silver (12.5%) copper (12.5%) |
Hardness can double depending on the proportions of gold and copper
Index 2 to 3
|
| White gold | Gold nickel palladium | Index 3 |
| Sliver | Silver (925 mill.) copper (75 mill.) | Index 2 |
| Platinum | Platinum (950 mill.) copper iridium, ruthenium or cobalt (50 mill.) | Index 3 |
| Stainless steel | Iron chromium nickel molybdenum | Index 4 |
| Tin | Tin lead bismuth | Index 1 |
|
Metal or alloy
|
Fracture strength value
|
| Tin alloy |
60
|
| Gold |
125
|
| Platinum |
135
|
| Silver |
150
|
| Silver alloy |
250
|
| Zinc alloy |
300
|
| Platinum alloy |
330
|
| Gold alloy (750 mil.) |
350
|
| Stainless steel |
500
|
RESULTS OF THE LOW AND FAST SPEED TRACTION TESTS OF TENSILE STRENGTH
I – Slow speed
II – Fast speed












